• Blog
  • About
  • Blog
  • About
 

Joyful religious cross-POLLINATION...

4/16/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture

... or the end of our era?

Raymond Ibrahim produces this excellent piece on the determination of Europe's leaders to ignore reality.

Read history? Why, what could that possibly have to teach us?

The West is a rotting tree with a dead core. It looks sound but one gust of wind and it will blow over. If we don't remember who we are and act upon that, then our days are numbered and we will have thoroughly deserved our downfall.
​

>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, “Islam Is Part of Our History”
European Commission First Vice-President Frans Timmermans recently chaired a roundtable with ten Muslim imams from six EU Member States (Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Italy and The Netherlands).  Afterwards Timmermans announced that “the Commission is strongly committed to promoting diversity in Europe. Islam is part of our history, Islam is part of our present and Islam will be part of our future.”

Such assertions are as true as the assumptions they are based on—and whether such assumptions are grounded in historical facts or fictions. In prefacing his claims about Islam’s historic role in Europe by saying “the Commission is strongly committed to promoting diversity in Europe,” it is clear which perception Timmermans is invoking.

The true, historically documented role that Islam played has a much different story to tell: in the early seventh century, sword-waving Arabs burst out of the Arabian Peninsula and in a few decades conquered some two-thirds of what then constituted the Christian world—from Syria and Egypt in the east to Carthage and Spain in the west and everything in between.  One hundred years after the death of their prophet (traditionally dated to 632), they were in the heart of France where, thanks to their defeat at Tours in 732, and other Frankish victories, the whole of Europe was also not conquered.

But where lands could not be subjugated, bodies still could, and for the next few centuries the jihad turned into a giant slave trade of European flesh, as slave raids left virtually no part of Europe untouched (even the Viking raids in northern Europe were in large measure fueled by Arab gold).

In the tenth and eleventh centuries, the Turks—who embraced the jihad ethos even more than the Arabs—converted to Islam and became its new standard bearers.  Although they had notable victories and conquests—particularly after the Seljuk victory against the Eastern Roman Empire in 1071—it was only with the coming of the Ottomans that the jihad on Europe was renewed in earnest: in the late 1300s and early 1400s, much of the Balkans was brutally subjugated, and Constantinople—Islam’s original archenemy—finally (and horrifically) sacked in 1453.

The Ottoman advance continued unabated—the European victory at Lepanto in 1571 was more symbolic than anything—and in 1683 Vienna was encircled by hundreds of thousands of Muslims.  As happened nearly a millennium earlier when the Islamic advance into Europe was stayed in 732, a Christian victory at Vienna only caused Muslims to collapse back to their more modest role as slave traders of white flesh: between the fifteenth and eighteenth centuries, Muslims slavers from the Crimean khanate in the east and the Barbary coast enslaved more than five million Europeans—including in the late 1700s, American sailors, precipitating the Barbary Wars.

Perhaps the most telling aspect of this aforementioned history is the evident continuity of hostility in distinctly Islamic terms: the Muslim notion that all infidels have three choices—conversion, willing capitulation via jizya/dhimmi status, or death; the willful and mass destruction of churches, crosses, and anything Christian; the sadistic atrocities that beggar description; the shouts of “Allahu Akbar” and other jihadi slogans; the invocations of Koranic promises of a carnal paradise for those who fall in jihad—all these are present in virtually every encounter between Muslim and European, beginning at the fateful battle of Yarmuk in 636, to America’s experiences with Barbary circa. 1800, as copiously documented in my forthcoming book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West.

Such is the true role Islam played in Europe’s past.

As for its role in the present, this is built on Europeans being entirely ignorant of—when not willfully twisting—this unwavering history of hostility; welcoming Muslims into their lands en masse—and in the name of “diversity”; suffering accordingly, and then wondering what they, European host nations, did wrong.

Considering the unwavering part Islam played in the past and continues to play in the present, it remains to be seen if the West will build its future atop facts or fictions—getting its just deserts in either case.
0 Comments

We are at the stage where we appease terrorists

4/16/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture
Did you see this at Jihad Watch yesterday? One would think that a death threat would be considered some form of hatred. Not good enough apparently when you stick your neck out and have the temerity to criticise Islam.

Here's a lady's 8 minute explanatory video of an email exchange she had with a Police Superintendent and Robert Spencer's intro.

I have no more to add - what is there?

>>>>>>>>>>>>
UK: Police refuse to investigate death threats to Islam critic because they claim she is “inciting hatred”​

Yet more disquieting evidence that the first priority of police in Britain is now enforcing Sharia blasphemy laws.

Jonaya Fenessa English explains in this video that she never speaks about Muslims, only about Islam, and never calls for violence. ... Any criticism of Islam, no matter how mild, no matter how accurate, is now out of bounds in Britain.

At one point in this video, Jonaya shows an email where she asked police: “You have literally just told me that I might get in trouble for criticising Islam but you’re not going to investigate a terrorist because of freedom of speech…that is actually stunning.”

No one in particular is paying any attention, but the darkness of totalitarianism is descending upon Britain with astonishing rapidity.
0 Comments

"It's fundamentally a Theological War"

4/16/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture

No, not the one with Islam.
​The one within the West.
The one within us.

But losing the one within is causing us to lose the one against Islam. We no longer have a better idea, or rather we no longer have confidence that the great idea upon which our civilisation was established is better. And as Nature abhors a vacuum, our decaying "post-modern" and "post-Christian" society will soon become something new. Something very bad. This is essentially a theological problem.

You might expect an observant Christian like me to say this sort of thing - and I have said it - but the speaker is actually the dear Clinical Psychologist Jordan Peterson. I'm so glad to be in this sort of company - with those who recognise that the fundamental problem of contemporary Western society is Theological. If the God of the Old & New Testament no longer forms our worldview then what ideas, what weaker, lesser gods, do?

I also readily identify with his championing of Individualism (which, contrary to popular belief these days, is not a dirty word) and the need for spoken truth. The man is a sterling example of someone who is a product of the Western intellectual inheritance (even while eschewing belief in the personal God of its religions) and understands the dire need to defend this inheritance.

Topics covered in this fascinating 83 minute interview include:~
  • the purpose of memory and the need for purpose;
  • the rarity & definition of freedom, as a distinctive of the recent history of the West;
  • maximum freedom arises from the adoption of discipline & of responsibility; 
  • people innately know the classic archetypal themes surrounding meaning (fascinating - is this Conscience, at least in part?);
  • the paucity of genuine encouragement offered to people who could really use some - it is so easy to give real encouragement, but we seldom do it;
  • Dr Peterson has a lot of respect for most atheists as they as genuinely struggling with the large issues which many who go to church do not engage with (similarly I've found that I have a lot of respect for recovering alcoholics who have had to come to view themselves with brutal honesty in order simply to survive. This self-reflection is something which should be a characteristic of all Christians but, to our embarrassment, is not widely evident);
  •  the dignity of the individual (which originated in the Judeo-Christian tradition did it not?) stands at the heart of Western freedoms;
  • the reality & necessity of inequality for free societies;
  • what happened when the USSR decided to formally expunge inequality & the towering example of Solzhenitsyn (although, not believing in a personal, relational God inhibits Dr Peterson's understanding of Atonement; he merely views it as an instrument for psychological integration). How Solzhenitsyn discovered the dividing line between good & evil went through his own heart;
  • our need to read history and reflect upon our own natures by putting ourselves in the place of the bad people instead of romantically imagining ourselves to be one of the "goodies" in the story. This provides a realistic view of ourselves. He compares this to the resurgence of unrealistic, Utopian Marxist ideas and their ruinous affect upon us;
  • the importance of language -  to reshape the way we speak and then with the way we think is to transform our lives;
  • diversity now equals conformity;
  • in contrast love individualism! The message of the West is the need to "live the mythologically heroic life as an individual" (avoiding at all costs identity politics) & attribute this privilege to all other people;
  • the need to be honest in dialogue and not to base interchanges on wishful thinking;
  • the problems of hate speech laws, they eventually lead to everyone suffering;
  • freedom of speech is explicitly for those with minority views;
  • there is a hierarchy of rights - but which rights are best?;
  • Dr Peterson views Christ as a psychologist might - as an Ideal, the word or logos who speaks truth. Spoken truth is the West's Great Idea. This is why neo-Marxists are so determined to remove Christianity from public life;
  • the current rapid spread of Christianity in China is proportionately faster than its fastest growth in ancient Rome;
  • the central question of "what ideas possess you?" (you're already living according to them);
  • the over-protective parent and their aftermath;
  • "The worse thing you can do for someone who is anxious is over-protect them, it makes them worse" - this does reflect a lot of public life today;
  • Is being a lone voice who cares for people and stands up for principles really a courageous act? Dr Peterson holds that being "afraid of the right things" (which he explains as "the fear of God") compels action that is at least wise, if not thoroughly courageous.

The very first question he answers only takes a couple of minutes to listen to and I'd ask you to do so even if you can't manage the whole interview (I think once you start you'll find it hard to stop though). 

As Dr Peterson says, any culture that does not pass on its important beliefs and stories is already dead - it isn't in the process of dying, it is already dead. Being so riven & enervated we are quite incapable of mounting even a defensive resistance to Islam, a set of doctrines and ideas which we could ideologically & religiously easily overwhelm if we had a mind to.

If.
0 Comments

The Syrian gas attack #2 - Cui Bono?

4/12/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture

Nope, still not buyin' it

Below is the full 13 minute interview from Fox news that was referred to in one of the videos in the update I did in my previous post on the gas attack fiasco. 

Wait a minute - Fox news? Aren't they the lapdog apologists for Hawkish Republican policy and the worst of Trump's public sycophants? What are they doing criticising the big push to make war against the Syrian regime? Something doesn't fit here.

Let's look again at the sources that are stating that Assad's forces launched this attack. Some are in my previous post's video and one of them, the White Helmets, are discussed in this video in greater detail and identified as actually being AQ & allied Jihadis.  Listen to the comments on the apparently impartial "White Helmets" and watch their extraordinarily peculiar still-life video of the "rescue" of a "wounded man" after an alleged Syrian Army attack - that very short video segment follows the comments where I have queued up the interview. Can somebody please explain to me how we are supposed to view the White Helmets as at all credible after this?

Apparently there are also 52 documented cases of ISIS affiliated Jihadis using gas in attacks up to the end of 2016. Some points in the video are speculative & the source of this video itself will be held suspect by some, however there are too many unanswered questions here to base a potentially big war on IMHO. Can we please just verify before acting? Or is this a case where Goering is right again and a war can just be bullied into reality?

In contrast here is an article from a website that I like, but one that is also often strongly on the side of establishment Republicans. Take for example the extremely stigmatising introduction - an opinion which it seems may be shared by the Republican Senator in the interview below: "Man, we’ve taken a dark turn when Fox News is running Russia-friendly conspiracy theories that even Trump won’t bite on". So any question at all that Assad may not have initiated the gas attack is now a "Russia-friendly conspiracy theory"? That's a preposterous assertion. This article does though make some useful criticisms of the video below - for example the likelihood that General Mattis was merely unsure of what gas was used last year, not that he was unsure that it came from the Syrian government - but still there are gaping holes here.

For example, didn't Syria give up all its Chemical Weapons in 2013? Were we misled or was that the case? If it didn't happen why did we not follow through?

Last year after the previous allegation of a gas attack President Assad was interviewed (do watch it) and his arguments could be restated today. Note how he says the same things about the White Helmets as in the previous video. Before being deposed Qaddafi said exactly the same of his own opponents - and surely, given the resulting condition of Libya that statement can no longer be denied (you will note I hope, that I do not hold up either Qaddafi or Assad as moral examples, only that they were/are better than the alternative).

Libya & Egypt, were abysmal failures in the "Arab Spring" we might also add Yemen to the list. Let's also not forget the earlier results of intervention in Iraq & Afghanistan. In which of these countries can there be said to be any noticeable improvement? Egypt only improved after General Sisi and the Army ousted the Ihkwan leadership and returned the country to more or less what it was before the Arab Spring and the removal of Mubarak. Libya is a disaster and Iraq, the first domino to fall in this sort of foreign policy, doesn't look like becoming any kind of stable democracy any time soon.

What about the one possible success story from Western intervention, Tunisia? The United States Institute for Peace reports that Tunisia "has achieved a precarious stability. By many measures the Arab world’s only democracy, Tunisia remains hobbled by corruption, unemployment and violent extremism. ... nationwide, opportunity remains rare and public frustration remains high. The economy has stalled, World Bank figures show youth unemployment greater than 35 percent—and the latest street protests in Sidi Bouzid came only last weekend."

That is the prize winner among this group. It hardly encourages more of the same intervention.

And for those who still think I hate Muslims I ask this: how many ordinary, wretched Muslim Syrians will be killed by the West as they are considered yet more necessary collateral damage in the new venture to bring democracy? Under the doctrine of "responsibility to protect" over 30,000 Libyan civilians were killed as collateral damage in order to stop Qaddafi killing civilians. What was the point? Ah but we toppled Qaddafi! And then what happened? All the West did was destablise that country. Removing the strong men in Iraq, Egypt and Libya only unleashed the forces of chaos. Escalating the efforts to oust Assad will lead to suffering and death - and lots of it. 

There is no really good option before us so what is the least bad option here? Reinstall, or support an existing strong-man regime that will be able to get peace through force. Sorry, that's it for now. As my Iraqi Muslim friend said to me a few months ago, Iraq won't be ready for Western style democracy for 2 or 3 generations & until then will need a dictator. Same with Syria.

The real destabilising forces in the region are the Sunni Jihadis backed by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey and Shi'a Iran. Stop swatting the puppets and deal with the puppet masters.

An attack by the Western powers on Syria could genuinely lead to a very nasty Russian response and for what? On the flimsiest of pretences with only terrible outcomes possible we are risking a war between major powers. There is no "win" here for anybody but the Jihadis.

In comparison to the "forces of freedom" it is the Jihadis alone that seem to respect Einstein's dictum & understand our insanity.

​Hey, it worked before, it'll work again.
0 Comments

The comforts of religion...

4/11/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture

...or a book to start a war?

The latest from Dr Mark Durie's blog. It is quite a long piece but I do encourage you to read it all.

Dr Durie is a measured scholar and always worth listening to. Here he discusses a copy of the Qur'an that was made available by the Saudi government for general consumption in Australia and elsewhere in the West. Many useful comments & footnotes are provided to clarify the meaning of the text.

However, somehow, both the scholars & the Saudi government itself seem to completely misunderstand Islam. How could this be!? They encourage warfare, hatred of non-Muslims, slavery - including sex-slavery, distrust of non-Muslims, isolation and the necessity for a universal Caliphate. This is the very heart of ISIS is it not?

​How did they manage to get the peaceful religion of Islam so wrong?


>>>>>>>
Calling for Violent Jihad in Australia
There is not a Bible, Jewish or Christian, containing such incendiary commentary as populates page after page of 'The Noble Qur’an', which for four years has preached to the faithful in Canberra Airport's prayer room. The ideology it promotes is violent jihad. It is a book to start a war.

The Saudis, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt recently cut diplomatic ties with Qatar and imposed sanctions, accusing the Qataris of supporting terrorism. The Saudis have demanded that Qatar close Al-Jazeera and cut all ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and the Islamic State. Qatar’s long-standing and well-known support for the Muslim Brotherhood, which aims to unify Muslim nations under an Islamic caliphate and has networks of supporters across the Middle East, is now perceived as a serious threat its neighbours.

 This is the pot calling the kettle black, for Saudi Arabia itself has a long record of exporting Islamic radicalism. Among its most notable exports are millions of Korans in translation, which, through commentary (mainly in footnotes) and accompanying materials, incite Muslims to wage violent jihad to establish an Islamic state.

Among the Saudis’ exported Korans is an English-language edition, The Noble Qur’an, which can be found in mosques, prayer rooms and meeting places around the world. Anyone who applies to the Saudi embassy in Canberra will be sent a copy gratis.

The Noble Qur’an can be found in the musallah or prayer room of Canberra’s airport. What is apparently the same edition, with “AIRPORT MUSALLAH” written in black marker pen on the page ends, has been sitting there for the past four years, ever since the new airport was built. The Noble Qur’an is also publicly available in other “multi-faith” spaces that have been springing up in institutions across Australia in recent years, in universities, hospitals and other public places.

Canberra airport’s Noble Qur’an was printed by the order of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who ruled from 2005 to 2015. It includes the Arabic text, and, side-by-side, the English translation by Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din al-Hilali and Muhammad Muhsin Khan. There is also an endorsement by Shaikh Abdul-Aziz ibn Baz, Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia from 1993 to 1999, and a foreword by Shaikh Salih ibn Abdul-Aziz al-Shaikh, the current Saudi Minister for Islamic Affairs. After the Koranic text there are a hundred pages or so of appendices, and under the text there are footnotes, which offer a commentary. There are also frequent interpolations in brackets to help clarify the meaning in translation.

Marked “not for sale”, vast numbers of The Noble Qur’an printed by the Saudis are exported around the world. The King Fahd Complex for the Printing of the Holy Qur’an in Medina has printed over one hundred million Korans in thirty-nine languages since it was established in 1985. The handsomely gilded Noble Qur’an is distributed as part of the Saudis’ global da’wa or effort to propagate Islam. It appears to target two kinds of readers.

First, The Noble Qur’an seeks to enlist Muslims in violent jihad against non-Muslims, to establish an Islamic caliphate. Second, it aims to engage with Christians. The longest essay in the appendices is an argument that Jesus was a prophet of Islam, and commentary throughout The Noble Qur’an—in the explanatory footnotes, the interpolations in brackets and the appendices—challenges and “corrects” Christian teachings.

Sometimes it is said that when people use verses from the Koran to justify violence, they have taken them out of context. This criticism cannot be applied to The Noble Qur’an, which follows a traditional Islamic method of interpreting the Koran in the light of Muhammad’s example and teachings, known as the Sunna. In keeping with this tradition, citations from the Sunna supply the great bulk of the explanatory footnotes.

On non-Muslims
The footnotes in The Noble Qur’an are repeatedly derogatory of non-Muslims.

For example, a note to Sura 10:19 (p. 272, fn1) quotes Muhammad to say that human beings are born Muslims, and are “converted” away from Islam by non-Muslim parents. For Jewish or Christian parents to raise their child in their own faith is like mutilating them:

  Every child is born on al-Fitrah, but his parents convert him to Judaism or Christianity … An animal gives birth to a perfect baby animal. Do you find it mutilated?

The Arabic phrase al-fitrah refers to the doctrine that the innate state of human beings is to be a Muslim.

The Arabic text of the Koran calls non-Muslims unclean (Sura 9:28), using a derogatory word (najas). The footnote to this verse explains about non-Muslims that:

   Their impurity is spiritual and physical: spiritual because they don’t believe in Allah’s Oneness and in his Prophet Muhammad … and physical, because they lack personal hygiene (filthy as regards urine, stools and [menstrual] blood). [p. 248, fn 2]

Sura 3:85 states that “whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers”. In the footnote commentary on this verse, The Noble Qur’an quotes Muhammad to explain that Christians and Jews who die disbelieving in Muhammad will end up in Hell:

there is none from amongst the Jews and Christians … who hears about me and then dies without believing in the Message with which I have been sent … but he will be from the dwellers of the (Hell) Fire. [p. 84, fn 1]

Sura 4:47 warns Christians and Jews that they should believe in Muhammad, or else their faces will be taken away in hell, to which the translators add, in brackets, “by making them like the back of necks; without nose, mouth, eyes”. The footnote commentary explains further:

         This Verse is a severe warning to the Jews and Christians, and an absolute obligation that they must believe in Allah’s Messenger Muhammad … and also in his Message of Islamic Monotheism and in this Qur’an. [p. 115, fn 2]

The Koran has verses which exhort tolerance of Christians and Jews. Yet The Noble Qur’an takes pains to emphasise that such verses have been cancelled by later verses, following the Islamic contextual principle of abrogation (naskh). Here are two examples:

First, Sura 2:62 states that a Christian or Jew who “believes in Allah and the Last Day and does righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve”. This could be taken to imply that Christians and Jews will be accepted by God if they follow their faith properly. However, the commentary on this verse clarifies that:

              This Verse (and Verse 5:69) … should not be misinterpreted by the reader … the provision of this Verse was abrogated by Verse 3:85 “And whosoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter, he will be one of the losers” (i.e. after the coming of Prophet Muhammad … on the earth, no other religion except Islam, will be accepted from anyone). [p. 13, fn 2]

What this footnote is actually asserting is that Christians and Jews will go to Hell unless they accept Islam, because earlier verses which seemed to counsel tolerance have been superseded and cancelled by later verses.

Second, Sura 2:109 states that Muslims should “forgive and overlook” the Christians and Jews, “till Allah brings His Command”.Yet the footnote makes clear that “the provision of this verse has been abrogated” (p. 21, fn 1) by Sura 9:29. The later verse commands Muslims to fight (that is, kill) Christians and Jews unless or until they surrender to Muslims and pay tribute:

          Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad …) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. [Sura 9:29, p. 248]

Here again, a more tolerant verse is claimed to have been abrogated by a later verse which commands violence against non-Muslims.

The meaning of jihad
Some Muslims have proposed that the basic meaning of jihad is peaceful struggle. In contrast, The Noble Qur’an defines jihad as waging war against non-Muslims to make Islam dominant in the world. This jihad is obligatory for all Muslims, and rejecting this obligation will lead to hellfire.

This interpretation is made clear in the glossary, where the entry for jihad is:

     Holy fighting in the Cause of Allah or any other kind of effort to make Allah’s Word (i.e. Islam) superior. Jihad is regarded as one of the fundamentals of Islam. See the footnote of (V.2:190) [p. 873]

The footnote referred to is a comment on Sura 2:190, “And fight in the Way of Allah those who fight you …” This footnote reads:

  Al-Jihad (holy fighting) in Allah’s Cause (with full force of numbers and weaponry) is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars (on which it stands) [Graeme: I remember being contradicted by a Muslim when I made this point in a public talk. Happily I can simply direct them to the top Saudi scholars to clear things up]. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah’s Word is made superior, (His Word being La ilaha illallah which means none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and His Religion (Islam) is propagated. By abandoning Jihad (may Allah protect us from that) Islam is destroyed and the Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honour is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim, and he who tries to escape from this duty, or does not in his innermost heart wish to fulfil this duty, dies with one of the qualities of a hypocrite. [p. 39, fn 1]

Here The Noble Qur’an is saying that the purpose of jihad is to make Muslims dominant over non-Muslims, and Islam dominant over other religions; Islamic warfare against non-Muslims is a kind of missionary enterprise to spread the faith, and any Muslim who does not fulfil this obligatory duty is a “hypocrite”.

What is bad about being a “hypocrite” is made clear by The Noble Qur’an on page 906 of the appendices: a hypocrite will end up in the lowest depths of Hell, the place of worst punishment. The Noble Qur’an is teaching here that any Muslim who does not engage in and support warfare to establish the dominance of Islam is destined to occupy the hottest place in Hell, worse even than that occupied by non-Muslims.

In its footnote on Sura 27:59, The Noble Qur’an quotes a tradition of Muhammad which refers to jihad (p. 512 fn 1). (Here again jihad is defined as “holy fighting”.) The footnote emphasises that fighting non-Muslims is the best possible pious deed for a Muslim, second only to becoming a Muslim.

The caliphate and universal war against non-Muslims
Sura 2:252 (p. 55, fn2, running on to p. 56) refers to Muhammad as a messenger of Allah. The footnote to this verse reports that Muhammad’s prophethood was distinguished by certain characteristics. Three of these are:
(i) Muhammad was victorious through fear or terror for a distance of one month’s journey: “Allah made me victorious by awe (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month’s journey.”
(ii) He was the first prophet from Allah given permission to take booty from his enemies: “The booty has been made Halal (lawful) to me yet it was not lawful to anyone else before me.”
(iii) Unlike previous prophets, he was sent to all mankind, not just to a specific group: “Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation only, but I have been sent to all mankind.”

The implication of this third point is that everyone, everywhere is obligated to accept Muhammad as their prophet, and the first two points show that he was uniquely commissioned to wage war against disbelievers, by terrorising and looting them. Muhammad is considered to be the best example for Muslims to follow, including, it becomes clear, in these aspects of his prophetic career. The Noble Qur’an emphasises these aspects of Muhammad’s mission to activate them for jihad.

In its footnote on Sura 3:55 (p. 76, fn 1), The Noble Qur’an states that when Jesus returns he will impose Islamic law and break the cross (that is, destroy Christianity). At that time Jesus will do away with toleration of non-Muslims, so that “all people will be required to embrace Islam and there will be no other alternative”. In other words they will be compelled to convert by force if required.

This teaching about Jesus’s return is repeated in a commentary on Sura 8:39 (p. 236, fn 1), and a comment on Sura 61:6 (p. 761, fn 2), which states that this tradition is intended as “a severe warning to Christians who claim to be the followers of ’Isa (Jesus) …” In essence The Noble Qur’an tells its Christian readers that when he returns Jesus will compel them to embrace Islam, and all people on the earth will have to choose between Islam and death.

In its commentary on Sura 9:29 (p. 248, fn 2) The Noble Qur’an cites a tradition of Muhammad about the Jews, which states, “The Hour (i.e. the final hour) will not be established until you fight against the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.’” So, at the end, creation itself will cry out for Jewish blood.

In an interpolation in Sura 8:73, The Noble Qur’an states that Muslims of the world must not ally themselves with non-Muslims, but join together “to make victorious Allah’s religion of Islamic monotheism” (p. 242). It is explained in commentary that if Muslims do not do this, there will be terrible disorder and tribulation in the world, with wars and battles and calamitous breakdown of civil society. This is because of the deleterious effects of non-Muslim rule. Moreover, it is also wrong to have “many Muslim rulers”, because Muslims should unite under one ruler, the caliph: “it is a legal obligation … that there shall not be more than one Khalifah for the whole Muslim world …” Furthermore, anyone who works to divide Muslims into different groups under different rulers should be killed, according to Muhammad, who is reported to have said, “When you all [Muslims] are united … and a man comes up to disintegrate you and separate you into different groups, then kill that man” (p. 242, fn 1). This can be taken to imply that anyone who upholds the division of Muslims into distinct nation-states, which is the international order today, stands under a death sentence.

The Noble Qur’an paints a supremacist vision of an ultimate Islamic victory over non-Muslim religions, in which all non-Muslims will be converted to Islam or killed. The text of Sura 3:110 reads:

        You (true believers in Islamic monotheism …) are the best of people ever raised up for mankind; you enjoin al-Mahruf (Islamic Monotheism and all that Islam has ordained) and forbid Al-Munkar (polytheism, disbelief, and all that Islam has forbidden), and you believe in Allah. [Sura 3:110]

The footnote commentary on this verse explains:

         “You … are the best of people ever raised up for mankind” means, the best of the people for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam (and thereby save them from the eternal punishment in the Hell-fire and make them enter paradise in the Hereafter) … The people referred to here may be the prisoners of war who were captured and chained by the Muslims and their imprisonment was the cause of their conversion to Islam. So, it is as if their chains were the means of winning Paradise. [p. 89, fn 1]

This footnote is a reference to a tradition of Muhammad which states that Allah is pleased to see people entering Paradise in chains. This justifies making war on non-Muslims, and forcing them into Islam through enslaving them; enslaving non-Muslims is a kindness to them, because it enables them to attain Paradise.

This interpretation of Sura 3:110 is based on Muhammad’s teaching. Could it have any application in today’s world, or is it just a dead letter?

The very same tradition was cited by the Islamic State in the October 2014 edition of its magazine Dabiq, which included an article titled “The Return of Slavery Before the Hour”:

   [Muhammad] said, “Allah marvels at a people who enter Jannah in chains.” The hadith commentators mentioned that this refers to people entering Islam as slaves and then entering Jannah [Paradise]. Abu Hurayrah … said while commenting on Allah’s words, “You are the best nation produced for mankind” … “You are the best people for people. You bring them with chains around their necks, until they enter Islam.”

The same sentiment was also expressed by a Dutch Islamic State fighter, Israfil Yilmaz, who blogged about the correct Islamic motivation for sex slavery:

People [who] think that having a concubine for sexual pleasure only have a very simple mindset about this matter … The biggest and best thing of having concubines is introducing them to Islam in an Islamic environment--showing them and teaching them the religion. Many of the concubines/slaves of the Companions of the Prophet … became Muslim and some even big commanders and leaders in Islamic history and this is if you ask me the true essence of having slaves/concubines.

The translators who crafted the commentary in The Noble Qur’an, and the Saudi leaders who endorsed the text, no doubt desired that readers would take to heart the teachings they had laboured hard to present. The evidence is that many have done so. The investment by the Saudis of billions of dollars to spread the kinds of ideas found in The Noble Qur’an has not been in vain, and the Islamic State provides the proof.

Evidence for their success is found in Israfil Yilmaz’s justification for sex-slavery. This not only aligns with official ISIS propaganda: it also is fully in line with the teachings of The Noble Qur’an. Another sign of the influence of The Noble Qur’an’s ideas has been the river of thousands of ISIS recruits flowing from Western nations to join the jihad in Syria and Iraq.

What does all this mean?
Ahmed Farouk Musa, a graduate of Monash University medical school in Melbourne, told a forum on Muslim extremism in Kuala Lumpur on December 7, 2014, that The Noble Qur’an incites violence against Christians and other non-Muslims: “I believe that propaganda such as the Hilali-Khan translation and other materials coming out of Saudi Arabia are one of the major root causes that feed extremist ideas among Muslims, violence against Christians and other minorities.”

There is not a Bible in print, anywhere in the world, Jewish or Christian, which contains such incendiary commentary as is found on page after page of The Noble Qur’an. This is a book with which to start a war. The ideology it promotes is primed to light the fuse of violent jihad.

Given its contents, it might seem surprising that a copy of The Noble Qur’an has been sitting in the Canberra airport prayer room for the past four years. The theological characteristics of this edition of the Koran are not a secret. Yet it seems no Muslim who used the musallah has objected, or if they did, the Canberra airport authorities paid no attention. Canberra’s politicians and their many advisers also regularly pass along the corridor where the musallah is located, but none of them seems to have thought to check what version of the Koran was being used in their airport’s prayer room.

Earlier this year the Public Health Association of Australia asked the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to reject the “notion” that there is any inherent link between Islam and terrorism. It seems that Public Health Association of Australia officials have also not visited the Canberra airport musallah to read its Koran.

There has been much discussion and sometimes puzzlement about how young Muslim men have become radicalised enough to fight for ISIS. Reading and believing the messages implanted in The Noble Qur’an in the Canberra airport prayer room would be sufficient to convert some people to the key points of the ideology of ISIS.

The message of The Noble Qur’an is no marginal phenomenon. It is not an opinion from the extremities of the Islamic world, but from its heartland, presented as a gilt-edged free gift from the Saudi king, the Guardian of the Two Holy Mosques. The political theology of The Noble Qur’an aligns with the official dogma of Saudi Arabia, and it has been endorsed by the Saudi king and the nation’s chief justice, the Grand Mufti.

It is necessary to grasp the authenticity of The Noble Qur’an and its message to the world. Those behind The Noble Qur’an manifestly believe that justice will be served only when Muslims rule the world, and that warfare necessary to achieve this goal is not only justified: it is a divinely instituted, inescapable obligation incumbent on every Muslim, because Muhammad and his Koran are, as Sura 21:107 puts it, “a mercy to the worlds”.

One sometimes hears the view that it is not up to non-Muslims to express opinions about Islam or its canonical texts, such as the Koran. But The Noble Qur’an’s running commentary on the text, because it has so much to say about non-Muslims, especially Jews and Christians, therefore gives non-Muslims, especially Jews and Christians, every right to form their own opinions about it. If a book talks about you, you have a right to make up your own mind about what it has to say.

In 2002 Christopher Hitchens fielded a question from Tony Jones on ABC’s Lateline as to why young, mostly well-educated men committed the 9/11 atrocity. Hitchens’s answer was, “Well, it could be they believe their own propaganda.” We have to assume that those responsible for The Noble Qur’an believe their own propaganda too, and that some who have read it have been influenced to believe it too.

What should Australians make of the fact that the Saudis have been presenting an open and unashamed apology for violent jihad, even commending the practice of enslaving enemies, in our own backyard for years, not to show Islam in a poor light, but to glorify it?

The fact that The Noble Qur’an is in the Canberra airport musallah is no accident. This edition of the Koran and the teachings it promotes can be found in Islamic bookshops, public libraries, prayer rooms and Sunni mosques all over the English-speaking world.

The British historian Tom Holland recently produced a documentary on ISIS called The Origins of Violence. A scathing review by the English journalist Peter Oborne was published in the Middle East Eye. Oborne excoriated Holland for suggesting that the problem with ISIS lies with Islam. Oborne found it repugnant to suggest that there is anything about Islam that might be considered a “threat”, and he railed against Holland’s suggestion that there could be anything in the example and teaching of Muhammad (whom Oborne respectfully calls “The Prophet”) which could have guided the actions of the Islamic State.

Such ignorance is the fruit of religious illiteracy. Or might fear be the issue? Has Muhammad, praised in the pages of the Koran for being “victorious by awe”, now extended his reign of fear, not just for the distance of one month’s journey as Muhammad declared he had achieved in seventh-century Arabia, but across fourteen centuries to Australia and the rest of the world?

Of course many Australian Muslims would, like Ahmed Farouk Musa, find the messages promoted through the footnotes and glosses of The Noble Qur’an utterly repugnant. It is disappointing that these well-meaning Muslims have not been able to determine which version of their own scriptures is to be placed in a public prayer room designated for their use. They could have lobbied Canberra airport to have this version of the Koran replaced by another, but if they have done so, their attempts must have failed.

The message contained in The Noble Qur’an and its widespread public distribution are matters Australians have every right to be concerned about. Its message has been promoted in public for years with hardly a whisper of objection coming from those who should know better.

It would be inappropriate, and indeed irrelevant if our leaders were to respond to the message of The Noble Qur’an with statements like “True Islam does not promote terrorism” or “No true religion supports violence”. For Australian officials to dare to instruct the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia or the Guardian of the Two Holy Mosques on what is true Islam would be ludicrous and offensive. But the leaders of our nation, against whose non-Muslim citizens The Noble Qur’an incites such undisguised enmity, have every right to say, “Not in our backyard!”

Dr. Mark Durie is an academic, human rights activist, Anglican pastor, a Shillman-Ginsburg Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum, and Adjunct Research Fellow of the Arthur Jeffery Centre for the Study of Islam at Melbourne School of Theology.

This article was first published by the Quadrant in November 2017. 
0 Comments

"Equal opportunity & access"...

4/11/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture

...is in the eye of the beholder

The University of Cincinnati's "Offices of Academic Personnel and Equal Opportunity and Access and Title Nine" has deemed that Music lecturer Clifford Adams should lose his job for saying some perfectly truthful & correct things to a Muslim student about Islamic violence and its treatment of women. 

Here is Coverage from the Cincinnati Enquirer:~
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Adams' responses, according to the screenshot of the Facebook post, included:
  • “The U.S. President’s first sworn duty is to protect America from enemies, and the greatest threat to our freedom is not the President, it is radical Islam. Review this list of Islamic terrorist attacks and then tell me about your hurt feelings.”
  • “Now, about Muslim females. As you well know, young Muslim women are murdered by their father or a brother for dating – or for holding hands with – a non-Muslim boy …”
[And from another of their articles these further two points:
  • “Muslim females are safer in America than in any Middle Eastern country. How dare you complain while enjoying our protection!”
  • “And just FYI: July 4th is not the day we tape a sign to a damn stick and go out and march with smug college brats and dysphoric drama queens, it is a federal holiday commemorating the adoption of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. I am glad you took my class; you really do need to shut up, listen, and learn. Welcome to America, and welcome to college. – Adams”]

Adams publicly apologized for his remarks two days after The Enquirer's story.

"As I reconsider what I wrote from an online student’s vantage point, I now realize that I did come across like a religious bigot and that makes me feel horrible," he said in a letter to The Enquirer. "I have inadvertently hurt feelings and offended many and for that I am deeply sorry."

The Council on American-Islamic Relations [Graeme: Why anyone still listens to this Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood tied group of "advocates" I do not know], Cincinnati Chapter (CAIR-Cincinnati) filed a complaint with UC against the professor for his comments. The organization said it filed the complaint on behalf of the student, who chose to remain anonymous due to fear of reprisal. 

“No student should be attacked or bullied because of his or her faith,” CAIR-Cincinnati attorney Sana Hassan said in a statement Thursday. “A teacher’s job is to educate and protect students, not subject them to harassment or attacks because of their faith. We welcome the university’s decision to stand against bigotry and hate ... .”
<<<<<<<<<<<

Now that fourth "FYI" bullet point above is fairly straight and probably inappropriate coming from a lecturer, although - and context is a very big issue here - we aren't privy to any previous exchanges between student & teacher which may make sense of the statement's bluntness - perhaps she had elsewhere been just as blunt with him, perhaps more so. The other 3 points, I mean - who could argue with their accuracy? So I suppose then that tone is the issue here. But at what point does a person grow up and accept responsibility for what offends them and what is actually intended for their good? Maybe both can occur at the same time.

If I go back and compare Mr Adams' statements to those corrections I received at a similar age, when I started work in a Line Gang after leaving High School - planting telephone poles & digging trenches - they are hardly upsetting. She wasn't sworn at once. There was no underlying threat of physical violence - indeed quite the opposite. Despite the Islamist group CAIR's statement, she wasn't brow-beaten or bullied (bullying was commonplace with some foremen & senior men). She wasn't ejected from a gang because the foreman thought she was not up to scratch & refused to work with her. All the above was simply normal life for myself and my fellow Trainees.

Isn't the lecturer simply forthrightly making a case against the obvious & demonstrable weak points of Islam & the culture it gives rise to while noting the many & equally obvious freedoms Muslims - particularly Muslim women - enjoy in the US? And aren't you being particularly naive in both your denial and your recourse to official channels in asserting your "rights"?

With the greatest respect my dear: you need to toughen up. It's a bit like the old soldiers discussing their time as a new recruit: "This doesn't offend me, I've been insulted by professionals". Grow up, maybe your lecturer has a point.

Rather than getting him fired maybe we could listen and argue those points of criticism. That would really reflect "equal opportunity and access" wouldn't it? This is the most pathetic aspect of this affair, the University's draconian decision to fire the man. They could have played the part of the grown-ups in this. Instead they missed the opportunity graphically. The lecturer probably should have received some sort of correction or even discipline over the 4th of July comment, but dismissal? Wildly disproportionate IMHO.

There was no "attack, bullying harassment, bigotry or hatred" as the local branch of the Ihkwan asserts. None at all. There were simply ideas that she didn't like being presented with,which, if similar criticisms of the beliefs of a white, male, Constitutionalist, Christian student had been presented - as they so regularly are in Universities - would not cause so much as the bat of an eyelid.

Below is Robert Spencer's brief take on the matter.
0 Comments

No better source...

4/11/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture

...for this news

Taken unashamedly from Jihad Watch. Who is going to tell us that this man does not know what he is talking about?

Yet another reason why many of us simply don't trust any Muslim apologist and have the deepest reservations about all supposed Muslim reformers (certainly there are a few who are genuine, such as Imam Tawhidi, but all too few). This article does not engender faith in such people. If the base line of reforming Islam is to admit the fundamental doctrines of the religion before being able to reform them, then we have very few genuine reformers indeed.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Iranian scholar: “There is a huge industry of so-called ‘moderate’ Muslim scholars, who are actually apologists for Islam” by Robert Spencer

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a board member of Harvard International Review and president of the International American Council on the Middle East; he is also the author of the extraordinary book A God Who Hates Women: A woman’s journey through oppression and another, Peaceful Reformation in Iran’s Islam: A life story of struggle and poverty, which is just as riveting.

In this extraordinary Gatestone Institute article, he buttresses what I have noted for years, that most of today’s prominent “moderate” Muslim spokesmen are primarily interested in making sure that no one thinks that jihad terror and Sharia oppression have anything to do with Islam, and thus do more harm than good to the effort of trying to inform the public of the true nature and magnitude of the threat we face. Also, they mislead the uninformed public into thinking that the vast majority of Muslims think just as they do, when if they renounce jihad and Sharia they’re actually quite non-traditional Muslims, and so even at best, they mislead people into complacency.

Picture
“The ‘Moderate’ Muslim Scholar Industry,”
by by Majid Rafizadeh
April 3, 2018.


  • I have lived for years in these places in the Middle East and seen with my own eyes the cruelty and abuse that takes place under extremist Islamic law. I have heard the screams of families as their loved ones were tortured and slaughtered for the simplest acts -- singing, dancing, voicing an opinion, or simply being a non-Muslim -- all of which are crimes.
  • If we play the game of misinforming and misleading people about Islamism, by making irrelevant analogies to whitewash the violence and terrorism which are generated by Islamic fundamentalism, we are indoctrinating the literally millions of innocent children who will be either the perpetrators or victims of the next radical Islamic terror attacks -- including Muslims.
  • Meanwhile the real scholars of Islam, such as Robert Spencer, who are trying to warn the public about these apologists, are called "Islamophobes," poisoned, often fired from work, censored on social media and barred from entering democratic countries such as Britain.

​
When I was new to the United States, a so-called "moderate" Muslim scholar pulled me aside and gave me some "friendly" words of advice:

"In the West, there is a trend unfolding. If you follow it, you will find great success, more than you can imagine. It is very easy, all you have to do is stick to a few simple rules. No matter what your personal views are, you must be a Muslim apologist -- an apologist for radical Islam -- and present yourself as a 'moderate' Muslim scholar. If you can accomplish this, they will lap it up. You will never want for anything again. You will easily gain wealth and become the most in-demand 'moderate' Muslim scholar in the West!"

It sounded reasonable enough. "As you have the advantage of being from the region," he continued, "you will come across as authentic."

His advice was accurate. There is a huge industry of so-called "moderate" Muslim scholars, who are actually apologists for Islam. This industry began to grow after the catastrophe of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and from there, expanded.

There seems to exist a symbiotic relationship between the mainstream media and liberal organizations on one side, and the "moderate" Muslim apologists on the other.

It is these "moderate" Muslim apologists, commentators, and organizations that are creating -- directly or indirectly -- the rise of Islamic extremism and with it, terrorism. They provide a window for all sorts of acts of evil to take place: from raping women and children to blowing up public places or running people over with vans. These are the people who are preventing any positive changes or reforms from taking place. By not criticizing these extremists, they are not only failing to address the underlying problem of extremism and Islamic terrorism; they are also stealing attention away from the root of the problem.

If you scrutinize the uptick in recent terrorism, their approach leads to even more radicalization. There appears to be a direct correlation between the expansion of this "moderate" Muslim apologist industry, and the increasing rate of terrorist attacks in the West. If officials were actually interested in saving lives -- rather than just in cozying up to the Muslim vote to keep their jobs -- they should jump at the chance to reveal the truth behind fundamentalist Islam and Islamic terrorism. If not, they should be voted out of their jobs.

The West, unfortunately, encourages these "moderate" Muslim apologists to keep on advancing these false views: that one must not blame extremists, that nothing is the fault of the Islamic teachings, that all of these radical and that Islamist terrorist attacks "have nothing to do with Islam." More doors and opportunities keep opening for these apologists to get cash. The Muslim apologists are handed megaphones, invited to international forums, handed book deals, given scholarships, and offered jobs with elite but false titles such as "Islam and Counter-Terrorism Expert." With such incentives, why would anyone ever stop?

Meanwhile the real scholars of Islam, such as Robert Spencer, who are trying to warn the public about these apologists, are called "Islamophobes," poisoned, often fired from work, censored on social media and barred from entering democratic countries such as Great Britain.

It does not even matter that many of these so-called "moderate" Muslim apologists in the West may never have lived in an Islamist state or experienced first-hand what it is like to be ruled by extremists. The majority of them seem to have been born and raised in the West under a democratic system of governance where they can freely voice their opinions and practice their religion without fear of prosecution. The concepts they talk about -- such as sharia, jihad, or the "true" interpretation of Islamic teachings -- are as foreign to them as they are to any other Westerner

I have lived for years in these places in the Middle East and seen with my own eyes the cruelty and abuse that takes place under extremist Islamic law. I have heard the screams of families as their loved ones were tortured and slaughtered for the simplest acts -- singing, dancing, voicing an opinion, or simply being a non-Muslim -- all of which are crimes.

If we play the game of misinforming and misleading people about Islamism, by making irrelevant analogies to whitewash the violence and terrorism which are generated by Islamic fundamentalism, we are indoctrinating the literally millions of innocent children who will be either the perpetrators or victims of the next radical Islamic terror attacks -- including Muslims.

With the lure of money and fame tempting so many, unless we begin to wake up to the damage they are doing to their victims, their families and the whole of society, it will not stop.

​Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, is a business strategic and advisor, Harvard-educated scholar, political scientist, board member of Harvard International Review, and president of the International American Council on the Middle East. He has authored several books on Islam and US Foreign Policy. He can be reached at Dr.Rafizadeh@Post.Harvard.Edu
  • Follow Majid Rafizadeh on Twitter
0 Comments

The Syrian gas attack...

4/9/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture

...I'm not happy with the explanations

UPDATE: There are two excellent 10 minute videos on the strange case of gas attacks by the Assad regime in the past. Part 1 is here and part 2 here. They further buttress my concerns.
​

You mean to tell me that - once again - the Syrian Army had the Jihadist forces all but totally defeated and then used chemical weapons knowing that it would cause international outrage and possibly an escalation in the war against them? Why on earth would anyone get to the point of victory the hard way - with their enemies capitulating and leaving the area - and only then deploy Chemical weapons? What possible good would that do? In fact the "Rebels" have used chemical weapons while blaming Assad's regime for the very purpose of turning international opinion in their favour before. And yet we're not supposed to notice the rather obvious pattern? 

The situation in Syria is complicated, there's no doubt about that, but as bad as Assad is he is far, far better than the alternative - the imposition of a Sharia state. If you have any doubt about that then please check out an earlier post of mine regarding what the religious minorities think of Assad & the alternative - we must ensure Assad remains. The fact that the three main Muslim backers of the opponents to Assad are Saudi Arabia, Qatar (two of the prime financiers of Sunni terrorism and political Islam throughout the world) and Turkey (under the Sharia loving President Erdogan) should be more than enough to alert us to who exactly, among this motley crew, are the good guys - or the least bad guys we could say.

As I've quoted before, you can tell a lot about someone by examining the character of their enemies.

Certainly Russia is backing Assad for its own reasons but I still insist Assad is the best option and would yield to Westernisation should the real villain of the piece - Iran - be confronted & thwarted. 
See a previous post here on this.

Take a look at the following 4 minute video - yes he does get a bit shrill and he is from one of those awful sources on "the alt-right" (whatever that is - hard to tell with the ever broadening definitions in play) but do tune out the distractions and check out his research. The facts are good and should not be ignored. (I'm not at all sure though just how much an action by America's military is merely a political pawn for assisting the Republicans in the upcoming mid-terms, but the idea of initiating wars of distraction or convenience is certainly not without precedent either.)

​In any event, what dolts we all are to simply believe any politician when the facts are so damnably against them.
0 Comments

Thought Police & Pre-crime

4/9/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture

Please explain your political beliefs.
​Take your time.

The Police visit you and chat about your political beliefs, your attitudes to other races, whether you are a Nazi. Why? Because you posted comments showing your concerns about Sharia law, Islamic rape gangs and migration on Facebook. One wonders if and how they conduct such conversations with Muslims who say many of the same things on Facebook & other social media. Is it OK for a Muslim to state that Sharia is a supremacist system that discriminates against non-Muslims but not OK for a non-Muslim to state this? We would think that a bit odd, but there are many examples of exactly this happening. Many.

It's quite unsettling having the Police sit down with you - just being in that situation would pressure most of us. If it had been me I would have perhaps simply walked out. Would you? Or would you be too polite?  The course of events recorded below is probably a best-case-scenario of what happens when you don't take that opportunity.

Britain, Norway ... the Police do seem to be confused on the same level. Honestly I don't find it impossible to imagine this sort of thing happening here.

Below is a link to a 30 minute audio interview mentioned in the following article between Lancashire Police and Mr Christian Finch, an ordinary man who held opinions that concerned them. 
Hear Interview Here
This You Tube clip of the chat uploaded by another party has a note from Mr Finch in the comments section where he states "After they found out that I had recorded it, the phone mysteriously dissapeared from my house. The Sony via laptop didnt get stolen, or the bank card or the money lying around.. just the phone. Luckily before that I'd already uploaded it to soundcloud"

Although I have heard far too many stories of British Police abusing property & civil rights I'm sure in this instance the loss of the recording device was entirely coincidental. Aren't you?

Robert Spencer from Jihad Watch posted this recent article by Bruce Bawer on this rather intimidating conversation. The article includes Mr Bawer's own experience of Norwegian Police chatting with him. Together the audio and the article are a revelation. It really is amazing how much some people know about Islam without as much as picking up a Qur'an, reading a book of Sharia law or studying Islamic history. It honestly makes me wonder why people like me wasted all those years studying the religion when Policeman understand Islam better than we do simply by ignoring it! Where did I go wrong...?

Read on dear reader. Your opinion may also be of great interest to the authorities.
​Prepare accordingly.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We’re Not the Thought Police. That being said, what are you thinking?
by Bruce Bawer, FrontPage, April 9, 2018

To read Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch website regularly is to get an unsettling daily dose of real-life Islam-related horrors. But on April 4, Robert posted a half-hour audio that was even more disturbing than the bulk of his usual offerings. The audio records the visit by a couple of British police officers to the home of a British subject who had apparently been reported to the authorities for posting anti-Islam comments on social media. The householder in question greeted the cops with surprising – perhaps nervous? – cheeriness, and for a half hour he earnestly, willingly, and good-humoredly answered their indefensibly intrusive and insulting questions about his opinions. Among them: What were his political beliefs? What did he think of Islam? Did he hate Muslims? Was he a racist? Was he a Nazi?

It quickly became clear that this man – whose name we never learn, unless I missed something – is anything but a racist or Nazi or hater of any kind. On the contrary, he is a thoughtful citizen who, after considerable study, has come to some sensible conclusions about Islam. He made it clear that, unlike his visitors, he had read the Koran, had acquainted himself with the major specifics of the life of Muhammed, and knew the basics of Islamic theology. He was, it emerged, a strong opponent of Islam for precisely the right reasons, including (as he mentioned) the fact that it commands believers to do harm to infidels, Jews, and gays.

Yet even as he spelled out these indisputable truths about Islam, the police officers responded as if he was imagining it all. They suggested that he might want to sit down for a conversation with an Islamic scholar, who could clear up what they seemed determined to view as his misunderstandings. They insisted, moreover, that they were not the Thought Police – even though there is no other word for police officers who show up at the home of an innocent citizen to interrogate him about his personal opinions.

A couple of reader comments on the Jihad Watch audio suggested it was fake, on the grounds that police officers in a free country would surely never do such a thing. Wrong. For me, the audio brought back vivid memories – for I’ve had my own very similar encounter with European policemen. My experience was slightly different in that instead of being visited at home, I was summoned to a local police station in Norway, where I live. But the encounter itself, which took place in January 2014, was strikingly similar to the one recorded on the Jihad Watch audio. My interrogators even assured me, as their British colleagues assured the fellow in the audio, that they were not the Thought Police. When I heard that statement on the audio, I couldn’t help wondering: are cops around Europe, even in different countries, working off of the same script?

Immediately after returning home from my visit to the police station back in January 2014, I sat down and typed up everything I could remember about the exchange I’d had with my new uniformed friends. The conversation had been in Norwegian, and I wrote it out in Norwegian. I sent copies to a few friends of mine, including Hans Rustad, editor of the vitally important Norwegian website document.no, who, in response, told me that he had heard similar, and equally disturbing, accounts from other people living in Norway. He actually took a copy of my testimony with him to a meeting at the Norwegian Ministry of Justice, where he confronted officials with this example of thoroughly inappropriate police conduct.

My Norwegian-language account of my exchange with the police officers later appeared in print (but not online) in a document.no publication, but has never appeared in English. After hearing the audio at Jihad Watch, however, I decided that it might be worthwhile to translate my account into English so that any doubters might understand that, yes indeed, this how at least some police officers in Europe conduct themselves in this era of Islamization.

​So here it is, without further ado, but with newly added comments and explanatory information in brackets:

       On January 9, I received a phone call from a policeman in Skien [the county seat of Telemark, where I live]. He said he wanted to meet me because he thought my knowledge of Islam could help the police in the fight against Islamic terrorism. He explained that someone at PST [the Norwegian Police Security Service, Norway’s equivalent of the NSA or MI5] had recommended that he speak with me. I said I would be glad to be of help. We agreed to speak again a few days later to agree on a time and place.

During the days that followed I spent a good deal of time preparing for what I imagined would be a crash course in Islam. When we spoke by telephone for the second time, I thought I detected a subtle change in his tone and immediately suspected that his objective was, in fact, not to draw on my expertise but to interrogate me. This suspicion was reinforced when he said, at the end of the conversation, that he himself was a PST officer.

This was precisely the same thing that had happened to me during the [mass murderer Anders Behring] Breivik trial [in 2012], when Geir Lippestad [Breivik’s lawyer] summoned me as an “expert witness.” His real intention at that time was not to make use of my “expertise” but rather to expose me to scorn and derision as one of several writers who had supposedly “influenced” the killer and who thus shared in the blame for his crimes.

On January 15, I met the PST officer and a colleague of his, also from PST, at a police station near my home. Indeed, it turned out that they had no interest in learning anything about Islam from me. They wanted to know about other things. How, for example, had I come to be so critical of Islam? Which other members of the anti-Islam community was I acquainted with? Which far-right websites was I in the habit of reading? Had I experienced discomfort in encounters with Muslims? Did I know Hans Rustad, editor of document.no, which publishes critical articles about Islam and European immigration policy? Had I ever posted comments on his website?

At first I played along – too much. I told them about the time my partner had been assaulted by a Muslim with a knife at a bus stop at St. Hanshaugen in Oslo, and about the time a Muslim yelled “faggot” at him and kicked him on the tram. I mentioned the doctor I knew who had been killed at his office by a Muslim asylum seeker. As for Hans Rustad, I said, “Yes, I know him. He’s a terrific guy and he has a terrific website. But no, I’ve never commented on articles there.”

They asked about Fjordman [counterjihadist writer Peder Are Nøstvold Jensen]. Had I ever met him? Yes, we had gotten together for beers 3-4 times in Oslo several years ago. We had also both attended a conference in The Hague sometime around 2006. Oh yes? Which conference? The Pim Fortuyn Memorial Conference. Who arranged that? I don’t know. Who else took part? Robert Spencer, Bat Ye’or, several others. They seemed to be interested in these details. They asked me what I thought about Fjordman. I answered the question rather exhaustively.

Then they came to Breivik. How had I felt when I learned that Breivik had read some of my books and articles? They emphasized that they were fully aware of the dangers of Islamic terrorism, but they were also worried that a writer like me could help “create a new Breivik” or several of them. It was at about this point that I began to fire back a bit. I said that Breivik was a maniac, and that if he hadn’t happened to get hooked on Islam as an object of hate, he would have gotten hooked on something else to hate. They didn’t seem to be willing to accept the possibility that Breivik was just a crazy man, an isolated case. I got the impression that they were working from the premise that Breivik was a cold-blooded counterjihadist who had been created by other counterjihadists.

In a slightly irritated tone, one of the two men reminded me that during the first hours after the government buildings in Oslo were bombed, that is before Breivik was identified and before his motives were known, many people in Oslo had assumed that the city was under attack by Muslim terrorists, and that this had resulted in people assaulting Muslims in the streets. [Note: I have never seen any documentation of this claim.] One of PST’s concerns, he said, was that if a Norwegian Muslim committed a murder like the horrible killing of Lee Rigby in London, there would be a violent anti-Muslim reaction. [They always worry more about the anti-Muslim “backlash” that virtually never happens than about the actual Islam-motivated atrocity.]

My interlocutors had read Breivik’s “manifesto.” They talked about his patchwork of plagiarized historical essays and information about weapons in a way that suggested that, in their eyes, it was a key document for the understanding of the counterjihad movement.

“Have you read the Koran?” I asked.

“No,” both of them said. They were not at all embarrassed about it.

“Well, you should,” I said. “If you want to understand the mentality that underlies Islamic terrorism, you’ll find its origin there.”

One of them answered quickly. “We know that radical Muslims have misinterpreted the Koran.”

“It’s not a question of interpretation,” I replied. “The passages in question are very clear.” I emphasized that while none of the writers they were trying to link to Breivik had called for killing, the Koran calls for killing infidels again and again.

They paid no heed to this. In fact they seemed to find it distasteful to talk about the Koran in this way.


They wanted to know what I thought about the “Eurabia conspiracy theory.”

“What do you mean by that term?” I asked.

“Haven’t you heard it before?”

“Of course, but I hope you understand that this is an expression one almost never hears outside of Norway. It’s a concept that has been invented by the Norwegian left. What does it mean to you?”

“It’s about Muslims wanting to take over Europe.”

“That’s not a conspiracy theory. Jihad is a reality, it’s a core Islamic idea. Do you know how Islam divides the world?”

They shook their heads.


“The world consists of the House of Islam, where Islamic law prevails, and the House of War, which is the part of the world where Islamic law does not yet prevail. According to the Koran, there will not be peace in the world until the House of War is totally conquered by Islam.”

They weren’t interested in hearing about this, either. One of them explained what they meant by the “Eurabia conspiracy theory”: “What we’re referring to is the idea that, for example, Stoltenberg [Jens Stoltenberg, Labor Party politician and Prime Minister from 2000-1 and 2005-13] is secretly conspiring with Muslims with the goal of transforming Norway into an Islamic state.”

What struck me about this was that they talked about Stoltenberg as if he were still Prime Minister. [Just as America’s Deep State is Democratic, Norway’s is Labor.]

At one point, they asked a question that led me to say something very critical about the attempt, after July 22 [the date, in 2011, of Breivik’s atrocities], to limit freedom of expression in Norway. One of them asked me, do you think that there is greater freedom of expression in the U.S. than in Norway? I replied that there’s much more freedom of expression in the U.S. than in all of Western Europe. I mentioned Lars Hedegaard, Geert Wilders, and others who had been put on trial in various Western European countries because of things they had said or written about Islam.

“Where is the limit, then?” asked one of the PST guys, his tone rather sharp.

“There shouldn’t be any limit, unless you call for violence,” I said. They seemed to react to this. I had the impression that they felt I had crossed a line.

During the conversation they reassured me at least three times that this was not an interrogation – but that’s exactly what it was. A couple of times they said that they had no plans to arrest me – which, of course, served as a reminder that they had the power to do so. They also insisted a couple of times that they were not “Thought Police” [tankepoliti]. At one point, one of them mentioned that they can’t do everything the NSA can do, because the law doesn’t allow it, but that they do absolutely everything they can within the framework of Norwegian law.

The entire conversation lasted about an hour and a half. It was intense. They fired questions at me almost without a break. Several times they returned to questions I had already answered. When the whole thing was over, they informed me that they might be contacting me again.

Afterwards, I regretted that I hadn’t just stood up and walked out when I realized that I had been summoned there under false premises. In these times, when certain critical voices and opinions are considered illegal, I would never knowingly have put myself in such a situation with the police. But this was a trap, and they were clearly betting that I would stay there and answer their questions because it would have seemed both uncomfortable and rude to do anything else.


They were right: I stayed there because I didn’t want to make a scene. But while I’m sorry I answered some of their questions so dutifully, I’m glad I took advantage of the opportunity to put up at least something of a challenge. In any event, what emerges from the audio at Jihad Watch is that those bobbies in Britain (apparently Lancashire), like my PST buddies in Norway, have been trained to view Islam as essentially benign and criticism of Islam as a danger. Both sets of cops manifestly consider it part of their job to hunt down critics of Islam and try to intimidate them into silence. And none of them have the slightest regard whatsoever for freedom of speech. They don’t even seem to grasp the concept.

They’ve also apparently been taught – and this is the creepiest part – to emphasize that they’re not Thought Police. This is obviously a result of training, because it would never occur independently to such people – who have plainly never read a word of Orwell – to make such a declaration in the first place. This, then, is what we are up against in today’s western Europe: police departments that are producing Thought Police – and, as part of that production process, are instructing them to reassure the proles that, no, of course they’re not Thought Police.

​Sure. And war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.
0 Comments

Is Islam the solution for wayward youth?...

4/9/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture

...ah, no.
And "No" as in you-have-got-to-be-kidding-me no.

Given our western context we expect that if someone with a criminal disposition turns to seriously follow Christianity this will be a good thing. This expectation is perfectly correct. We see it borne out often. So we also assume - and we are encouraged to assume so by Muslim leaders - that similarly converting to Islam, or becoming serious in following the teachings of Islam, will also have a good civilisational affect.

But not all religions (I am getting heartily sick of saying this) are the same. No, not all Muslims believe in the necessity of strict Sharia observance or violent Jihad (of course) but as Bill Warner so clearly states: "I am not interested in the opinion of any Muslim except that of Muhammad" as his opinion is authoritative to 1400 years of Islamic scholars. Quite. Would that our Western leaders could see this simple fact.

Here is Robert Spencer examining the case of yet another young Muslim who was not changed into an asset for our society when he became more serious about his faith. Five minutes.
0 Comments

Can we calm the beast?

4/9/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture

​Raymond Ibrahim on
​‘Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West’

A fascinating historical account of the Muslim persecution & warfare against non-Muslims. Mr Ibrahim starts his talk around the 7:43 mark, but the introduction is also very informative and a delightful window into common American culture (quite different to that so often depicted in the media). 

Of course I love this man and have used his material often. He really is an authoritative voice on this subject.

Among much else he points out:~
  • when the concept of Jihad was codified - it was in the context of the protracted conquest of the capital of Eastern Christianity, Constantinople;
  • the direct Qur'anic promise, understood by our Western predecessors, of paradise for those who fight in Jihad;
  • the affinity of tribal peoples to accepting Islam;
  • the reasons for the Crusades (in my talks I like to remind people of the predicament of the Yazidis trapped on Mt Sinjar facing extermination - about which we were all so aware a couple of years ago - would you have wanted the West to send in military force to liberate those people? Yes? Ah, then you're a Crusader!);
  • the "Andalusian Golden Age" was nothing of the sort;
  • the enslavement of at least 2 million European Christians by North African Muslims;
  • the Crimean Tartars enslaved 3-4 million Christians!;
  • America's first foreign war was against Muslim North Africa because of the latter's Islamic doctrinal adherence;
  • Marco Polo's experience of Islam - an eye-opener;
  • 19th C. French intellectual Alex de Tocqueville's & Winston Churchill's frank & alarming views of Islam are noted; 
  • the current threat of Islam to the West is not due to their strength (they are weak) but due to our own denial and ignorance;

There is a 25 minute Q&A at the end incorporating:~
  • "Moderate" Muslims are discussed - do they exist? Why aren't they speaking up? Is Sharia belief widespread?;
  • Is Arabism synonymous with Islam?;
  • Why are there so many conversions to Islam in our prisons?;
  • Why do Muslim women get invovled in Jihad when the promise of 72 virgins does not apply to them?;
  • Fascinating parallels between the Mongols under the Khans and Islam;
  • What to do in Syria?;
  • The ineffectual Muslim reformers in the West;
  • The Islamic "Baby Jihad" in the West;
  • The demographics of the Migrants & "Refugees" now moving into the West.

Knowledge is power friends. 

​
>>>>>>>>>>>
Last week I spoke before the Christian Rights and Freedom Institute in Naples, Florida.   My 45-minute speech revolved around the topic of my forthcoming book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West, and how Americans have been fed a false history that makes the West’s current conflict with Islam incomprehensible, whereas knowledge of true, well-documented history—one that almost exclusively revolved around war—places current events in a much clearer context.
0 Comments

Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani

4/9/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture

So God the Father abandoned Jesus on the cross right?

Boy it's a busy when you move to a new church. There are lots of people to get to know and I have to sort out a whole new schedule for productivity - remembering the good advice I once heard: "Routine builds capacity." So I apologise for being away for so long. Other, far less pleasant stuff has also been happening, but we won't go into that.

Additionally it was my turn to teach on Easter Sunday. This time I spoke about the Seven Words that Jesus spoke from the cross - particularly the one in the title. Most teaching heard in churches around here (by me at least) makes a real hash of explaining just what this cry from Jesus was about. I try and set the record straight - if you're still not happy with me then check here for a brief comment from Chaldean Christians and keep studying :)

The statement is a direct reference by Jesus to Ps. 22 (and Pss. 23 & 24). 

Unfortunately the first couple of minutes were not recorded and instead the recording begins half way through Jesus' first Word where I compare Jesus' words of forgiveness with Muhammad's words of war.

For reference here are all 7 Words & the Gospels which record them:~
• “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke);
• “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke);
• Speaking to his mother & John “Dear woman, here is your son”, and “Here is your mother” (John);
• "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabacthani" (Matthew & Mark);
• “I am thirsty” (John);
• “It is finished” (John);
• “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit” (Luke).

​I jabber on for 30 minutes. I hope it's of some use.
Hear Message Here
Picture
0 Comments

Is Integration oppression?

3/24/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture

if we could just stop being so naive,
that would be terrific.

Oh my dear! The things we burden these poor Muslim migrants with! What can we be thinking?

Last year I mentioned that the American Muslim activist Linda Sarsour stated a certain view on assimilation & integration. In the midst of a speech mentioning terms such as jihad and that Muslims need to remain "perpetually outraged" in contemporary America, her most disturbing statement for me was when she urged her fellow Muslims not to assimilate. I couldn't understand such a sentiment then and I cannot understand it now.

The first video below (just over a minute long) is a recent one featuring a young Muslim lady who happens to live in Germany - though while she lives in the West, by her own admission she is most definitely not of the West. Neither does she wish to be and she indicates that a large number of young Muslims of her acquaintance do not wish to become Westerners either.

​Via Jihad Watch.


​>>>>>>>>>>
Video from Germany: Muslim spokesperson says “we don’t have to integrate”
This woman is a member of JUMA (Young, Muslim, Active), a Muslim activist group in Germany. She is saying that Muslims need not integrate into German society and adopt German values and mores. This is not surprising, since the Qur’an tells Muslims that they are the “best of people” (3:110), and that non-Muslims are “the most vile of created beings” (98:6). Why should the best of people, who “enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong” (3:110), adopt the values of the most vile of created beings? It will never happen. And that means that Germany, and the rest of Europe, is in for a future of civil strife, violence, and Sharia — courtesy of Angela Merkel.
OK. So what should our response, as Westerners, be to this? 

Put simply: By golly we need right here and right now to stand up for our beliefs and insist on integration!

As imperfect as it is, we have a better way of life than pretty much any other culture in the world today. Hands up if you would you prefer to live under the Indian Caste system - and no cheating: not as a light skinned high Caste but how about as a lowly  Dalit? Or under the Chinese with that government's brutal death sentences and a regime which bills the family of those it executes for the bullets it used? Or in countries where Sharia Law (or its remnants) mean that brutal, despotic treatment of minorities is an everyday reality? A moment's reflection will tell us that we have a lot to be proud of and a lot to protect.

However we are very unlikely to stand up for ourselves in this way. There are too many gentle & sensitive souls who insist on our not doing it, you see. And they are prepared to use nasty names and social isolation against those of us who would insist upon the integration of Muslims as foundational to the ongoing health of our societies.

We live in a world where the British government excuses violent, physical, permanently disfiguring child abuse as a "cultural problem" which we somehow have no right to have an opinion on, let alone prosecute as a crime (see this revealing 8 minute video interview with an ex-Muslim woman who was recently held up as an example of "hate" by London Mayor Saddiq Khan for seeking to stop FGM in the Muslim community).

We also live in a world where almost every avenue for news and social comment perceives the world as their gentle & sensitive friends do, which is enough to stop us getting a fair hearing.

If silencing or distorting our message & impugning our character doesn't work, governments themselves are willing to severely restrict freedom of expression and use their very considerable force to punish us. Those who are left feel badly mischaracterised & besieged and that we're "damned if we do & damned if we don't". 

​Perhaps we can get some insight from a Clinical Psychologist into the mentality of those who will not permit others to offer constructive criticism, but instead only hear bullies whenever we open our mouths.

I have decided to read Clinical Psychologist Jordan Peterson's new book 12 rules for life: An antidote to chaos along with one of my daughters and she & I are going to discuss the chapters as we go. Here's something useful on this whole topic I've gleaned from the first chapter. Yes I have had to copy it out laboriously, so if you wouldn't mind at least glancing at it - that would be terrific...


​Rule 1: Stand up straight with your shoulders back, pp 23-24

"...just as often, people are bullied because they won't fight back. This happens not infrequently to people who are by temperament compassionate & self-sacrificing - particularly if they are also high in negative emotion, and make a lot of gratifying noises of suffering when someone sadistic confronts them (children who cry more easily, for example, are more frequently bullied) [Graeme: think of the Teddy Bears, candles and sentimental songs whenever there is a mass Jihad attack]. 

It also happens to people who have decided, for one reason or another, that all forms of aggression, including even feelings of anger, are morally wrong. I have seen people with a particularly acute sensitivity to petty tyranny and over-aggressive competitiveness restrict within themselves all the emotions that might give rise to such things. Often they are people whose fathers ... were aggressively angry or controlling [Graeme: perhaps this is more a matter of perception than reality as the changes made in the subject are the important thing. By extrapolation, if we, the "children" of perceived Western aggression, militarism and domination, perceive our collective fathers and our inherited culture to be overly aggressive mightn't we similarly react?].

Psychological forces are never unidimensional in their value, however, and the truly appalling potential of anger & aggression to produce cruelty & mayhem are balanced by the ability of those primordial forces to push back against oppression, speak truth, and motivate resolute movement forward in times of strife, uncertainty and danger.

With their capacity for aggression strait-jacketed within a too-narrow morality, those who are only or merely compassionate & self-sacrificing (and naive & exploitable) cannot call forth the gebuinely righteous & appropriately self-protective anger necessary to defend themselves [Graeme: please do watch the faces of those being criticised in this short clip - don't they seem to fit this description?]. If you can bite, you generally don't have to. 

When skillfully integrated [Graeme: there's that word again], the ability to respond with aggression & violence decreases rather than increases the probability that actual aggression will become necessary. If you say no, early in the cycle of oppression, and you mean what you say (which means you state your refusal in no uncertain terms and stand behind it) then the scope for oppression on the part of oppressor will remain properly bounded and limited.

The forces of tyranny expand inexorably to fill the space made available for their existence. People who refuse to muster appropriately self-protective territorial responses are laid open to exploitation as much as those who genuinely can't stand up for their own rights because of a more essential inability or a true imbalance in power.

Naive, harmless people usually guide their perceptions & actions with a few simple axioms: people are basically good; no one really wants to hurt anyone else; the threat (and, certainly, the use) of force, physical or otherwise is wrong.

These axioms collapse, or worse, in the presence of individuals who are genuinely malevolent. Worse means that naive beliefs can become a positive invitation to abuse, because those who aim to harm have become specialised to prey on people who think precisely such things. Under such conditions, the axioms of harmlessness must be retooled [Graeme:  as Douglas Murray has said 'what happens when a masochist meets a real sadist?']."

Dr Peterson's evaluation of the naive individual certainly seems to translate well to the naive collective does it not?

Now consider the following two items from France.

1) Video from Paris: Muslim migrants storm church, force cancellation of evening Mass
From Jihad Watch, a 1 minute clip.​
"Muslim migrants invade the Basilica of Saint-Denis, which is in a heavily Muslim area of France. By the end of the video, police line the doorway to the church, preventing the Muslim migrants from entering. This is a glimpse into the future of France. Before too long, anytime a church service is going on, there will have to be a squadron of police lining the entrances."
One wonders what possible provocation there could be for such an attack? Where else in the world does this sort of thing happen? Oh yes - Muslim majority countries! It seems this part of France is now considered a "Muslim majority country", no?

Is it time to stop being naive yet?
And this warning from French intellectuals. I'd like to think we all took such a warning seriously. It certainly is not naive. Several ex-Muslims contributed to it. Do they understand their old religion or not? Is simple observation enough to change our trajectory or not? Will the naive decide the destiny of my country? Or will the astute finally get heard?

That would be terrific.
​


2) 100 French Intellectuals Issue A Warning About Islamic Totalitarianism
From Hugh Fitzgerald at Jihad Watch.

                   A group of 100 French intellectuals has just published in the newspaper Le Figaro (March 19, 2018), its denunciation of Islamic totalitarianism. Among the signatories are some of the most distinguished historians, philosophers, professors, jurists, and journalists, in France, known to all, and representing political leanings from Left to Right. Among them are some ex-Muslims. Not a group easy to dismiss. 

The following is a translation of their statement made by Leslie Shaw, a contributor to the Clarion Project:



We are citizens of differing and often diametrically opposed views, who have found agreement in expressing our concern in the face of the rise of Islamism. We are united not by our affinities, but by the feeling of danger that threatens freedom in general and not just freedom of thought. 

That which unites us today is more fundamental than that which will undoubtedly separate us tomorrow. 

Islamist totalitarianism seeks to gain ground by every means possible and to represent itself as a victim of intolerance. This strategy was demonstrated some weeks ago when the SUD Education 93 teachers union proposed a training course that included workshops on state racism from which white people were barred.

Several of the facilitators were members or sympathizers of the CCIF (French Collective Against Islamophobia) or the Natives of the Republic party. Such examples have proliferated recently. We have thus learned that the best way to combat racism is to separate races.
If this idea shocks us, it is because we are Republicans.

We also hear it said that because religions in France are trampled on by an institutionalized secularism, everything that is in a minority — in other words Islam — must be accorded a special place so that it can cease to be humiliated.

This same argument continues by asserting that in covering themselves with a hijab, women are protecting themselves from men and that keeping themselves apart is a means to emancipation.


What these proclamations have in common is the idea that the only way to defend the “dominated” (the term is that of SUD Education 93) is to set them apart and grant them privileges.

Not so long ago, apartheid reigned in South Africa. Based on the segregation of blacks, it sought to exonerate itself by creating bantustans (territories set aside for black South Africans) where blacks were granted false autonomy. Fortunately this system no longer exists.

Today, a new kind of apartheid is emerging in France, a segregation in reverse thanks to which the “dominated” seek to retain their dignity by sheltering themselves from the “dominators.”

But does this mean that a woman who casts off her hijab and goes out into the street becomes a potential victim? Does it mean that a “race” that mixes with others becomes humiliated? Does it mean that a religion that accepts being one among other religions loses face?

Does Islamism also seek to segregate French Muslims, whether believers or otherwise, who accept democracy and are willing to live with others? Who will decide for women who refuse to be locked away? As for others, who seemingly do not deserve to be protected, will they be held under lock and key in the camp of the “dominators”?


All of this runs counter to what has been done in France to guarantee civil peace. For centuries, the unity of the nation has been grounded in a detachment with respect to particularities that can be a source of conflict. What is known as Republican universalism does not consist in denying the existence of gender, race or religion but in defining civic space independently of them so that nobody feels excluded. How can one not see that secularism protects minority religions?

Jeopardizing secularism exposes us to a return to the wars of religion.

What purpose can this new sectarianism serve? Must it only allow the self-styled “dominated” to safeguard their purity by living amongst themselves? Is not its overall objective to assert secession from national unity, laws and mores? Is it not the expression of a real hatred towards our country and democracy?

For people to live according to the laws of their community or caste, in contempt of the laws of others, for people to be judged only by their own, is contrary to the spirit of the Republic. The French Republic was founded on the refusal to accept that private rights can be applied to specific categories of the population and on the abolition of privilege.


On the contrary, the Republic guarantees that the same law applies to each one of us. This is simply called justice.

This new separatism is advancing under concealment. It seeks to appear benign but is in reality a weapon of political and cultural conquest in the service of Islamism.

Islamism wants to set itself apart because it rejects others, including those Muslims who do not subscribe to its tenets. Islamism abhors democratic sovereignty, to which it refuses any kind of legitimacy. Islamism feels humiliated when it is not in a position of dominance.

Accepting this is out of the question. We want to live in a world where both sexes can look at each other with neither feeling insulted by the presence of the other. We want to live in a world where women are not deemed to be naturally inferior. We want to live in a world where people can live side by side without fearing each other. We want to live in a world where no religion lays down the law.


(​The signatories are listed below the fold)

Read More
0 Comments

Dealing with teeny tiny blindspots

3/22/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture

Popular views & inconsistencies

The latest 10 minute video from Dr David Wood on the bizarre double standards enforced by some. A humorous insight into our current state of blindness. As you know I tend to avoid using terms like "far Left", but in this case, research shows this to be a fitting appellation.

​
>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) was recently selected by Google and YouTube to police online content and identify hate speech. The problem, of course, is that the SPLC is a radical leftist organization that classifies anyone the group disagrees with as bigots and hate-mongers. In this video, Vocab Malone, Jon McCray, and David Wood discuss the problem.
0 Comments

Please be Honest with God...

3/22/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture

...he appreciates that
​and you really need it

My first chat in our new church.
​Half an hour on the need to honestly tell God what matters to you. To always embrace vulnerability & dependence upon him.
​
And to then always do as he directs.
​Always.

​
​No offering will be taken up at the conclusion of this talk.
Hear Talk Here
0 Comments

the real culture war

3/21/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture
I'm trying really hard not to sound like a Sunday Tabloid lately. Shock! Horror! The repetition of such words just ends up desensitising people. "Oh really? Another shocking interview Graeme?" There is only so much emotional energy available for all this. Pretty soon people start tuning out. Reams of information but no way to act - it becomes very frustrating. And where do I draw the line - to inform or to inflame? When does increasing the light become simply increasing the heat?

So that is my problem. It's your problem too. Sorting the wheat from the chaff and hating corruption & injustice with a passion while stopping ourselves from hating people. Let's use the great processes we already have in Western law - or if they're not so good let's sharpen them - to bring about the freedoms we wish to see. We can all agree on certain basic standards of blind justice for people and upon the need for one law for everyone. Or we can until we think "our side" might lose the fight, then it's quite tempting to convince ourselves that the rules can be bent just this once for the greater good. Just as so many did in all the cases surrounding the British Muslim rape gangs.

The following 42 minute interview will give an insight into what lies down such a road of expediency. I've no doubt featured Stephen Lennon before saying similar things in various other clips, but here he is corralled into bringing it all out at the same time, with some new information. Frankly, I would be amazed if anyone could watch this and not be deeply concerned. The British government and Police force - in "the mother of all Parliaments"* - persecuting a citizen so that he stops criticising them. All the while the damage done by Sharia informed Muslims who have no wish to integrate into our societies seems to be relatively unchecked. 

Yes, this is the real culture war and we all have a stake in being engaged in it no matter how wearying it may sometimes become. The interview below is the one which the British government feared so much they stopped this young American lady from entering Britain. She conducts it instead in Vienna.

* "While only a single quote in a single speech in a long campaign [from 1865], it has gained a misplaced importance suggesting that Westminster is the grand founder of Parliaments, rather than being an (at the time) deeply corrupt body that owed its existence to the people of England. ... The idea that England is the Mother of Parliaments is actually quite a nice one, as it is a reminder that it is the people of England who created the Parliament as we know it today, and that its authority stems from the people."
0 Comments

Muslim rape gangs...

3/20/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture
Picture

...going deeper

You know, like many others of my age I've seen a fair bit of corruption by now. But this subject keeps plumbing the depths. The more I find out about this subject the more shocked I become. The more I hear, the more awful everyone involved appears. Compromised, corrupted, depraved. It is totally & unspeakably shameful.

The one man who has the best understanding of the depth and history of the rape gangs is Peter McLoughlin, yet the main media outlets seem determined to bury anything to do with him. Indeed, despite the huge significance of the gangs, Mr McLoughlin seems to be the only person who has tabulated the history & scale of Muslim rape gangs. He wrote “Easy Meat” and “Muhammed’s Koran” and is here interviewed by “Brian of London”. His website is here (I'll give you an interesting introductory page to start with).

This is an insightful 64 minute interview which should not be missed. 

Many points are covered, including:~
  • Mr McLoughlin's ongoing Twitter ban;
  • Lord Pearson’s recent question in the House of Lords is discussed. Astonishingly, the question includes “what steps are being taken to prosecute Police & local authorities” for their complicity - it seems there are 33 Cops under serious investigation! Afterwards Lord Pearson held a Press conference on his question, to which no members of the Press came except “Tommy Robinson”. There was a complaint that bringing in “Tommy Robinson” exposes the house to threats of violence;
  • Mr McLoughlin describes his journey from accepting the established media story about the Muslim rape gangs being merely a racist attempt to slander a whole people group, to the point where he researched the matter himself and ended up producing a book. Though there are many nationalities involved in perpetrating these crimes the offenders are overwhelmingly Muslims;
  • He alleges that the media historically used a deliberate tactic of isolating each Muslim rape gang case to prevent the public seeing the pattern. This is backed up by the current reporting on such cases;
  • He places the large media outlets in with “the establishment” as a whole. Mr McLoughlin has some strident criticisms of the BBC, which he calls part of the “Controlled Media”;
  • Amazingly, the earliest case of Muslim rape gangs in Britain dates back to 1975! and the scale of the many cover-ups is huge;
  • As I noted the other day, Lord Pearson asks if we are allowed to criticise a religion or will this be automatically considered hateful? Do note with interest the tremulous response! There is an obvious terror in the government at allowing genuine discussion of the Islamic nature of the rape gangs and the larger matter of free speech & Islam itself. Yes, "terror" is a fair word to use I think;
  • Mr McLoughlin notes that Islam is thoroughly imbued with “hate speech” (see here for instance), but this is ignored, indeed protected, by the British government;
  • He discusses the history of what happened to those who brought up the Muslim grooming gangs and moreover the greater perturbance of a culture of ignoring the subject as it was seen to be radioactive in racial terms;
  • How the British Sikh population were among the first to comprehend and respond to this issue with their girls as they had already a long experience with such in the Indian subcontinent before moving to Britain. Very interesting discussion;
  • How the “Antifascists” and the Chief Constable for the West Yorkshire Police worked together to stop a documentary airing on the gangs before a General election as it may sway the result (is the moderation of political opinion now the job of the Police?) At the same time, between 1997-2006, the Labour Party was committed to passing a law criminalisng anyone who offended Muslims. People could be prosecuted for hate speech even if it was unintentional. This was only narrowly stopped by the House of Lords after being passed in the Commons;
  • The significance of the number “ten thousand” when used by Muslims;
  • Andrew Norfolk is discussed – Mr Norfolk admits that even he did not act on a lot of information he had. He admitted that it was only the rise of the EDL who pushed him to get started on all this;
  • Comparison is made with the Dutch experience and how they dealt with it;
  • The duplicity of the Serious Organised Crime Agency of the British Police in not warning school children as their Dutch contemporaries did. It is alleged that Police spent more time & energy prosecuting “Tommy Robinson” than the entire Muslim rape gang issue;
  • Mr McLouchlin outlines the pathetic coverage of the Mainstream media of his “Easy meat” book and the treatment of the BBC of the rape gang issue. This is fascinating: people who Peter had given his book to told him that they did not believe the book until they saw a BBC TV dramatization of it! This is absolutely astonishing to me. It is like the film Wag the dog: “I saw it on TV. It must be true” – until then most people simply will not accept veracious accounts. Even today that BBC documentary, though shown once, has been buried by them. Why?;
  • Mr McLoughlin expresses the belief that perhaps the greatest fear in all this horror is not merely that members of the public will take vigilante action but that juries will refuse to convict the vigilantes as they have won wide public sympathy. This would represent a widespread breakdown of confidence in the system. It seems to me that such a day is coming.;
  • The matter of murder and intention behind the murder is discussed. Should motive affect sentencing? To wit: if I murder a man yet did not do so because he belonged to a minority, but for some other reason, should I receive a lighter sentence than someone who murders on that basis? Does motive really matter that much?
 
FYI :~ Darren Osborne is the man guilty of running down some Muslims outside a Islamic centre last year. Baroness Warsi, who criticised the meeting between Lord Pearson & "Tommy Robinson" is a Muslim member of the House of Lords.

And down the Rabbit hole we go...
0 Comments

Fear mongering for fun & profit

3/20/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture

Ok Hermann,
but what if there really is a threat
​and the pacifists are wrong this time?

Watch out! The Muslims are coming! The Muslims are coming!

Critics of the kind of thing I'm trying to do here often come out with such criticism of our work. "Why are you people afraid of Muslims?" They ask this as if we have some sort of neurosis. "Why are you needlessly stirring up dissent and friction over a perfectly harmless group of people - is it simply because you are white & a lot of them are not?"

Sometimes it doesn't even help if you suggest to people that they respect your arguments enough to actually read them. There, they will find no mention of race, or class, or anything else - only of Sharia law, the Muslim prophet Muhammad, his authoritative legacy and the historically accepted doctrines of Islam, including Jihad. However this just does not matter half the time. Such critics can still only think that we must be criticising a religion if we first hate those people and are looking for an excuse. Suggesting that there seem to be plenty of Atheists criticising Christianity without managing to despise or demonise the people who follow Christ does no good either. We ask why can't people do the same with any other religion? But no, with any other religion that would be racist.

So to those people I say: well, I say nothing. You're not listening. I'll catch you in a few years when things have gotten quite a lot worse and you might finally be ready to listen to reason. Though there does seem to be a never-ending list of excuses we are ready to forward for Islamic misbehaviour and a never-ending willingness to blame ourselves for it instead. So with that in mind, I won't hold my breath.


My fellow "fear monger" Robert Spencer has produced the excellent 5 minute video below on the increasing persecution of Christians in the Middle East and elsewhere in the Muslim majority world. He also links this to the increasing threats Christians in particular are now facing in Europe as the devoted followers of the prophet move Westwards. He provides a potted history of the breakdown and then reassertion of Sharia hegemony in the Middle East.

The West needs to be strong & confident to counter all this. Increasingly we are seeing that it is not. Oppose the ingress of Islamic norms and those who push them now or Islam in all its medieval barbarity - and all its offence at our use of Western free speech to criticise it - will dominate our social & legal discourse in years to come. We will completely lose our current identity. As in Britain, authorities will increasingly obfuscate and shield the guilty parties for the sake of "community cohesion".

Is Europe developing in the direction all of us hope? Seriously - would you really want to be a woman, or a homosexual, a Jew or a Christian where Sharia holds sway - in Malmo, Molenbeek, Tower Hamlets or parts of Bradford? Then let's do something while we still can.

Or maybe I'm just using fear to control and divide? Yeah. That's it. That must be it. Because if it's not we all really have to admit that we are heading towards a lot of trouble. And then we'll have to do something.
View Video Here
Picture
0 Comments

Talking to both sides...

3/17/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture

... if they are capable of listening, that is.

Threats to freedom of thought are only increasing. We live in a time where criticising Sharia law is seen to be racist. How did we arrive at this silliness?

Lindsay Shepherd is the young Canadian lady who was embroiled in controversy recently when she presented a 5 minute video clip of Jordan Peterson's to an undergraduate class. If you aren't aware of this controversy, the secret recording she made of her interrogation before her superiors is here. The first few minutes will give you the gist. In doing so she was deemed to be guilty of "gender violence" & her budding career was threatened with termination. Yes, exposing students to differing ideas is now equated with violence. 

I found this interview very useful, as someone over 50 I seem to have a very different view of the necessity of freedom of expression - and how that is defined - than do people under 50. Especially those currently going through University. Things are now very, very different. Post-modernist deconstructionism leads to a land where nothing means anything and feelings rule. 

Debate itself is seen to be oppressive. Rationality is seen to be a societal construct which must be challenged. It seems amazing to me that anyone can say this with a straight face. It is inevitable I think that we should increasingly expect our young people to also be taught this mumbo-jumbo in our Universities in NZ. Inevitably of course this line of (non)thinking will prove to be self-defeating, but one wonders what damage will be done in the years it takes for proponents to realise how idiotic this all is.

I really like this young lady as she comes from an SJW background and still holds to many of the fundamentals of the Social Justice Warrior, yet she really took a costly and principled stand on the matter of free speech. She thought it was a good idea for students to be exposed to differing ideas and was prepared to fight for that principle. (She also reminds me a lot of one of my niece's - very smart, thoughtful & precise).

Facts, truth and contrary opinions are now "problematic" and need to be silenced. This is an issue for all of us.
0 Comments

Lord Pearson in Parliament: "Can we talk about Islam?"

3/16/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture

Not a chance.
Fear & confusion reign.

You will love this man.
A Peer who actually understands Islam and has the courage to raise the issues in Parliament. How wonderful!

He mentions taqiyya, abrogation and the well known examples of Muhammad's political struggles, warfare and atrocities. Simple textbook history of Islam resolutely denied by the huge majority of influential people and organs today. He discusses the contrasting demographics and the problems of parallel societies developing. 

All this and much more from a man who not only understands the problems but has first-hand experience in trying to move the Powers to act. He discusses his attempt to draw leading Imams together to pronounce a fatwa against Muslims who engage in rape gangs. They were all too frightened to even come to the meeting. He discusses how the government and - despite some excellent statements by the Archbishop of Canterbury - the Bishops of the Church of England (my Church) are too terrified to deal with the realities of Islam - they are afraid of what they will discover and know that this will mean having to confront it. 

As I have stated here before about many other informed observers, Lord Pearson sees a future of riots and civil unrest in Britain if things keep going as they are. Dark days. A man with an educated accent who perhaps will get a hearing where a working class man like his interviewer will not. Let's hope so.

Click here too for a gripping 12 minute video from the European Parliament on the prohibition of Lauren Southern, the Canadian journalist who is mentioned in the video below. Authorities stopped her from entering the UK under provisions of the Terrorism Act. Ms Southern explains her experiences suffering persecution from the British State. Appalling. We are adrift.

An absolutely fascinating 25 minute interview from an informed insider. You have got to watch this.
0 Comments

Witless functionaries

3/12/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture

There'll always be an England.
​Yeah. Right.

When I visited China a few years ago, just after the Tiananmen Square massacre, I had a brief chat with a couple of English speaking locals in Shanghai. They remarked that it was only the old men who wanted to deny democracy to the people. So I asked "What will happen after this generation of "old men" die off?"

One of my new friends answered: "They keep a supply of old men."

And so the machinery grinds on. We see this in the seemingly ever increasing amount of "witless functionaries" placed in high positions of responsibility who seem completely unable to make simple decisions regarding right & wrong and who seem amazed when they are challenged on their inactivity. They do though possess an unerring ability to silence those who might disturb the tranquility of the Millpond by asking impertinent questions.

The figure of the bureaucrat has presented a target rich environment for comedians lo these many years - especially in Britain. Government functionaries who, like the Vogons of The Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy, just don't seem able to grasp the responsibilities with which they have been entrusted. But they are exceptionally good at preventing anyone who does have a clue from accomplishing anything. They become the petty tyrants of comedic history. 

Below is a double-header of videos displaying this madness. Female Genital Mutilation (mutilation, oh what an evil word) and Honour Killings are being downplayed, it seems, for the sake of what should be seen to be the most of Orwellian of terms, "community cohesion".

​It might be funny if it didn't involve human lives and the very future of Western Civilisation.
It might be, but it isn't.

The first is a 7 minute video on the reign of the Vogons in Britain.


​The second is a 5 minute clip from the esteemed Robert Spencer.
With friends like these presenting us with an unending ream of red tape, obfuscation and own goals, really, who needs enemies?
Picture
0 Comments

Should obnoxious people be silenced?

3/8/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture

looks like they both consider the other obnoxious.
doesn't it?

What is the standard for permitted speech? If it is calling for violence then, no, it is not permitted by the laws of Western countries. But what if the person speaking is simply inartfully presenting an idea or responding to a crisis in a manner which upsets the sensibilities of others? What if they merely happened to choose their words clumsily? What if that's simply the best they can do?

On the other hand what if  they chose them very carefully, yet the words were considered by the Powers that Be to be uncharitable, to too baldly state facts that should be stated in the most polite terms and in the most roundabout way? Does how I say something matter more than what I say?

​Well here are a couple of examples for your consideration. 

Case #1
Britain First.


​Two leaders of Britain First have just been sentenced for "anti-Muslim hates crimes". Sounds dreadful doesn't it? Especially when we are regularly told that Britain First is a ​very questionable & racist organisation. We're conditioned to expect such behaviour, "well, what do you expect from that lot?" But let's take a look at what they actually did & said and why they claim they behaved so. Perhaps it might make a bit more sense. This from Jihad Watch with introductory comments by Robert Spencer:~

>>>>>>>>>>>
Britain First leaders jailed over “anti-Muslim hate crimes”
Britain First, at least as is reported in this article, doesn’t seem to be doing or saying anything “white supremacist” other than they want Britain to be a free society that is not ruled by Sharia, which is not really a white supremacist sentiment at all. Since most Muslims in Britain today are non-white, and the British government and media tend to frame the issue of jihad terror and Islamization in exclusively racial terms, that’s “white supremacism” and “racism.”

Judge Justin Barron “said Golding and Fransen’s words and actions ‘demonstrated hostility’ towards Muslims and the Muslim faith.”

What they were really doing was calling attention to Muslim rape gangs, which have operated freely in Britain for years because police and other authorities were too afraid of being called “racist” to do anything about them. But that’s “hostility” to Islam and Muslims, and so Fransen and Golding must be imprisoned.

Barron said: “I have no doubt it was their joint intention to use the facts of the [Canterbury] case for their own political ends. It was a campaign to draw attention to the race, religion and immigrant background of the defendants.”

Yes, because these facts are being covered up on a systematic basis by British authorities. But defending Britain is not allowed in Britain today. It makes one a “far-right extremist,” on par with jihad mass murderers. And so Fransen and Golding go to prison. Britain is saved from their threat, and can continue unobstructed on its path to national suicide.

“Britain First has been noted for its extreme white supremacist and anti-Muslim stances in the past, and Fransen gained particular notoriety when racially charged videos she published on Twitter were retweeted by Donald Trump.”

They weren’t “racially charged.” They were videos of Muslims behaving violently, that were presented in a positive manner by other Muslims before Britain First ever got hold of them. Only one had a racial component: the one that was supposedly “later found to be fake.” It showed a young Muslim abusing a disabled non-Muslim boy. It was not fake. It was labeled that the perpetrator was a Muslim migrant when he was actually the son of Muslim migrants. But the Guardian won’t tell you that.


“Britain First leaders jailed over anti-Muslim hate crimes,”
by Kevin Rawlinson, Guardian, March 7, 2018:

The leaders of the far-right group Britain First have been jailed for a series of hate crimes against Muslims.

The group’s leader, Paul Golding, was sentenced to 18 weeks in prison, while deputy, Jayda Fransen, was sentenced to 36 weeks on Wednesday. They had each been found guilty of religiously aggravated harassment at Folkestone magistrate’s court earlier the same day.

“These defendants were not merely exercising their right to free speech but were instead aiming religiously aggravated abuse at innocent members of the public,” the prosecutor told the court.

They were both arrested in May last year as part of an investigation into the distribution of leaflets and online videos posted during a trial at Canterbury crown court in the same month.

Three Muslim men and a teenager were convicted of rape and jailed as a result of those proceedings.

On Wednesday, the judge Justin Barron said Golding and Fransen’s words and actions “demonstrated hostility” towards Muslims and the Muslim faith.

“I have no doubt it was their joint intention to use the facts of the [Canterbury] case for their own political ends. It was a campaign to draw attention to the race, religion and immigrant background of the defendants.”

Both were convicted over an incident at a takeaway in Ramsgate, in Kent, during which Fransen banged on the windows and doors and screamed “paedophile” and “foreigner”. Two children were playing in the middle of the shop and Jamshed Khesrow, a friend of the owners, was inside.

The judge dismissed a second charge against the pair over an incident alleged to have taken place outside Canterbury crown court later that day….

Britain First has been noted for its extreme white supremacist and anti-Muslim stances in the past, and Fransen gained particular notoriety when racially charged videos she published on Twitter were retweeted by Donald Trump.

At least one was later found to be fake and the incident caused a rift between Trump and Theresa May.
<<<<<<<<<<<<

The thing that I find disturbing about all this is the imputation of unacceptable attitudes & thoughts rather than simply focusing on any illegal actions.

Case #2
Stephen Lennon
 

Stephen Lennon (aka "Tommy Robinson") has a good history of being obnoxious.

​He's put out a video in which he explains that these two people had gone to Margate near Canterbury in Kent (sounds a very picturesque spot) to warn locals that men working at a local Takeaway were among 5 men being charged with gang raping a drunk 16 year old girl who had wandered into the shop one night asking for directions. Later 4 of these men were convicted, the fifth man, an immigrant, fled - maybe while out on bail. The two Britain First people disagreed with the Judge who had granted them bail and thought the safety of the locals was more important than the liberty of the rapists - albeit only alleged rapists at that time. 

So, if we believe them, that seems at the very least to be a pretty altruistic motive doesn't it?

Here's a link to "Tommy Robinson's" video (again, I'm afraid he employs some foul language. I'm really sorry about this, it really grates & detracts from the message but it seems to be very hard to avoid it these days). In it he tells of how he went to the court to interview & expose the rapists - which resulted in his being detained and nearly imprisoned. Try to tune out the bad language & emotions and listen to his story, it's alarming.

Sure, all this is not assisted by the attitudes, manner and language of those objecting to giving these men bail - and that is not a small matter - but if you hear their side of the story it does give things a different complexion. 

You may still disagree with their actions and agree with the sentence they received - I'm not going to argue about that. There just seems to me to be too much of a political agenda at work here. Were they imprisoned for what they did or more for who they are?


Case #3
Katie Hopkins


Ah now here's another name that polarises people. The nastiest woman in Britain according to many (the actual label is rather less flattering - she mentions it in the video). You will see a little of why she is so perceived as she speaks. But again, try to get past any obnoxious aspects and make yourself listen to what she is saying. Here's a summary of her first hand experiences:~
  • There is ​Mafia control of the migrants coming across the Med via Libya, coordinating with NGOs and larger ships;
  • These migrants (almost exclusively young men) are being paid a daily amount by the Italian government just for coming in;
  • “The Jungle” camp in Calais – is full of self-segregation, discrimination, violence and crime;
  • Migrants are unwilling to leave their old ways and become Westernised;
  • She explains Swedish ‘no-go” zones and the very real danger for whites or women – this is really troubling information;
  • The experiences of the emergency services, particularly the Fire Brigade, working in Malmo, Sweden;
  • She has been interviewed by some very serious Police authorities for comments she wrote in a column - how is it, the rest of us wonder, that authorities seem to have the time & manpower to deal with such things but cannot follow up on child sex abuse conducted by Muslim gangs?;
  • She survived a Muslim couple’s plan to behead her;
  • She concludes with stating that during her visit to Sweden she was informed that in the future walls will not be built to keep people out but “to keep people we love inside”. Houses will become as they now are in Johannesburg for Whites. This applies she says not only to Sweden, but to all of Western Europe.

Below is the link to that fascinating 12 minute clip where she is talking to an audience of American conservatives.
View Video Here
Well what do you think?

Should we allow these people to express an opinion seeing as they sometimes jarringly clash with our sensibilities? Can we fairly evaluate information regardless of the imperfect creatures through whom it so often comes (I include myself in this)?

Or does our desire to be nice and to hear only nice things that are nicely expressed exempt us from giving these people any time at all?

Even when reality is anything but nice.
0 Comments

Muslims in Hollywood

3/6/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture

Do the poor dears really get such a hard time?

Picture
There's an old English proverb which goes something like: Let me know the songs, not the laws, of a people to decide their morality. Forgive my poor memory, but the gist of the saying is that popular culture more accurately displays the beliefs and actions (and I might add, life expectancy) of a culture than the often theoretical & abstract laws of a people. Popular culture changes first - laws follow.

Come on, think back: when is the last time you saw a Muslim presented in anything but the most sympathetic light in a film (although Clint Eastwood's new film on the French jihad train attack 15:17 to Paris might go against that trend as it seems to portray the muj as a pitiless murderer without excusing him with references to his unhappy experiences in Kindergarten, the day he fell off his bicycle and nobody helped or the girl who rejected him in High School)?  It was quite a few years ago I bet.

Of course Hollywood and its creative, sensitive people understandably don't want to needlessly smear Islams or Muslims in general with the actions of a few - and good on them for that sentiment. But when genuine aspects of Sharia law and Jihad are deliberately obfuscated . . . well, that's something else again. That's propaganda. And as many people these days don't seem to be able to delineate between fact & fiction, that's dangerous & ultimately civilisation-threatening propaganda.

Lately Hollywood has been getting huge criticism for its historic treatment of women & children who for years have been abused and "nobody knew anything". When even the accused paedophile Roman Polanski, who couldn't set foot on American soil without being arrested, was given an Oscar by Hollywood's creative, sensitive people surely this indicated at the very least a peculiar selective morality - or more likely was indicative of a comprehensive corruption.

The Centre for Security Policy has provided a study on the influence of Muslim Brotherhood associated groups on the entertainment industry. It's quite an eye-opener. The Study claims there are financial rewards for showing Muslims & Islam in a positive light. Not, it seems, that many would need such inducements. Deborah Weiss has produced the following article and video on the study. Do watch the 6 minute video, it has more information than the article.

As is usual these days "Left" and "Right" terminology is used in the article. This kind of language is common in American culture and represents an increasing cultural divide which is itself something I think we need to be wary of. Although I understand the motivation, the use of these terms nearly always makes me uncomfortable as I think among ordinary people these represent merely two sides of the same coin and will tend to divide rather than promote discussion.  Has someone got a better idea or explanation than me on a particular issue? Let's hear all the opinions and evaluate them on their merits. Labeling someone as coming from the 50% of the population that I don't think know how to reason will not predispose me to hearing them out.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Exposed: The Civilization Jihad Against America’s Popular Culture
New Monograph from Center for Security Policy Reveals Efforts to Manipulate Hollywood Films, and Therefore Popular Culture, to Undermine and Ultimately Dominate America
BUY NOW: Paperback / Kindle


Washington, D.C.: The #MeToo movement has revealed the hypocrisy of prominent individuals in Hollywood who claim to support women’s rights, while at the same time serially violating them. Yet, an even more sinister hypocrisy in Hollywood still lies beneath the surface – under-reported, often unnoticed and sometimes blatantly denied. That is the alliance of Hollywood Lefists with Islamist organizations that present themselves as champions of multiculturalism and inclusion, but in reality oppose everything that the Left claims to hold dear.

This as-yet-unchallenged hypocrisy has, however, just been brilliantly exposed in a new monograph by Center for Security Policy Senior Fellow Deborah Weiss, Esq., an expert on the censorship and other influence operations of Sharia-supremacist organizations, here and abroad. Islamist Influence in Hollywood reveals such groups’ concerted efforts to manipulate Hollywood movies and independent films, and therefore the popular culture, in the service of their agenda of undermining America, and ultimately dominating it.

Of particular concern is the success such operations have had in whitewashing Islamic terrorism and the totalitarian political, military and legal doctrine that animates it: Sharia. To the extent they have effectively targeted the film-making industry in order to shape popular perceptions and control the public narrative on critical issues of the day, these initiatives are insidious and even subversive.

Though purely pietistic aspects of Sharia can be practiced within constitutional bounds, in its entirety, Sharia is antithetical to the U.S. Constitution and the liberties it guarantees. It treats women as second- class citizens, discriminates against non-Muslims, severely punishes homosexuality, and precludes both freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Those who whitewash such facts want to keep the American people from understanding their true mission of undermining liberty and human rights as practiced in this country.

As Ms. Weiss documents, Sharia-supremacists are insinuating themselves into script-writing, Hollywood “consulting,” film production, and even financial scholarships designed to facilitate young Muslims’ penetration of the entertainment industry. The public will be surprised to learn of the extent of Islamist influence in Hollywood, both in movies held out as simply entertainment as well as in so-called “documentaries.”

Islamic supremacist organizations, however, cannot succeed on their own. Ms. Weiss’s monograph documents Hollywood’s complicity and collaboration with Islamist organizations, in some cases capitulating to their demands out of fear, and in other cases championing their cause in the name of political correctness.

The election of President Trump has only exacerbated the situation. With the far-Left’s hatred of all things Trump, whatever objectivity the entertainment industry had has largely been lost. Emotions are running high and wittingly or not, many producers, script-writers, and actors are aligning with Islamic supremacists, simply for the sake of delegitimizing the President.

For example, Hollywood, as well as many in the mainstream media and political elite, overwhelmingly and falsely characterized Trump’s Executive Order imposing a temporary immigration pause as a “Muslim ban.” In fact, the order omitted the vast majority of predominantly Muslim countries and was premised on a list of “countries of concern” designated by President Obama as having a high risk of importing terrorism. The Executive Order, eventually determined to be constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, sought only to afford the new Administration a chance to develop an effective approach for screening out terrorists. Yet, many in Hollywood aligned with the Islamists among them in mischaracterizing this eminently sensible, modest and short-duration national security measure as religious discrimination motivated by anti-Muslim animus.

Michael Moore perfectly captured the extent of this alignment when he posted a photo of himself holding a sign saying “We are all Muslim.” Ironically, if the Sharia-supremacists such Hollywood celebrities enable are able to get their way, we all may wind up having to be Muslims or dhimmis the Islamists compel to submit and pay a degrading tax known as the jizya.

Upon the release of Islamist Influence in Hollywood, Frank Gaffney Jr. President of the Center for Security Policy observed:

             Deborah Weiss’ well-researched and meticulously documented monograph reminds us of the importance of Hollywood and the film industry as an agent for social change. She reveals how Islamist organizations who believe neither in free speech nor equality for all use that core American freedom to censor information about Sharia and its supremacist agenda. The role of Hollywood’s influence in determining how society and its institutions – notably, academia, law enforcement and the faith community – perceive Sharia’s threat should not be overlooked or underestimated.

Ms. Weiss’ in-depth research connects the dots between Islamist organizations that would do us harm and the script-writers, producers and actors in Hollywood who have made them bedfellows. The Center for Security Policy is proud to present Deborah Weiss’ new monograph as an excellent addition to its Civilization Jihad Reader Series.

Islamist Influence in Hollywood is available for purchase in Kindle and paperback.

​ It can also be viewed and downloaded for free in PDF format below:
0 Comments

the News can make a difference...

3/5/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture

...When it really is news

Two videos with two voices that I am pleased to pass on to you. 

I'm sure I'm not alone in noticing that much of what passes for news presented by large media outlets these days seems to be little more than gossip, conjecture and "click bait" (I have posted a humorous "Clarke & Dawe" clip on this issue in the past if you haven't seen it).

The first clip is of "far Left" American satirist Bill Maher. In this clip he gloriously eviscerates the prevailing childishness of so-called "responsible" media outlets. It is a pleasure to link to this broadside (although I hasten to warn you about the extreme bad language - be careful - I narrowly decided the clip was still worth recommending but please be warned).

While Mr Maher is an atheist & at the opposite cultural pole from me on most moral issues he generally displays a commendable integrity & consistency which I respect. He has also been one of the few willing to stick his neck out by publicly criticising Islam and highlighting the toxic teachings of Sharia law. He does this while assiduously avoiding tarring all Muslims with the Islamist brush, presenting an apparently too highly nuanced argument even beyond the scope of Batman to understand - even with the help of Sam Harris (that video is here and is well worth watching).

Below, is Mr Maher's attack on much of today's news media's asinine coverage of matters it considers necessary for the public to know. Four and a half minutes. I think it's important because this criticism comes from someone few of us might have expected to speak out - indeed many of us in New Zealand may not have even heard of him before now. I think it's useful to be exposed to how many influential people in entertainment and media talk & think these days. Do mind the language though.
From the other end of the scale I present this 18 minute video of a talk by Andrew Norfolk in 2015. At the time Mr Norfolk was Chief Investigative Reporter for The Times in Britain. He led the media charge into the issue of Muslim rape gangs in England starting back in 2010. This was an extremely unpopular issue at the time and remains so today, with lies, coverups and abuse being undealt with and - unbelievably - still occurring.

Utter corruption.

I've posted on the Muslim British grooming gangs numerous times in the past, for example here, here and here (and also referred to a source indicating similar gangs in the Netherlands here). Those posts make for harrowing reading.

The clip below is of a talk given by Mr Norfolk in 2015. It is obviously a difficult talk for him to give & would have been even more difficult had he been able to see the lack of action in the years to come. But this is such a commendable talk. The work he did at the direction of an employer who tasked him to work solely on the Muslim rape gang issue until the public and the authorities had no choice but to do something is the kind of thing that I imagine drives many young people to enter journalism in the first place. It really did make a huge difference.

​What is really fascinating to me, and I'm sure it will be to you, is how seemingly normal, caring & responsible people deliberately turned away from obvious crime & abuse and failed to not only protect the weak, but consign them to yet more unimaginable suffering. This is a poignant window on our shared human weakness. Think you'd never do this? Well those people also thought there were acceptable reasons to "deprive the innocent of justice" at one time. I have seen examples of this kind of thing far too often corrupting good people to exempt myself from being wary of a similar temptation.

Mr Norfolk's experience of corruption & his observations of suffering are enthralling. He struggles with real difficulties: how he might appear to critics; how for years authorities isolated each case, refusing to see the common thread; how to fight against not only corrupt institutions but the corruption and weakness he saw in individuals around him and, we can sense, in himself. I really commend this clip to you.

Do note that, although for some reason Tommy Robinson's name appears in the title of this clip, he is not mentioned in it.
0 Comments

Murderous western converts to Islam

3/3/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture

Why don't Converts to christianity do this?
Oh never mind...

Robert Spencer. Five minutes.

>>>>>>>>
​Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer discusses five recent cases of converts to Islam who turned to jihad terror.
0 Comments
<<Previous

    Author

    Hi my name is Graeme Howarth & I have a keen interest in facilitating open discussion about Islam. I have a Masters in Theology, focusing on obstacles to dialogue between Islam & Christianity.  

    Archives

    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly
✕