he may as well be...
It is a real showcase of a clash of perspective between two people unable to agree even on the basis of discussion of the problem. Very educational as this is exactly the problem everywhere in the West.
he may as well be...
I offer you this dramatic 5 minute video clip of two Dutch leaders who have the most troubling cognitive misunderstanding around the problems caused by Muslims in the Netherlands. Geert Wilders, head of the PVV party, will be seen to, in obvious frustration, bring facts, figures, history, theology, evidence, and statements by the perpetrators of terrorism to the table. Dutch PM Rutte brings offended feelings and moral outrage. Neither of which have made anybody safer anywhere in the Netherlands for the last 20 years.
It is a real showcase of a clash of perspective between two people unable to agree even on the basis of discussion of the problem. Very educational as this is exactly the problem everywhere in the West.
UPDATE: There is a new undercover video here. The second half in particular I found most disturbing.
Might be worth keeping an eye on their future videos.
Yesterday an undercover camera & microphone picked up this illuminating conversation between a Producer of long standing at CNN and a man trying to discover some truth about that outlet's coverage of President Trump.
The video shows the Producer acknowledging:
In essence, the video basically confirmed some peoples' worst expectations (and Mr Trump's whole 'Fake News' narrative) about CNN and other big media outlets. Once again I find myself defending Mr Trump, a man I would like to be able to examine & criticise on his merits but a man I find I have to defend in the face of yet more disinformation.
For those in tune with the heart of this website - looking for reality based inquiry & dialogue - it was a slap in the face. How can anybody form a proper opinion when they are not provided with the truth? Yet the coverage of this rather important event was minimal in the US and either heavily slanted or non-existent here. Why?
Watch this 8 minute video (language warning) and then ask yourself why no news outlet here has mentioned it. This has to be a very real blind spot, to put it charitably. Such people control the information we get, how it is presented and what is omitted.
In the current environment especially, where people need accurate and unbiased information, I have to say that the video itself and even more, the wider media's response to it, is really disturbing. From years of observation I know that the topic of Islam is badly handled by the large media outlets in America and NZ. The obvious question now is: what other subjects are they treating like this? Can anything apart from sports results, be accepted at face value from the news media any more? This, I suppose, is the crux of the whole "Fake News" controversy.
A chap called Elliot Friedman wrote the following piece for the Clarion Project. In the current state where deliberate falsehoods are being propagated against ideological opponents it makes for instructive reading. This is an example where Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz, leading voices from the political Left against Islamism (it's called Sharia chaps, keep up the good work but do call it by the right name), are simply misrepresented to be people they are not.
The lies and the way the lies are couched & spread have major implications and I put the story here to help prepare you for future opposition we will have. Having an honest discussion about Islam and Islamic terror & supremacy is getting increasingly harder.
Islamist Lobby Resort to Desperate Smears to Silence Critics
Given that I write about terrorism and Islamic extremism full time, it is rare that I am “shocked and appalled,” as the politicians say, by any given fresh outrage perpetrated by the enemies of civilization. More often, I am quietly angry but broadly resigned to my own impotence, much like a 65-year-old business executive whose 25 year-old trophy wife has recently been spending suspicious amounts of time with her handsome tennis instructor.
However, the latest assault on atheist philosopher Sam Harris and liberal anti-extremist Maajid Nawaz is jaw-dropping in its calumny.
Harris and Nawaz, who wrote a book together called Islam and the Future of Tolerance, recorded a two-hour podcast (Waking Up, Episode 59) where they spoke about issues having to do with Islamic extremism and Muslim integration in the West.
Someone else took one minute of the show and broadcast it on social media. The one-minute segment is where Harris, to make a point, presents what he believes is the line of thinking of someone who is against Muslim immigration in the West. Harris presented this argument so he could ask Nawaz how he would respond to it.
Yet, the segment was presented on social media as proof of Harris’ “genocidal rhetoric on Muslims” while Nawaz “nods along.”
In the segment, Harris, assuming the voice of an anti-immigrant Western citizen, says how it’s rational to not want any more Muslims in one’s country, given the rampant Islamic terror taking place worldwide. Nawaz says “mmh, mmh” and, at the end, answers with a solitary “yes.”
In actuality, both men have spoken out against such rhetoric repeatedly in the past and, I imagine, will continue to do so in the future. As Harris said in response to this slander doing the rounds, “I’ve said on multiple occasions that I think we have a moral obligation to let in as many Syrian refugees as we can properly vet. I’ve also said that secular, liberal, tolerant Muslims are the most important people on earth — and that if I had control of our immigration policy, I’d move them to the front of the line for citizenship.”
Unfortunately, this type of slander seems just par for the media today. (I hear you, dear reader, saying.“Misrepresenting people’s positions to push one’s pre-existing agenda? Sorry, I thought we were talking about something new and outrageous.”)
Just yesterday I wrote about the Southern Poverty Law Center trying to bully Google into silencing criticisms of Islam by manipulating its search algorithms. So, what could have gotten me so worked up about this case in particular?
So here’s the calumny part, the part that really grinds my gears. Harris introduces this argument in order to be able to deconstruct it, since, as he says, many people are feeling this way, and we need to have answers for their questions. As Hemant Mehta wrote in a supporting piece in Patheos “to set up that question, Harris played devil’s advocate. He put himself in the shoes of people who say these kinds of things and made the anti-immigration case himself for the sole purpose of setting the scene for Nawaz’s response."
Don’t take our word for it; listen to the podcast yourself. The relevant section starts at around 1:10:00.
In other words, the one-minute segment presents Harris as believing almost the opposite of what he actually believes.
“I think there is a credible case for not rushing into the speed of immigration so that society has time to absorb, and so that those people who are new arrivals have time to absorb the values of that country that they’ve come to live in,” Nawaz goes on to say.
That hardly sounds like a ringing endorsement of ethnic cleansing.
Yet, not a bit of this mattered to Reza Aslan when he mendaciously shared this short, out-of-context clip on Twitter, giving it the exposure of his large platform. None of it mattered either to Rula Jebreal, Dean Obeidallah, Max Blumenthal or any of the other people who gleefully joined in by sharing it as well.
Harris, in response, wrote, “I want to point out something that many of our readers will not have thought about, but which all these Muslim apologists well understand: Spreading lies about a person’s ‘racism’ and support for ‘genocide’ is dangerous. We are nowhere near the terrain of good faith debate here. These are utterly irresponsible, malicious people, doing conscious harm to our public conversation — and doing whatever they can to destroy the reputations (and more) of those of us who, at considerable personal risk, attempt to have rational conversations about some of the most important issues of our time.”
These lies need to stop. The people who circulate them are not fighting on the side of truth and beauty against the rising fascist tide, as they would have us believe. They are apologists for the most regressive ideology on the planet: Islamist extremism.
They do not have the moral high ground. Don’t let them pretend to.
Snopes is a "fact check" website that sets itself up as the place to go if something in the media sounds a little fishy. It's OK, Snopes will tell you the truth of the matter based on thorough research.
That is no longer the case.
I mentioned this Billboard a few days ago here. Now Snopes has come out with something that is anything but an authoritative refutation of the billboard. The fact that they went to several Islamic scholars in America who all seemed unable to understand the simple scriptures and history of their own faith should raise a few flags. Why are these people attempting to deny or fudge narratives from their Faith's own core texts? How is it that they are in the academic positions they handle truth like this? Could Snopes find absolutely no Islamic scholars who were aware of the fundamental truths of the billboard's claims - or didn't they even look?
No wonder the ordinary person is confused by the topic of Islam. Perfectly straightforward and historical beliefs are dismissed by "scholars" as fiction. We can read the accounts ourselves in the Hadith - including those which are Sahih, the authoritative, provably authentic Hadith - and the Sira. They're in there. They're nowhere near as contested as these people are making out. They just suddenly become unreliable if they become an embarrassment.
Once again, Muslim scholars and leaders are simply prevaricating whenever anything at all comes to light which paints Muhammad or Islam in a poor light.
Robert Spencer examines the Snopes piece on the billboard and sets the record straight for each of the six claims.
Snopes carries water for Muhammad
"Mostly false" Indiana billboard is 100% true
The self-proclaimed fact-checker Snopes.com has been harshly criticized for its Leftist bias, and as is so often the case, a tilt to the Left also means a willingness to foster ignorance and complacency about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat. After a billboard went up in Indiana pointing out six unsavory aspects of the life of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, Snopes labeled the billboard’s charges “Mostly False” – but that label applies far more accurately to the Snopes report than to the billboard.
Snopes’ falsehoods begin with its initial assertion that the billboard’s title, “the perfect man,” “is poor translation from an Arabic phrase in the Koran, which describes the Prophet as an excellent example.” In reality, the appellation “perfect man” is not a poor translation of a Qur’anic phrase; it is not a Qur’anic phrase at all. The Qur’anic phrase “excellent example” (33:21) is uswa hasana, while “perfect man” is al-insan al-kamil, a title ascribed to Muhammad in Islamic tradition.
Snopes goes on to state that “none of the items listed on the billboard appear in the Koran — they are historical events, and the accuracy of details surrounding them remain contested by scholars.” This is true, but irrelevant, since Muhammad’s status as the “excellent example” for Muslims, as well as the “perfect man,” make him a model for emulation for Muslims: if Muhammad did it, it is good, and Muslims should do it.
A scholar that Snopes cites as an authority, Ayesha S. Chaudhry, Associate Professor of Islamic Studies and Gender Studies at the University of British Columbia, “told us that all accounts of the Prophet’s life, which occurred 1,400 years ago in 7th-century Arabia, were written at least 200 years after his death, and their reliability for accuracy is shaky.” This unreliability is something Islamic apologists acknowledge only when confronted with unsavory aspects of Muhammad’s career as recorded in the earliest Muslim sources. Chaudhry doesn’t mention the fact that when Islamic scholars deem a statement or action by Muhammad to be authentic, it is normative for Islamic law, and all the statements on the billboard come from Islamic sources that Muslims deem authentic.
1. Married 6-year-old
Regarding the billboard’s charge that Muhammad married a six-year-old girl, Snopes claims that “the age of the young wife in question, Aisha Bint Abu Bakr, is contested — many believe she was actually in her late teens when she married Muhammad. Accounts contradict each other; while Aisha is quoted by one source saying she was six when she was married and nine when the marriage was consummated, another account describes Muhammad refusing offers from older men to marry his 9-year-old daughter because he thought her to be too young. Muhammad’s first wife, Khadija, on the other hand, was 15 years his senior and he remained married to her exclusively until she died.”
Denise Spellberg, history professor at the University of Texas at Austin, adds: “Most early accounts state Aisha was 6 or 7 at betrothal and 9 or 10 when the marriage was consummated. One later source in Arabic from the 13th century suggests 9 at the age of betrothal, and 12 at consummation. Child betrothal and marriage were not uncommon at this time in Arabia or throughout the pre-modern world. In Roman law, girls had to be 12, for example.”
In reality, few aspects of Islam that contradict Western laws and principles of human rights are more abundantly attested in Islamic law than the permissibility of child marriage. Islamic tradition records that Muhammad’s favorite wife, Aisha, was six when Muhammad wedded her and nine when he consummated the marriage: “The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death)” (Sahih Bukhari 7.62.88).
Another tradition has Aisha herself recount the scene: “The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, ‘Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.’ Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. (Sahih Bukhari 5.58.234). Muhammad was at this time fifty-four years old.
Chaudhry doesn’t explain to Snopes why she rejects the testimony of Sahih Bukhari, the hadith collection that Muslims consider most reliable. Nor does she cite the sources that show that Aisha was older; in reality, they only do so indirectly, by making chronological statements that suggest she was older, without saying so explicitly. These sources are, moreover, much later than Bukhari and are considered much less reliable.
2. Tortured and killed unbelievers
Snopes then moves on to the billboard’s charge that Muhammad tortured and killed nonbelievers: “Chaudhry also told us she doesn’t know of any accounts of nonbelievers being tortured and killed, although Muhammad was engaged in warfare during his lifetime.” It quotes her: “Torturing and killing non-believers — I don’t know what they’re talking about. There were several battles that happen during his life and they’re complicated.”
How odd to find such ignorance in a professor of Islamic Studies! How about these?
“When Muhammad saw Hamzah he said, ‘If Allah gives me victory over the Quraysh at any time, I shall mutilate thirty of their men!’ When the Muslims saw the rage of the Prophet they said, ‘By Allah, if we are victorious over them, we shall mutilate them in a way which no Arab has ever mutilated anybody.” (Al-Tabari, vol. 7, p. 133; cf. Ibn Ishaq 387)
“Anas reported: Eight men of the tribe of ‘Ukl came to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and swore allegiance to him on Islam, but found the climate of that land uncongenial to their health and thus they became sick, and they made complaint of that to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: Why don’t you go to (the fold) of our camels along with our shepherd, and make use of their milk and urine. They said: Yes. They set out and drank their (camels’) milk and urine and regained their health. They killed the shepherd and drove away the camels. This (news) reached Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and he sent them on their track and they were caught and brought to him (the Holy Prophet). He commanded about them, and (thus) their hands and feet were cut off and their eyes were gouged and then they were thrown in the sun, until they died.” (Sahih Muslim 4131)
Muhammad, according to Islamic tradition, didn’t just justify torture. He ordered it: “Kinana b. al-Rabi`, who had the custody of the treasure of B. al-Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came (T. was brought) to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, ‘Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?’ he said Yes. The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr b. al-Awwam, ‘Torture him until you extract what he has,’ so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud.” (Ibn Ishaq 515).
Chaudhry laments: “The rape comment is just hateful. I don’t know what to do with that.” Says Snopes: “There are no known accounts of the Prophet committing rape — to the contrary, the image Muslims derive from the Koran is one of a compassionate person prone to mercy.”
No known accounts? Really? I know of a few.
This is a professionally made documentary on the issue of Halal Certification in Australia. It's 34 minutes long and I know you will definitely not want to miss it.
Some profits from Halal Certification in Australia go to fund Mosques, Islamic schools & even overseas to anti-Western forces. I'm not OK with this, are you? The documentary explains very clearly the place of Sharia law in all this, how Halal food is used to fund its advance and why that should deeply concern us.
Questions arising include:
I wonder if we have similar issues in New Zealand? Well again, if it's happening in Aussie is it impossible to think that it might happen here? If I remember correctly all our Chicken and nearly all our Lamb, due to our trade ties with Iran going back decades, is Halal. How is the Certification handled in NZ and where does any money made from it end up? Is there any corruption involved? Has anyone ever investigated any of this?
Maybe it's time we started asking a few reasonable questions. This is most definitely not a case where it is "none of our business".
Personally too I think of the suffering the animal undergoes when dying. The NZ Deerstalkers Association has been warned by some leading animal rights activists & Vets that the common practise of finishing off a shot animal by cutting its throat may be soon considered animal cruelty. If that's the case then isn't Halal slaughter, where the animal is not permitted to be stunned before death, also an act of animal cruelty?
Don't miss this. Really, it's very important.
Halal Certification - the unpalatable facts
Q Society of Australia Inc and HalalChoices present this new documentary exposing the unregulated mess that is the Halal Certification industry in Australia. The members and volunteers of QSA have been at the forefront of informing Australians about halal certification schemes for many years. In return they have been vilified, threatened, attacked and sued. This documentary goes behind the scenes and shows the activists, the politicians and the consumers, who are impacted by these devious schemes.
I don't believe this. I can't believe this. You won't believe this. Nobody can believe this. But it's happening.
Have a look at the following article and you'll see what I mean. In Sweden (again!) returning ISIS jihadis are being treated as criminals in need of rehabilitation not as men currently engaged in a war to destroy everything we cherish. I've said this before, but please let's take them seriously, let's take them at their word, let's give them a nice clean purpose built POW camp miles from everyone for the duration of the war.
But this! This is so tragic I can't find words. If anything makes me feel like the West has already been lost it's stories like this.
Returning Islamic State Fighters Given ‘Protected Identities’ To Start New Lives in Europe
by Chris Tomlinson.
Hundreds of Swedish residents who went to fight for the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria have now returned to Europe and the Swedish government has given several of them “protected identities” to keep locals from finding out who they are.
The vast majority of the returning jihadist fighters keep a very low profile once they get back to Sweden as many have committed terrorist offences while in the Middle East. 27-year-old Walad Ali Yousef is one returnee that the government has given a special status protecting his identity, normally given to people under serious threat Expressen reports.
Mr Yousef, originally from the heavily migrant-populated city of Malmo, spoke to the newspaper complaining he had difficulty finding a job. “I am looking for many jobs but can not get one because my pictures are out there,” he said.
Yousef joined the Islamic State in 2014, travelling to the ISIS capital of Raqqa in Syria. Formerly a small time criminal, Yousef sent pictures of himself in Syria posing with Kalashnikov rifles to encourage his friends in Sweden to join the terror group.
39-year-old Bherlin Dequilla Gildo, also from Malmo, is now back in Sweden living under an entirely new identity. In 2012 he posted images of himself posing with dead bodies, who he claimed were “Assad’s dogs” and participated directly in killings of Syrian regime soldiers.
It is assumed that the remaining 100 or so Swedes still in the Middle East fighting for the Islamic state are the most radical. Some fear that as Kurdish troops push further into Raqqa, the Swedes will attempt to return home.
Terror expert Magnus Ranstorp said, “the really dangerous ones have not come back yet,” and added, “The vast majority may not do anything, but they are still a danger to the authorities and it must be managed. It is important for the police to be able to prioritise this area so that they do not become dangerous for society.”
While several of those returning are free, many others like Sultan Al-Amin, 31, and Hassan Al-Mandlawi, 33, have been sentenced to life in prison for their crimes committed in the city of Aleppo.
Swedish authorities have been heavily criticised for welcoming Islamic State fighters returning from the Middle East and claiming to be able to integrate them back into Swedish society.
Others have slammed the government for the fact that many fighters have been collecting state money even after they have left to go to the Middle East. One man, a former “Islamophobia expert” was able to collect thousands from the Swedish government while living in Raqqa.
We love Dr David Wood around here. This is his latest 10 minute video on the conclusions he has reached after this Ramadan's jihad attacks. Nearly 1600 lives have been lost to attacks by people who base their hatred on Islamic texts. Surely we can at the very least learn something from all this carnage?
During the 2017 Ramadan Bombathon, jihadis killed nearly 1600 people in the name of Allah. By comparison, all other religions combined didn't launch a single terrorist attack in the name of their respective religions. What can we learn from these results? In this video, David Wood discusses five takeaways from this year's Ramadan Bombathon.
This is another useful video from Robert Spencer. He gave this recent 47 minute talk which encapsulates the whole scope of the West's abysmal attitude to Islamic jihad attacks. He makes an interesting reference to the Finsbury Park Mosque which I know you will find telling. The clip has 32 minutes of his talk then 15 minutes of Q&A which in itself is very illuminating. In the Q&A he mentions: what to do with the Syrian migrant problem; the books most useful for understanding this problem; the problem of religious freedom when it comes to a religion being opposed to freedom as we understand it; how to delineate between criticising race and an ideology or a Faith.
Regarding Saudi Arabia Mr Spencer says that America is compromised in its support of Saudi Arabia due to their need for oil. All the while the Saudis are funding the vast majority (it seems 80-90%) of Mosques in the West and in other places. I fully agree with this, the Wahhabi Finsbury Park Mosque in London for instance, was built by Saudi Prince Fahd and Prince Charles. Look at its appalling history & its current crop of hate preachers.
There is though the additional complication that should the Saudi's attempt to Westernise their internal life - such as to say, stop beheading people - and bring in what we consider normal freedoms, they will face an immense backlash from the enormously strong Wahhabists in that country. Civil war could foreseeably result. Of course this menace also makes it very convenient for the regime to avoid taking any responsibility for reform.
It seems to me that even now America is still opting for the lesser of these two evils, but there has to be some way to navigate through this for the benefit of all. Saudi Arabia is it now stands is a direct threat to all countries - including Muslim majority countries - due to its spread of orthodox, historic Sharia, which is all Wahhabism is.
Fascinating snapshot of what new hate speech laws intended to protect Islam from "unfair" scrutiny may produce. This article is from Christine Douglass-Williams at Jihad Watch. The explanatory video is of 9 minutes duration.
A story is unfolding in Canada about a critic of Islam, “Wild Bill,” Bill Finlay, who was scheduled to speak at a rally in Calgary over the weekend about the impact of Sharia law on women and children, and also about the freedom of speech. He was detained for hours, arrested, and had his iPad confiscated and sent to Ottawa for a “forensic investigation”; he was warned that he could be slapped with a “tariff” of an unknown sum for “smuggling” his own words into Canada. Wild Bill was subsequently blocked from entering into Canada. If events actually unfolded as he explains in his personal, recorded testimony below, then this is a horrifying and highly alarming story that bears enormous implications for free speech and free society in Canada.
Maajid Nawaz appears on Bill Maher's TV show and discusses his decision to sue the Southern Poverty Law Center for declaring him (and Ayaan Hirsi Ali) an anti-Muslim extremist. Now this quite odd as Nawaz, a former member of Hizb ut-Tahrir was for many years a "radical" but is now a practising Muslim who works against "extremism" (you know why I put these terms in speech marks don't you? Because in fact the terms are misnomers - we are simply discussing obedient Muslims who obey the historical teachings of Islam as they have been understood for over a thousand years).
How could such a man be understood by anyone to be guilty of hate speech? This discussion is illuminating as it indicates the fragility of much Western thinking. Bill Maher is openly an individual of the Progressive Left and enjoys having Nawaz on as he is able to say what non-Muslims cannot. At least up until the SPLC got involved. This is a 17 minute video which I know you will enjoy. Language warning.
While I support Nawaz in many of his efforts - and despite his admission here that wife beating is a Qur'anic teaching - he still declines to seriously confront the primary place of Islamic scriptures in producing violence, intolerance & supremacism. So while I commend him for what he does, his general reluctance to merely criticise "Islamism" while not vigorously interrogating the totality of Islamic scripture means that he is still beating around the bush. Islam as it has been classically taught and understood for many hundreds of years is the real problem here not some supposed misinterpretation of it.
It is also ironic that people like Mr Maher and Mr Nawaz still refuse to have anything to do with those perceived to be from the Right who are saying exactly the same things in a measured way. There remains then a level of hypocrisy, a very real ideological blindspot here.
a Saab 35 Draaken empathises with the motherland
Danish psychologist Nicolai Sennels wrote this follow-up piece for Jihad Watch.
Bear in mind the stature of those making the statements in the article. This isn't some sort of xenophobic right-wing fear-mongering, these are sober & responsible people. Don't worry though. As long as we refrain from the using the term "no-go zone" everything will be fine.
Sweden: 150,000 women undergo FGM, authorities admit large areas under Islamic rule
Living under the world’s only “feminist government” is becoming increasingly dangerous, especially for women. Large parts of the country, including its capital Stockholm, are effectively ruled by Sharia-adherent Muslims.
WARNING: This article contains graphic descriptions of FGM (Female Genital Mutilation). Content is not suitable for young children and may not be safe for workplace viewing.
A new report provides disturbing insights regarding changes in the fabric of Swedish society that have followed an unprecedented influx of Muslim refugees and migrants.
The report is partly written by SVT, the Swedish state media, and concludes that at least 150,000 women in Sweden have experienced genital mutilation. This brutal procedure can involve partial or complete removal of the clitoris (i.e., clitoridectomy, clitorectomy or infibulation) plus excision of the labia as well. All too often, this operation is performed in less-than-sterile conditions and, just as frequently, without anesthesia.
Authorities are astonished by the high number of women and young girls who have been subjected to FGM. A report from 2015 concluded that “only” 38,000 women had experienced genital mutilation. This sharp increase most likely results from the determination of Swedish politicians to comply with the UN’s Refugee Convention and EU regulations on refugee quotas.
Sweden has a population of 10 million (five million women and girls).
Swedish tolerance and openness has been up for international debate since American President Donald J. Trump used the country as an example of how refugees and migration from Islamic countries corrodes the rule of law and contributes to the formation of Middle Eastern enclaves, even in strong civil societies like those of Northern Europe.
Big areas of Sweden are now under de facto Islamic rule. Stockholm, Sweden’s capital, is almost completely surrounded by areas (commonly called “no-go zones”) that are veritably ruled by Muslim gangs and Islamic sharia police. “There is lawlessness in parts of the Stockholm region now,” a nervous police chief, Lars Alvarsjø, said. “There are some areas where we seem to lose control.”
Lawless areas in Sweden are growing in size and number every year. From 2015 to 2017, they increased from 15 to 23. According to the Swedish authorities, “religious police have taken the role as law enforcement” in many areas now.
Lars Alversjø says that “the legal system, which is a pillar in every democratic society, is collapsing in Sweden.” Per Magnus Ranstorp, a researcher of terrorism and radicalization at the Swedish National Defense College, elaborates: “In the worst areas extremists have taken over. The whole sense of justice and peace are threatened by the fact that the police is breaking down and it’s only getting worse. Sweden is in a disastrous situation.”
In areas under Islamic rule within Sweden, human rights are rapidly deteriorating, especially for women. Female genital mutilation is just one horrific example of a general change in the Swedish society following the arrival of large numbers of Muslims refugees or migrants.
“In many areas, self-appointed sharia police threaten and harass women to follow Islamic law, Sharia. Threats and harassment can be the consequence if you are not married, if your legs are not covered or if you drink a glass of alcohol on your balcony. Neighbors, strangers, even children and adolescents, threaten women to follow Sharia. If the women do not comply, the sharia police increase their intimidation. A woman tells how a group of men climbed into her apartment by using the drainage pipe and confronted her in her own home because she refused to comply to their demands.”
Headed to civil war?
Yes that does sound sensationalist doesn't it? Please do read the article.
Just remember not to say "no-go zone", that's the key lesson here.
Nicolai Sennels via Jihad Watch once more providing some difficult news if you happen to be a Swede.
Sweden on the Brink of CIVIL WAR, National Police Chief: “HELP US, HELP US!”
A leaked report concludes that the number of lawless areas (commonly referred to as “no-go zones”) in Sweden now totals 61. That is up from 55 in just one year’s time. This increase includes not only the total number, but also the geographical size of these areas.
Sweden’s National Police Commissioner, Dan Eliasson, spoke on national television and pleaded for assistance: “Help us, help us!,” he said, while warning that Swedish police forces no longer can uphold the law and therefore must ask all good powers in the country to support them.
A research expert regarding destabilized countries and 2011 recipient of Sweden’s Order of the Seraphim medal, Johan Patrik Engellau, has been working with organizations such as the UN and others that operate in crisis areas. He warns:
“I’m afraid it is the end for the well-organized, decent and egalitarian Sweden we have known up to now. Personally, I would not be surprised if a form of civil war occurs. In some places, the civil war has probably already begun.”
10News recently reported how the Swedish state has lost large areas to armed, religious groups best described as Islamist militias. Police chief Lars Alversjø says that, “There is lawlessness in parts of Stockholm (Sweden’s capital) now.” He also observed how, “The legal system, which is a pillar in every democratic society, is collapsing in Sweden.” Per Magnus Ranstorp, a researcher into terrorism and radicalization at the Swedish National Defense College, notes: “In the worst areas, extremists have taken over. The whole sense of justice and peace are threatened by the fact that the police is breaking down and it’s only getting worse. Sweden is in a disastrous situation.”
The Swedish Security Service (Säkerhetspolisen – abbreviated as Säpo), recently warned that the country is crawling with “thousands of Islamists” sharing Islamic State’s ideology. In many places, public servants (i.e., non-Islamic authorities) require police escort or protection.
The word that Swedish authorities and media use for the country’s “no-go zones” is utenforskap. The word means something like “excluded area.” In these areas, Swedish law has been replaced with a mixture of the law of the jungle and the Islamic legal code, sharia. Armed Muslim gangs and Islamic radicals are simply carving out big pieces of Sweden for themselves. The only reason why it has not evolved into large-scale armed conflicts — in this formerly peaceful and safe country — probably relates to how Sweden’s feminist-liberal government is not putting up any real resistance against the Islamists.
Even if the Swedish feminist government chose to fight back tomorrow, Sweden has nothing close to the paramilitary capacity needed to reverse this situation. That 80 percent of the country’s law enforcement officers are considering quitting their jobs is a clear sign of a police force that is completely demoralized. The military in this traditionally pacifist country is cut down to almost nothing, and there is no money to fix it.
As Johan Patrik Engellau puts it: “The government does not seem to understand that it has lost control. There is a point where you can no longer stop a situation’s development. I do not know if Sweden has reached this point when it comes to [the consequences of] immigration, but I fear we are drawing close. If we right here and now take and clear and powerful action – including stopping immigration and the political promotion of multiculturalism – we might with some difficulty be able to save Sweden.”
The fact remains that Sweden’s political elite is nowhere near taking such decisive action, as it has not even started to openly speak out about these problems.
Therefore Sweden will very soon need help from abroad. Police chief Dan Eliasson’s prayer for help only included potential partners inside Sweden, but very soon the international community will have to intervene if a humanitarian catastrophe is to be avoided.
Swedish problems just won't go away.
Did you see this on Jihad Watch a few days ago? Swedish Police now state that the number of no-go zones are increasing quite alarmingly. Actually a key part of the strategy the Police employ to combat this growing problem is to call them something other than no-go zones. Socio-economically vulnerable areas with a generally high crime rate is the cool new name - provided no doubt by very expensive consultants.
There, that should make everything better.
5,000 criminals in Sweden's vulnerable areas: police
Sweden’s national police chief has presented a new report about the country’s problem areas, increasing the number of districts classified as vulnerable or especially vulnerable.
The report, which is likely to grab headlines in Sweden and abroad, follows another high-profile report from 2015 which listed 53 so-called vulnerable areas, including 15 considered especially vulnerable.
In the new report, 61 areas are now on the list, of which 23 are considered especially vulnerable, 6 are risk areas (areas that are at high risk of becoming especially vulnerable) and 32 are vulnerable.Some of these were revealed last week, but the full version was presented today.
The term “no-go zone” famously caught on in some international media back in 2015 after it was used by a Swedish newspaper columnist to label these areas, but it has been strongly rejected by police and emergency services themselves.
The police definition describe these districts as socio-economically vulnerable areas with a generally high crime rate. In an especially vulnerable area there are also often parallel societal structures, religious extremism and police regularly have to adapt their methods to the volatile situation. Residents also often do not report crimes, either out of fear of retaliation or because they think it will not lead to anything….
"O foolish people, why are you asleep?"
Today in London Mohan Singh, a British Sikh leader addressed a crowd of 10,000 people demonstrating against recent Islamic terror strikes. He attacks the suffocation of Political Correctness and the need for open honest dialogue about the real issues. He demands the closing down of "radical" (i.e. orthodox Shariah preaching) mosques.
Ten minutes of a minority leader saying things that would get a white man labelled as a bigot. This is how silly things are, it doesn't matter if the truth is being spoken, it only matters who is talking. A courageous man of integrity, we need more like him. Language warning from some in the crowd.
...You vindictive, small-minded bigot
Yesterday Stuff published an opinion piece by a chap called Christopher Robinson entitled I'd rather house a grateful refugee than a vindictive baby-boomer. The title kind of sets us up for what's coming in the piece that follows doesn't it? The piece is typical of the drivel masquerading as intelligent commentary we are forced to endure these days. Oh dear, I've allowed it to annoy me.
As this was an opinion piece comments were open. So I did my bit and commented. As is always the case Stuff declined to publish my comment (oh let's be honest, they censor me) which is a bit rich from a news outlet which also posted a piece that day on the death of reasoned debate over another socially progressive topic. The issue was euthanasia, an issue which - I'm sure this will astonish you - their piece supported. Leaving aside the pros & cons of that particular subject, the impression given was the same as this article on refugees: clever right-thinking people see the need for society to move in a certain direction while only small minded & rigid people oppose it. "We can have a perfectly rational discussion about this as long as you accept everything I say and jettison all your own arguments. If not it proves you are a bigot." This seems to be the patronising attitude our confident betters have towards we poor unenlightened sheep these days.
I don't find that approach encourages dialogue. Anyway, here's the gist of my comment which they decided was not up to their standards:~
What do you think? Just too riddled with xenophobia and vindictiveness eh? No wonder they wouldn't publish it.
All the while the tone of the article is one of an adult trying to teach a small child how to clean their ears. You know, some of us go further than simply recognising our responsibility to our fellow man. We also investigate who these people are and would like to discriminate who is in most need of our limited ability to help. That does not make us vindictive.
Here is the article, with my comments interspersed. Grit your teeth and read on.
I'd rather house a grateful refugee than a vindictive baby boomer, by Christopher Robinson.
There have been a spate of articles recently relating to the migration of refugees, provoked in part by the Green’s policy to raise the refugee quota to 5000. The reaction on Facebook? A plethora of ‘angry emojis’ and the perpetuation of falsehoods and fear-mongering.
One of the top comments on most articles is more or less, “Why don’t they stay in their countries and fight?”. It's usually posted by a worse-for-wear baby boomer who looks like Dennis from accounts. [Graeme: no, I don't immediately feel marginalised for holding a different view from Mr Robinson. Not in the slightest]
This comment grates on more than one level. Firstly, it assumes these victims (including women and children) have the capacity to organise some sort of effective militia against trained, heavily armed ISIS insurgents [Graeme: they are all Sunni, if they fought at all it would be against Assad not ISIS]. Secondly, by the looks of it, the biggest battle ‘Dennis’ has ever fought is one with his waistline. [Graeme: here we go again, insulting your straw man opponent is not a good form of argument. I did enjoy one comment posted which said in essence: you can criticise Dennis all you like, but he's the one that's going to have to pay for all this]
The second lowest-hanging fruit Dennis tends to grasp for is looking toward Europe’s recent issues with terrorism. He does so while flagrantly overlooking the fact the majority of the attacks were home-grown, and the mass migration of refugees was a disorganised mess of inflatable dinghies in the world’s saddest (literal) cross-country race. This does not represent the organised, thoughtful way refugees have been and will be vetted and settled in New Zealand through established programs. [Graeme: as I mentioned above, among the UN "vetted" refugees there WILL be those who oppose Western standards such as the equal treatment of women, homosexuals & those of other religions. And how exactly does one vet a person from a failed state who has no passport and no verifiable history? It is highly likely that there will be some increase in terrorism when it is a) postulated by experts that 15-17% of Syrian refugees are extremists; b) when ISIS admit to using the refugee crisis to get their own people into Europe (see also this NY Times piece and this one from the Guardian on these issues); and c) when Mr Robinson himself states that it is the children of the magnificently moderate, wonderfully adapted Muslim migrants into the UK that have caused all the terror attacks in Britain lately. BTW although I'm the last to talk regarding spelling & grammar, it's spelt "programmes"]
The third is the hottest topic this year - hold your avos - housing. It has to be said, many areas of New Zealand have a housing shortage, but we’re not exactly going to be settling 5000 refugees in Auckland CBD. There are regions in New Zealand such as Dunedin and Southland that are crying out for a stimulus to their populations. The reason Dennis is crying foul is because he’s personally looking for houses in a comfortable location, close to family and friends and his plateaued accounting career. This is not the case for refugees. Their preferences include an absence of grenades and a reduced chance of being decapitated. [Graeme: Sure, there are lots of cheap houses in Westport at the moment. There are also no jobs in that dying town so the migrants can't afford any of those cheap houses. How is this a solution? Our taxes will have to pay for their housing & everything else when migrants can only consume not contribute. Again this would not be anywhere near as big a problem if we knew we weren't investing in people whose religion teaches them to look down on us and replace our Jahiliyyah system with Allah's Sharia as soon as they are able.]
Lastly, employment is an issue that rubs people the wrong way. [Graeme: actually no it's not. Germany admits that 75% of migrants will be on welfare for years to come. So it's the NZ taxpayer who will pay for this] But look at it like this, if a refugee who has no New Zealand qualifications, no connections, and barely speaks English is a threat to your job security, it’s probably more of a reflection on your disposability to society and less the fault of the poor guy who has no home to go back to.
On my travels I’m always filled with pride to tell people I’m from New Zealand. When people ask me what I love so much, it boils down to three things:
1. We are (sometimes unnecessarily) the friendliest people in the world.
2. We are fearlessly progressive and always back the underdog.[Graeme: note the assumption that being progressive = backing the underdog. And those of us not included in your progressive group are then, what - oppressors of the underdog? Bit of a blind spot evident there sir]
3. American girls love the accent.
[Graeme: actually we're pretty normal Westerners. Hate to burst your bubble, but this list of what Mr Robinson loves so much about NZ could apply just as easily to the Scots or Canadians or the French]
But if I were to show them the comment sections in news outlets I’d hang my head in shame, not because Dennis disagrees with me, but because he’s so vindictive in doing so while promoting a "them and us" paradigm. Our country is not absent of issues, and when I’m lying in bed at night I can hear Dennis on loop proclaiming, “Let’s look after our own backyard first”. [Graeme: I still haven't had a coherent argument put to me why, if we want to help migrants, we are not first helping people close at hand, like those on the islands sinking in the nearby Pacific.]
In comparison, our backyard is fine. Yeah there’s a rusty swing-set in the corner, a funky smell under the deck, and the hydrangeas are a bit overgrown. But there’s no harm in letting the neighbours pitch their tent while they get on their feet.
In my recent time overseas I’ve had the privilege of meeting a few refugees first-hand, from countries ranging from Nigeria to Syria, and this is what I've learned: they’re hungry for an opportunity to give back to their new countries, they want to be seen as a human and not a burden, and if they are willing to become a marginalised minority in a foreign country, imagine what their home is like. [Graeme: I'm so glad you met an infinitesimally tiny selection of people from nearly 2 million new migrants that you found simply wonderful human beings. But we are not concerned about admitting these people. We are concerned about the gigantic statistical likelihood of admitting Muslims who bring with them beliefs and a culture which will set itself against the fundamentals of NZ society. We've already seen NZ mosques change markedly because new migrants have removed moderate leadership and voted in more Sharia observant leadership. Please explain to us why this won't continue to occur? If 80-90% of British & American Mosques are "radical" why won't that also happen here?]
I understand the concept of globalisation for a tribal species can be scary, but they’re humans, and regardless of the language they speak or the God they pray to, they’re humans. [Graeme: They're humans? Gee I've never thought of that. Why didn't you say so in the first place? Of course, at this point I don't feel at all like I'm being talked down to by someone totally out of touch with the concerns of ordinary people. Not at all. If I may Mr Robinson: the issue here isn't that we don't recognise them as human (you might like to lie down while the shock of that sinks in) or that they pray to a different god - Western countries have very little problem with Sikh, Buddhist or Hindu minorities - it's how that god might require them to live that represents the problem. Can they assimilate? Will they even associate with us?Do they value the same things we do? Or will they establish Sharia courts here as they have in the UK? Marginalisation of women, FGM and hatred of the host culture come from Sharia. That is the scary bit Mr Robinson]
"What happens when a masochist meets a real sadist?"
Mark Steyn interviews Douglas Murray on his new book The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam. A fascinating 1 hour talk about Murray's travels through Europe in the last 2 years of great change since the migrant crisis. Based on his studies he is asked what direction is Europe taking and why is it going that way? What is the cause of the cultural capitulation of indigenous European society? Why are governments so relaxed regarding replacing indigenous populations with those who may in fact be antagonistic to the home culture? What is the reality of multiculturalism for most Europeans? Has Europe forgotten what it is & where it came from?
Also discussed is the place of Christianity. Starting from the 43 minute mark the secular atheist Mr Murray has a lot to say about the need for the West to recognise that its whole worldview is based on Christianity. He agrees with Cardinal Ratzinger (the previous Pope) that we need to live like we believe in God whether or not we do and states that Europe is waking up to the realisation that it is Christian - which is a glorious insight. He ends another glorious insight: people matter and people can make a huge change if they engage with the issues.
I resonate with so much of what he said. He examines these serious questions in a relaxed interview which I recommend. A valuable piece of self-examination for the West. Yes, I have ordered his book. Grab a coffee and sit back.
back In her prime
So the wee mutt was put to sleep yesterday. Lungs full of tumours at 10 years of age. She was finding it very hard to breathe and we decided we had to ease her on. We'd originally got her for the kids, but, wouldn't you know it, the kids left home and we were left with a handbag sized dog neither of us really asked for. Nevertheless we've learned a lot from her over the years - and a bit about God.
I would walk the dog, feed and water the dog, let it off its chain in the morning and generally do all I could for it. Naturally this meant the dog became deeply devoted to my wife and practically ignored me. Now I know how God feels - he provides all this stuff for us and is largely ignored (unless something goes wrong) while we focus on what seem to be the more attractive options. Then again this is the traditional role of the father in the family isn't it? I remember #1 child saying to me at bedtime at around 6 years of age: "Do you know what the best thing is about you Dad?" At this point Dad's chest swells with pride - "which of my many sacrifices and attributes will my child recognise in this blazing moment of affirmation?" The answer: "The best thing about you is the sweet shop.Then the beach." Uh-huh. Fathers, invisible, unless you seem one day not to be there. Just like God.
It's really true how dogs can sense when you're sad. Once or twice when I'd plop onto the settee feeling like a waste of space after a day of discouragement she'd just sit in front of me looking up at me with genuine concern. I know dogs don't have facial expressions but somehow you could see the concern on her. I'm not a dog person but I do know that. It is easy to see though how these things are known as "man's best friend". I've come to agree with that old joke - I wish I could some day become as good a person as my dog thinks I am. The dog was always glad to see me even when I wasn't glad to see myself in the mirror.
So the little dog having no reason to care for me, preoccupied as it was with its adoration for my wife, would still show concern for me and was always happy to see me. At the other end of the scale, the great God also has concern for me and is always happy to see me. I have a similar question for both of them: "you are so small/huge, why do you take the time to care about me?"
Tom T. Hall's song Old dogs, children & watermelon wine has that line in it: "Old dogs care about you even when you make mistakes".
Yes they do. Old dogs and God.
Mark Durie has announced a new website for those interested in the relationship between religion and society. It will have a lot of resources on Islam. Please click on one of the links below and make the most of it. Below is his advice regarding the new website.
Introducing The Interface Institute
Readers of markdurie.com blog posts may wish to connect with the resources of the Interface Institute.
The Interface Institute is a new resource which provides the public with resources to understand the nexus between society and religion, particularly in relation to monotheistic religions.
After a phase in western history when a dominant assumption was that spiritual influences were in decline, we find ourselves launched into what Richard John Neuhaus already in 1997 called ‘the approaching century of religion’.
It is becoming increasingly clear that multiple social and political challenges are being brought on by profound global shifts in religious identity and allegiance, yet many feel ill-equipped to respond to these challenges. The Interface Institute assists people to understand global religious currents and their impact on areas such as public policy, human rights, security and conflict.
The Interface Institute curates a diverse range of published resources, both from Muslim-majority contexts, and also from nations of the Muslim diaspora, including the West. It also welcomes original written contributions Potential contributions can be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org
Readers can connect with the Interface Institute’s resources at:
Vietnam & America; Islam & Christianity.
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.