The Reporting of Information of Events associated with Islam

“Terrorism theorist” Max Abrahms challenges Robert Spencer to debate, then loses nerve and cool

April 28, 2016 12:09 pm By Robert Spencer 82 Comments

Max Abrahms gives his capsule resume on Twitter: “#Terrorism Theorist / Northeastern Prof / Council on Foreign Relations / Center for Cyber & Homeland Security.” He is just another establishment counter-terror analyst, purveying the same old failed policies: “My recommendation to all Western governments is to make the Muslim community feel at home because discrimination only promotes radicalization.” He claims that “the connection between religion and terrorism is exaggerated” and asserts that “it can be useful to point out how Islamic State’s interpretation of Islam departs from the modal Muslim opinion. Islamic State must be exposed as extreme in terms of both its tactics and ideological preferences.”
Perhaps hoping to do just that, Abrahms recently challenged me to a debate on whether or not the Islamic State was Islamic:



That’s straightforward enough. I contacted my old friends at ABN, with Abrahms’ approval, to set up a debate via Skype that would go up on YouTube. But as the conversation continued with me inquiring of the Heritage Foundation’s James Carafano as to whether Heritage would be interested in hosting the debate, things got weird. Abrahms began to back off from the agreed-upon topic:



I took that to be a component of the debate topic that had already been agreed upon, and so agreed it could be part of the debate, but the next day Abrahms insisted that whether or not it was useful to identify the Islamic State as Islamic was the actual debate topic, not whether it was true that the Islamic State was Islamic.

After making sure that Abrahms was refusing to debate what he had initially agreed to debate, I accepted the change — but by then Abrahms was growing abusive, preening arrogantly about being a “scholar” who was going to show me how real research is done. Finally, after a long exchange, he backed out of the debate (the debate, remember, to which he had challenged me) on the grounds that I was not a scholar and hence, apparently, do not have opinions worthy of consideration. Apparently he bases this on the fact that he has a university position and I do not, and does not take into account the severe corruption and ideological lockstep of today’s universities.
In any case, the back-and-forth on Twitter is long and tedious. I am not going to bore you further with the details of it, but anyone who is interested can go see for himself or herself what happened by reading the Twitter feed.

Here are some of the highlights:




The only reason why this strutting pseudo-academic puffball is of any interest is because he is sadly representative of the state of academia and counter-terror analysis today. Establishment academics are neither able nor willing to defend their views. I don’t know why Abrahms lost his nerve after challenging me to debate and fled in a cloud of ad hominem attacks and insults. After all, if I were really the dunce of his latter view, the fact remains that I have sold hundreds of thousands more books on jihad and terrorism than he has: he could beat me handily in a debate and thereby end my baneful influence forever.
But he doesn’t dare try, and I believe it is because he knows how counter-factual his assertions really are, and he knows he would not be able to defend them against me — not because I am so great a debater, but because his views just don’t stand up in the harsh light of reality. So he, like so many other establishment academics, takes refuge in degrees, as if they automatically conferred knowledge and truthfulness. In reality, if our universities were worth their salt today, they would fire any professor who ever argued that he was right and his opponent was wrong because he has more degrees than his opponent. Abrahms ought to know that the argument from authority is the weakest of all arguments. He doesn’t.

With the world on fire from Islamic jihad, the proclamations from Barack Obama, John Kerry, David Cameron and so many others that the Islamic State’s atrocities have nothing to do with Islam, “a religion of peace,” are looking increasingly ridiculous — and they’re fueled by the pseudo-scholarship of people like Max Abrahms. Abrahms and others who further this view with their fantasy pictures of Islam are running scared, despite the fact that they have made this the dominant mainstream view in America’s universities. They’re covering up their abject inability to defend this point of view with a haughty refusal to do so, and an insistence that those who hold opposing views are not worthy of their attention.

Max Abrahms in particular has made himself look ridiculous by challenging me to debate and then claiming I’m unworthy of consideration. If you read the entire Twitter exchange, you’ll see that he ties himself up in knots trying to cover for his intellectual cowardice. But his running away is understandable: when a “terrorism theorist” meets a “terrorism realist,” the results cannot be good for the “theorist.”
Max Abrahms is a poster boy for today’s mainstream academics, who are supposed to be professionally dedicated to the discussion and debate of ideas but are instead intellectually bereft propagandists, as self-infatuated as they are ignorant. Abrahms’ absurd behavior illuminates the unhappy fact that our nation’s universities are increasingly not places where genuine intellectual inquiry takes place, but centers of Leftist indoctrination, not interested in pursuing truth or examining ideas, but only in turning out cadres of thoroughly propagandized worker ants who will ever after unthinkingly toe the party line.

Robert Spencer in FrontPage: Rutgers Goes Sharia-Compliant
Citadel punishing cadet for leaking story about Muslim cadet possibly getting uniform exemption

​

 

We must tackle the unspeakable truth

3854 Comments | Permalink
Piers Akerman Blog


Piers Akerman

–, Saturday, December, 19, 2015, (10:38pm)

AS Christmas approaches, Silent Night plays in shopping malls, yet nowhere is it really calm and the future for world peace doesn’t look bright despite the best intentions of every Miss World contestant.
Reaching out to the Muslim world, as President Barack Obama did at Cairo University in mid-2009, has been a huge failure. Since that speech, the much vaunted Arab Spring has turned into the bleakest of Arab winters.
Terrorist outfits spread their evil influence from northern Europe, the UK, France and south across the Mediterranean, and down through Africa. They’re in Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Philippines and Indonesia, with isolated breakouts in the US and Australia.

In the past three years, rulers have been toppled by extremists in Tunisia, Libya, Syria and Yemen, with protests in Algeria, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Sudan, Mauritania, Oman, Djibouti, Western Sahara, Mali, Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank.

In all of these places and others there are jihadis who want to kill us because we are not them. In Paris, in San Bernardino, in Melbourne and Martin Place.
So prevalent has been the spread of this death cult’s nihilism that a new expression has been coined to describe the lawless badlands. They are now designated as ungoverned areas or UGAs.
Obama’s reach-out policy is the same reach-out policy being promoted by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and, alarmingly, the head of the domestic security agency ASIO, former soldier Duncan Lewis.
Relentlessly promoted by the taxpayer-funded ABC and the Fairfax media, despite the evidence of its failure, schools and universities are churning out young people who think a group hug will turn a jihadist’s mind every time.
Cowed by years of politically correct condemnation, and with political leaders succumbing to moral panic, many Australians no longer speak out knowing their views will be mocked by people whose sal-aries they, the taxpayers, bankroll.

This unrelenting pressure from those in our society who could justifiably be labelled useful idiots, to use Stalin’s description of the well-meaning idiots who put a gloss on communism’s worst atrocities, means the freedoms consistent with liberal democracy are being whittled away by those entrusted to protect them.

This misguided and destructive approach is evident across the board at every level of Australian society from local governments which ban nuclear fuel but not nuclear medicine, to the president of the Human Rights Commission, Gillian Triggs, who politicised her office with her strategically timed attacks on the Abbott government, to ICAC Commissioner Megan Latham, who viciously used her office to pursue Crown prosecutor Margaret Cunneen, and now ASIO director-general Lewis’s clumsy effort to direct the activities of elected representatives.
Lewis, a former soldier, warned some Coalition MPs on the manner in which they should speak about Islamist extremism.
There are accepted boundaries in a democracy from those who are elected and those who are paid to carry out the wishes of the government.
Lewis overstepped that boundary. He can advise but he must be careful about instructing.

While appropriate measures must be taken to protect and defend the citizenry, the values we cherish in our liberal democracy cannot be compromised.
Islamic terrorists, whether they belong to ISIS, Boko Haram, the Haqqani network, Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Nusrah, al-Qaeda, the Houthi or any of the myriad mutations, are real, and, according to surveys taken in the US, UK, and Australia, enjoy a remarkable degree of support from members of the resident Muslim populations, especially among 18- to 24-year-olds.
Westerners must be free to talk about the groups whose members are committed to killing those who will not follow their extremist ideology, including fellow Muslims.
Yet while the threat is identifiable, indeed, it self-identifies through a resoundingly skilful propaganda campaign, it is beyond ironic that on almost every campus across Australia and within the ABC and Fairfax, those nations at the forefront of the struggle against the death cult are held in utter contempt.

Israel is regarded as a pariah state and the Iranian view that the US is the great Satan goes largely unchallenged, along with the views of the corrupt Palestinian Authority, the Grand Mufti and the self-appointed spokesmen for the Australian Muslims. In the new year, the West must come up with a better plan than German leader Angela Merkel’s open border strategy. It must come up with a better plan than bombing IS. New thinking is required.
Instead of trying to rebuild Syria, Libya and Iraq within the artificial borders created in 1916, it may be wiser to permit clans and tribes and feudal leaders to decide their own borders locally, rather than have UN or EU officials dictate terms to people they palpably don’t understand.

But we must be able to talk freely about this catastrophe if peace on Earth is to exist beyond our hymnals.
Finally, may I wish all The Sunday Telegraph’s readers a Merry Christmas and a happy new year.
See you in February.

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...e_the_unspeakable_truth/#.Vob1W1HmmlI.twitter

 

​

 

​

 

​

 

Hugh Fitzgerald: Who is the Host, and Who the Guest?

May 1, 2016 12:01 am By Hugh Fitzgerald 26 Comments



#1. FRANCE
In France, the Muslim owner of a Bordeaux grocery store has just been given a fine and a two-month jail sentence for having posted a notice on his shop window assigning different shopping days for men and women. How terrible it would be, many devout Muslims apparently feel, if a man and a woman, not married to each other, were to be alone together, even in a store. The grocery owner’s act was perfectly understandable in Muslim terms. And perfectly unacceptable in Western, French, laic terms. For now, the right side has won.
Should we feel satisfied with this outcome? A sense of relief? Are you sure that that is the end of the matter? Perhaps not, because even for this issue to have been raised, even for a Muslim to feel emboldened enough to ignore the settled laws of laic France, is worrisome in itself. But most disturbing of all in this affair is that the Muslim grocery store owner and his wife are both converts to Islam. What was it they knew, or thought they knew, about Islam when they converted? What led Jean-Baptiste Michalon to become Yahya Michalon, and his wife Jessica to transform herself into submissive Soumaya? What made them feel that in order to follow this new faith they had to subvert the most mundane rules ordering everyday life, even including food shopping?

Whatever it is that attracts the lost souls of the Western world to Islam – and we all know there is profound anomie and despair in a West that has lost its way – it is important that those who, in the political and media elites, make claim to instruct and protect us not be afraid to do what they can to openly discuss what the texts and teachings of Islam contain, undeterred by the ever-ready preposterous charge of “Islamophobia.” Adopting an attitude of laissez-faire may be tempting (e.g.,“What people believe is their own business”) to Western liberals, but given the threat of demographic conquest, it won’t do. Preventive measures need to be taken against adult-onset Islam. What other immigrant group in France has tried to ignore French laws and impose its own view of how daily life, in ways little and big, is to be regulated? Every such challenge chips away, slowly, at a country’s self-assurance, as what before the Muslim invasion had been settled law, and which the French had the right to assume could be taken for granted, has to be re-litigated. Think of the money and time spent by the French state in defending from attack the simple proposition that men and women should be allowed to buy their milk and baguettes at the same grocery store, and on the same day.


#2. ITALY
In Italy, more than a decade ago, a Muslim, Adel Smith, founder of the Union of the Muslims of Italy, sued to have the crucifix removed from his children’s school. The crucifix in Italy is not only a religious but a cultural symbol; forcing its removal, as Italian Labor Minister Maroni said at the time, “is outrageous. It is unacceptable that one judge should cancel out millennia of history.” But the Muslim petitioner, who referred to the crucifix dismissively as “a small body on two wooden sticks” won his case. Not content with that victory, Adel Smith—and other Muslims — wanted more.
He wanted verses from the Qur’an displayed in schools. He, and other Muslims, wanted to protect Muslim sensibilities by having the Catholic Church demolish an “offensive” 15th century fresco by Giovanni da Modena in the San Petronio Cathedral in Bologna. (Muslims connected to Al Qaeda have plotted to blow up the fresco, so for other Muslims to demand its nonviolent removal may in this demented world be considered a victory). He claimed that the fresco showed Muhammad – his prophet Muhammad – cast into hell. Fortunately the Church stood firm, and the fresco remains; unfortunately, the fresco, in a dark side-altar, can now be viewed only from a distance, and behind a grate, for you can no longer enter the side-altar space, so that it is impossible to see it clearly. In a sense, the Muslims have won; the hated fresco is no longer really visible. Part of Italy’s art heritage can no longer be seen and admired because it has to be protected from Muslims.

And some Italian Muslims had yet another demand: that Dante’s Divine Comedy be banned from Italian schools because Dante puts Muhammad in Hell (Inferno, Canto 28). Dante regarded Islam as a heretical offshoot of Christianity and Muhammad as a sower of discord; thus Dante depicts him as tearing himself apart, with his entrails hanging out. Dante is Italy’s national poet, central to its cultural identity, as much as Shakespeare is to England. That this attempt to force Italians to submit to the dictates of Muslims, and ban Dante from the schools, is even dared, horrifies. It would be as if Muslims in England demanded the removal of Shakespeare from the schools because of the anti-Islamic aspect of Othello: Othello, a Christianized Moor, in the employ of Christian Venice against the Muslim Ottomans, describes how he handled a “malignant and a turbaned Turk”: “I took by the throat the circumcised dog/And smote him – thus.” Come to think of it, that Muslim demand to censor Shakespeare may be coming down the pike any day now; it might just wake some of the somnambulists in the British government.
Adel Smith – his father was Scots, his mother Egyptian – converted to Islam when he moved to Italy, and like many who succumb to adult-onset Islam, was more extreme and aggressive in promoting his faith (he died in 2014 while imprisoned for fraud and forgery) even than many of those born into it. But he was not alone in making these demands. It’s a fantastic situation, when in Italy three quintessential expressions of its faith (the crucifix), its art (the Bologna fresco), and its literature (Dante) could be threatened with removal, or destruction, or banishment, if Adel Smith and his fellows had had their Muslim way.


#3. GREAT BRITAIN
In the city of Bristol, England, the city council recently refused to observe St. George’s Day. St. George, many know, is the patron saint of England; the feast day dedicated to him has been observed since 1222. But something has apparently changed. Local officials claim that the city is now “too multicultural” to recognize someone who for nearly 800 years has symbolized the Englishness of England.
Even more preposterous is the objection raised by city council members in Bristol, who said that “91 different languages are spoken in the town and it would be ‘difficult to commemorate them all.’” How do you “commemorate” a language? And why can’t people who may not be native speakers of English nonetheless want to participate in the ceremonies of the very country they have been fortunate enough to be allowed to settle in, and that has generously welcomed them? Shouldn’t such an observance be viewed as part of the acclimation and assimilation process, much like those “I Am An American Day” mass gatherings during World War II, where new immigrants had a chance to pledge their loyalty and hear speeches about what Being An American Means. This business about “91 languages” was raised to deflect attention from the real source of opposition to St. George’s Day, consisting of those Muslims who do not want to assimilate into, but want rather to transform, the non-Muslim countries that have (so generously, so foolishly) let them in.

“Some in the area” feel that the English symbol “has been hijacked by far right groups and are concerned about being branded “racist.” This reveals how successful the Muslim campaign has been, both in labeling those concerned about Islam as “far right groups” and in frightening non-Muslim officials who, out of fear of “being branded ‘racist,’” submit to Muslim desires and demands.
One local man noted that “Bristol city council refused to acknowledge St George’s day for fear of upsetting other faiths. They don’t mind upsetting us.” “Fear of upsetting other faiths”? So it wasn’t about being “too multicultural” nor about those “91 languages” after all? Which faiths, exactly, might be upset? Do you think Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists would have any problem with St. George’s Day? Everyone in Bristol knows perfectly well what faith is being proleptically placated. So from now on, you can keep trying to put things shipshape all you want, but after this triumph of the will of the local boys with the beards, please don’t do it in Bristol fashion.


CODA:
Oriana Fallaci said in a 2003 interview with the New York Observer, “[Islam] is not even a religion, in my opinion. It is a tyranny, a dictatorship — the only religion on earth that has never committed a work of self-criticism….It becomes worse and worse…and now they want to come impose it on me, on us.”
Don’t you miss Oriana?



Italy: Muslim migrant teen caught sending anonymous hate letters to herself
Canada: Imam says "there is no difference between Islamophobes and terrorists

 

​

 

​

Australian Liberty Alliance the only political party to tackle the threat of Islam
​

ALA Senate candidate Bernard Gaynor

Australian Liberty Alliance Senate candidate, Bernard Gaynor, opened his campaign with a cracker of a speech at a meeting on the Gold Coast on November 24.
At last Australia has a political party that truly understands the threat to our society and our culture posed by Islam.
This was an amazing speech that will give comfort to so many Australians who despair at the wilful blindness and downright stupidity of our ruling elites who refuse to tackle or even acknowledge the Islamic threat.
The Australian Liberty Alliance threatens to shake up the Australian political landscape.
Key points from the speech:​

• Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull is ill-equipped and unprepared to protect Australia and Australians from the Islamic threat.
• Millions of taxpayer dollars being spent on Islamic organisations and causes, including legal fees of Islamists facing terrorism charges.
• Even the Australian military has buckled to the Islamic onslaught, by appointing Sheikh Mohammadu Saleem as the military's first imam. This is the same Sheikh who called for the implementation of Sharia law in Australia and who supports Hizb ut Tahrir, an extremist Islamic group that rejects our values, our laws, our flag and our anthem and has called for a world-wide caliphate.
• The ALA will stop Islamic immigration.
• The ALA will axe the halal certification tax
  .
• The ALA will put an end to the construction of dangerous new mosques and Islamic schools.

• The ALA is not a single issue party.

• It aims to sell SBS to the highest bidder and promises to put a broom through the ABC. It will address flaws in our education system and it believes in reform of the tax system.

Below is the full text of Bernard Gaynor's landmark speech.

Ladies and gentleman,
Australia is facing a crisis.
It is a crisis that threatens all of us right now. And it is a crisis that threatens our children most of all because they will have to live with the decisions we make today.
This crisis comes from Islamic ideology.
For far too long, our government has pretended that Islamic ideology is peaceful. Our political leaders have pretended that this ideology can be integrated safely into our society.
But they have been wrong.
Any student of history knows that this belief is wrong. Islam was founded by a man who brilliantly merged politics with religion and created an empire where the church was the state. In the process, an army was raised, wars were fought, and populations were enslaved, forcibly converted or executed.
This man was Mohammad and the Islamic religion teaches that he was perfect and that his example is to be followed. There should be no surprises, therefore, that the Islamic religion leads to violence. It idolises a warlord.
It should also come as no surprise that this religion advocates immigration into non-Islamic lands as a means of conquering them. The Islamic calendar itself is based on the first successful conquest undertaken by Islamic immigration: the conquest of Medina.
For much of the last three centuries, all of this has been forgotten.

Then September 11 happened.
Unfortunately, the Western world believed that September 11 was something new. But it was not. It was something old.
In fact, in the first battle of September 11 was in 1683. This was the first September 11.
On that first September 11, European forces defeated an invading Islamic army that had been besieging Vienna for two months. Those of you who know Europe will know that the city of Vienna is right in the middle of the continent. It is not an understatement to say that this victory saved Europe.
After this first battle of September 11, the Islamic threat to Europe receded due to the efforts of those who protected Western civilisation, until it was forgotten. But before this first battle of September 11, Europe was constantly threatened by Islam, just as it is today.
In fact, Vienna was under constant attack for 150 years prior to that first battle of September 11 in 1683.
The Battle of Lepanto occurred in 1571. It saved Europe from an Islamic fleet sent to invade Italy.
In 1453, the city of Constantinople fell. It has been the capital of the Byzantine Empire since Roman days. It finally succumbed after a 700 year fight against Islamic aggression. Now this empire and its culture is gone.

The Spanish also battled Islam for about 700 years. That’s how long it took to remove Islam after it arrived with the Caliph’s armies shortly after Mohammad’s death. The year that Columbus discovered America was also the year that Islam was eventually removed from Spain. Now it is walking in again via Europe’s open borders.
Mohammad died in the year 632. Within five years, Jerusalem had been captured and in the next century Islam had conquered the Persians, the Egyptians, all of North Africa, Spain and had even reached into the heart of France.
In 732, at a place called Tours in Northern France, this first Islamic invasion was finally stopped but as we can see through history, it was not the last.
We face another invasion today.
September 11 shows that we are once again under attack.
So does Bali. And Madrid. And London.
So do the terrorist atrocities on our home soil, in Melbourne, in Sydney’s Martin Place and at Parramatta.
And two attacks in Paris this year show that appeasing the enemy only makes things worse.
Yet our politicians, our government and our security organisations remain obstinately and wilfully determined to ignore the reality of this crisis and the threat that we face.
Let me give you three examples.


The first example is that of our Prime Minister.
Our Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has been talking a lot about Islam lately. And every time he does, he shows how ill-equipped and unprepared he is for the task at hand of protecting Australia and Australians.
In early October, Prime Minister Turnbull announced that he was going to ‘reset’ relations with the Islamic community. By the end of the day, a police worker lay dead outside Parramatta police station as a result of an attack launched from the Parramatta mosque.
Undeterred, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull announced a National Day of Unity in late October, where Australians were invited to welcome the Islamic community. The very next day, Hizb ut Tahrir held a conference attended by nearly 1000 people and announced that they rejected Australia, and rejected our values, our laws, our flag and our anthem.
Just so you know, this organisation, Hizb ut Tahrir, has been supported by almost every Islamic organisation or imam in Australia, including the Grand Mufti, Australia’s highest ranking Islamic figure.
The truth is that Hizb ut Tahrir is the political wing of an Islamic insurgency intent on overthrowing our system of government.
Then the Prime Minister flew to Europe and rejected calls for European nations to shut their borders to an Islamic invasion.
Within a couple of days, 130 people lay dead in Paris and hundreds more were wounded. These attacks were carried out by immigrants who lived in France, but who never became French.
And now, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull wants us to negotiate a political settlement in Syria. He thinks the Islamic State can be dealt with by nothing more than words.
As such, it is clear that the Prime Minister, installed by the majority of his Liberal party colleagues, has simply no idea about the nature of Islamic ideology or how we should confront its attacks on us.


The second example relates to government funding of Islam in this country. This is just a small example of how your taxes are spent:​

• The federal government has provided millions over the last five years to ‘deradicalisation’ programs. Only one out of 87 of these programs actually deals with radicalised individuals. The remainder actually promote Islam.

Some of these programs over the last 12 months are:

• $120,000 has been provided for an Australian Rules Football competition open only to Islamic schools.

• $114,820 has been provided to tackle violence between Islamic sects within the Islamic community.

• $115,700 has been allocated to a program called People Against Violent Extremism. It tackles extremism by trying to ‘deradicalise’ those who oppose the construction of new mosques in their local community.

• $56,500 was allocated to SalamCare. This group is led by a person who wrote Allahu Akbar on their Facebook page when the Islamic State announced that it had formed the caliphate and it campaigns against radicalisation by trying to stop people like the courageous Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, from coming to Australia.

• Over $1 million has been allocated by the Attorney-General’s Department to pay for the legal fees of those facing terrorism charges or who are being questioned by ASIO.

• Over $15 million was allocated to improve school security last year. Islamic schools made up the vast majority of schools to receive funding for this project.

• $66,000 was provided by the Australian Federal Police to the Lebanese Muslim Association. This organisation has hosted a US-based imam who has stated:

“If we put a nationwide infrastructure in place and marshalled our resources, we’d take over this country in a very short time….What a great victory it will be for Islam to have this country in the fold and ranks of the Muslims.”

• Over $165 million was given to Islam-sympathetic groups by Centrelink to help resettle migrants in Australia in the last 12 months.

• And the Queensland government is now funding mosque open days.

The list goes on. The Prime Minister doesn’t understand the threat. And our government uses our taxes to fund and promote Islam. This helps to explain why, despite the billions that we spend on this problem, it is only getting worse.

The third example is that of our Australian Army.
It is now removing a motto from the hat badges of its Christian chaplains because it has been deemed offensive to Muslims.
This motto is “In this sign conquer”.
The appeasement within the military comes just a few months after the appointment of the first imam in the Australian Defence Force, Sheikh Mohammadu Nawas Saleem.
Saleem is one of Australia’s most prominent imams. He is the treasurer of the Australian National Imams Council and works very closely with the Grand Mufti.
And Sheikh Saleem has called for Sharia law to implemented in Australia.
He has supported Hizb ut Tahrir publicly. This is the same Hizb ut Tahrir that says Muslims must not attend Anzac Day because it represents an attack on the caliphate. This is the same Hizb ut Tahrir that defends the concept of honour killings.
Sheikh Saleem has opposed military action against the Islamic State. And he has condemned laws that prohibit the advocation of terrorism on the basis that they limit the free speech of Islamic preachers.

And the Liberal government appointed this imam to the military. His job is to help increase recruitment from the Islamic community.
Just so you know, the Islamic community has more of its sons fighting for the Islamic State than for Australia.
All of these examples highlight how unprepared our political leaders, our government and our military is to deal with the threat of Islamic violence.
And if they won’t defend against Islamic violence, then we are also wide open for subversion in other ways: through the implementation of halal certification, through the acceptance of polygamy via Centrelink, through the indoctrination of our children in the national curriculum.
If our government cannot bring itself to understand the violence of Islam, it will never be able to defend itself against the non-violent but equally subversive political threat that Islam poses in a democracy.

But I have not come here today to tell you how bad things are.
You already know it. Australians everywhere already understand this.
What we desperately need is a solution and that is why I am here because the Australian Liberty Alliance is that solution.
The Australian Liberty Alliance will stand up to the threat of Islam and we will do this while Australia still has time to act. It is important to understand this. The problems in Australia are there, but they are not as great as those faced by Europe.
So we have a window of opportunity to act and for the future of our children, we must.
This is the Australian Liberty Alliance’s plan.


The Australian Liberty Alliance will stop Islamic immigration.
It will do this by imposing a moratorium on immigration from any countries that are members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, with exceptions only for persecuted non-Muslims from those countries.

The Australian Liberty Alliance will axe the halal certification tax.
It will do this by scrapping all halal certification fees and forcing the Islamic community to pay for its own religious offices. That will kill the profit taking. And it will force producers to clearly label their products and explain to Australians that the food they buy – especially meat – has been produced as part of an Islamic animal sacrifice. This will kill demand and halal certification will simply disappear.

The Australian Liberty Alliance will reject any government support for Sharia law, in law and in practice.
That means there will be no more welfare for polygamous Islamic families, no segregation of women, no female genital mutilation and none of the other Islamic practices that are incompatible with Australian culture and society.

The Australian Liberty Alliance will put an end to the construction of dangerous new mosques and Islamic schools.
It will force Islamic organisations to sign up to a Charter of Muslim Understanding, which will require these organisations to reform Islam so that it no longer acts as a violent political ideology, if they wish to be classified as religious organisations. And the party will work with local governments to introduce proper and stringent risk assessments into the development planning process. This means that without reform of Islam, and I doubt that will ever happen, there will be no new mosques and existing mosques will face the prospect of being shut down.

The Australian Liberty Alliance will also address the threat of terrorism by addressing the problem: Islam.
Our intelligence and security agencies will be directed to gain a true understanding of Islam, rather than the politically-correct version that they pretend into existence today. These organisations will no longer be allowed to promote this religion or its ideas.
And the Australian Liberty Alliance will start using treachery laws against those who support the Islamic State and other Islamic terrorist groups against our own Defence Force.
All of these measures could be implemented today. And if they were, the problem we face would not grow and the serious troublemakers within the Islamic community would be neutralised, while the remainder of the Islamic community would soon get the message: get on board with Team Australia, or face the full force of the law. Most of them want to and we welcome that.

The situation within Australia is containable if we act today. If we wait until 2020 or 2025, it may well be too late.
Unfortunately, these decisions are not being taken because our current leaders do not understand the problem and they do not have the will to act. They are lethargic in the face of the enemy.
Australians deserve much better and that is what the Australian Liberty Alliance will provide: an energy to act, driven by a proud and uncompromising belief in our Western Christian civilisation.
Unlike the others, the Australian Liberty Alliance is proud that it is proud of Australia.
As a result, the Australian Liberty Alliance is not just addressing the big picture. Its policies, intent and resolve will also address the problems that Australians face in their local communities: like right here on the Gold Coast.

For instance, the Gold Coast Mayor, Tom Tate, has been quoted in Islamic webpages outlining a vision where entire suburbs convert to Islam in order to bring in Islamic tourists.
I say this: Tom Tate might as well strap a suicide vest to the Gold Coast’s tourism industry. I grew up in Southport. I love this city and I know why people come here. It is not because of Islam. Sharia tourism will kill the Gold Coast. These ideas must be stopped and as the Australian Liberty Alliance grows it will work with local Gold Coast residents to run strong campaigns for good local representatives to be elected to council so that they can fight this dangerous political correctness.

This is how we must protect ourselves from Islam: and not just Islam’s threat of violence, but the danger it also offers against our economic security and our social fabric.
Of course, the Australian Liberty Alliance is more than a party focused on Islam.
It is not a single issue party. It has a conservative philosophy and policies that will help Australians in other ways. Its vision is for a smaller, decentralised government that does not leave a legacy of debt for future generations.

It believes in reform of the tax system. At the moment debate is focused solely on new taxes. The Australian Liberty Alliance believes that it is more important to look at how current taxes are spent and how the grants system allows government funds to flow into projects that have no responsibility, accountability or oversight.
It will sell the SBS to the highest bidder and put a broom through the ABC.
The Australian Liberty Alliance will support natural families and reform welfare so that it is not used as a substitute for work, but so that it also provides Australian families with more choice and opportunity to spend time with their children raising them.
It will not waste billions trying to control the level of the oceans, yet the Australian Liberty Alliance’s environmental policies will have the exact same impact on the climate as those of other parties.
The Australian Liberty Alliance will address the flaws in our education system and refocus our schools so that they teach the basics exceptionally well and this will set the foundation for exceptional higher educational studies.

These are all ideas that the Australian Liberty Alliance will champion. And our political system needs debate about these ideas.
At the moment, the major parties have a monopoly on debate. They are the Coles and Woolworths of politics, screwing down on the voters. Their efforts and endeavours are not about providing customer service or better products. Instead, they focused solely on maintain their monopoly on power. We desperately need an Aldi to come and shake up the system.
That is what the Australian Liberty Alliance will do and by doing so, it will provide Australians with a brighter future.
That future starts at the next election. Between now and then I will be working night and day to campaign for the Australian Liberty Alliance and I hope you will join me in that campaign.
We need to build a strong team on the Gold Coast and across Queensland. This campaign will not be successful if it is a one man band. But it will succeed if we work as a team and the turn out tonight shows that we are well and truly on the way to building this team, this army of patriotic Australians. I look forward to growing that team on the Gold Coast from tonight.

I also thank you for coming tonight. I thank for you for already standing tall and fighting hard for Australia. And I thank you for your support of the Australian Liberty Alliance.

​

​

 

May 2, 2016
Islamic Council of Germany calls for ban on Alternative for Germany party

By Sierra Rayne

Germany is now headed down the road to civil war.
In a remarkable interview with the BBC Newshour program on Sunday night, the spokesman for the Islamic Council of Germany (ISC) called for an outright ban on the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party after comparing the AfD to the Nazi Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei; NSDAP) of the 1930s:

BBC: But in a democratic system, if people are voting for them, what can you do?
ICG: We have to teach the people that we have made some experiences from the history, which are very similar and close to the what the AFD is now doing. They are excluding one religious group from the social life. Therefore, they have to be banned from the political system because you cannot deal with the enemies of the democracy by means of the democracy, so the democratic people have to exclude them from all the democratic platform.
BBC: So you want them banned. A party which has won seats in half of regional elections, which has -- as you say -- between 10 and 15 percent of the vote in opinion polls at the moment -- you'd like to see them banned completely, would you?
ICG: Yes.

The call by the ICG to employ German state powers to ban the AfD came after the AfD adopted policy platforms at its conference stating that Islam is "not part of Germany."
Germany is increasingly falling under the stranglehold of Islamification pressure by Muslims in the country who seek to bring sharia law into full force.
Back in January, a Muslim group called for the banning of alcohol in Germany, and now the ICG is seeking to ban political parties that hold a negative view of Islam. So-called "sharia zones" have already been declared by Muslims in western Germany, with "sharia police" patrolling the streets under the support of the German court system. A growing number of legal cases are also being decided by sharia law.
One side will ultimately need to give in on its own initiative, or the path towards civil war on German soil is now set in stone.
The AfD is too popular to be quietly dismissed and banned from all political activities, and the Muslim proportion of the population (estimated at 6% in 2010, now undoubtedly closer to 10% after the migration wave over the past two years) is too large and activist to be suppressed without force and is unlikely to leave the country voluntarily.
The problems in Germany are happening as expected. Full democracies are effectively absent in countries with >6% Muslim population, a threshold that Germany has recently crossed.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...for_ban_on_alternative_for_germany_party.html

May 26, 2015
Drawing the red lines

By Sierra Rayne
Following yesterday’s column on the Christian-Muslim clash of civilizations, some readers were interested in looking at the data in more detail. It’s a worthy exercise, as it allows us to draw a few tentative “red lines” that Western civilization should not cross.
If we look at the democracy index of all 167 nations for which it is available versus the corresponding Muslim population in each country, it is clear that an increasing proportion of Muslims correlates very strongly (i.e., massively statistically significant [p=1e-13, r=-0.53) with a declining democracy index (aka less democracy and more authoritarianism).

​

The red line is unequivocal: full democracies are effectively absent once the Muslim population reaches 6 percent or higher. The Netherlands currently sits at 6.0 percent. Wonder why Geert Wilders is so concerned? His nation sits on the precipice of a potential slide into increasing authoritarianism.
Other Western nations approaching the red line include Belgium (5.9 percent), Germany (5.8 percent), Switzerland (5.5 percent), Austria (5.4 percent), Greece (5.3 percent), Sweden (4.6 percent), the U.K. (4.4 percent), and Denmark (4.1 percent).
You might ask what the relationship is between Christians and the democracy index. It is the exact opposite of that for Muslims, and even more statistically convincing. There is a stronger correlation (p=5e-22, r=+0.66), except in the positive direction, between the Christian population and democracy.
In general, more Christians equals stronger democracy, whereas more Muslims equals weaker democracy and greater authoritarianism.
The same trends exist for press freedom, which decays quickly once the Muslim population reaches six percent. Another red line.

​

The highly significant relationship between the Muslim population and press freedom is strongly negative. On the other hand, the significant correlation between the Christian proportion of a nation’s population and its press freedom is strongly positive.
In general, more Christians equals greater press freedom, whereas more Muslims equals less press freedom.
This is science. Actually, the clarity of the results means that it is settled science.
The implications extend beyond domestic policies, particularly with respect to immigration. They also highlight the folly of trying to “democratize” predominantly Muslim regions of the world (as with, say, the recent “nation-building” efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan). The geopolitical facts presented herein show that such efforts are undeniably doomed before they begin on religious grounds alone.

​

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/05/drawing_the_red_lines.html#ixzz47VIUeu26
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

​