The Reporting of Information of Events associated with Islam

Bankster NWO or Caliphate NWO or Both?
Islamic and Christian Eschatology and WW3?









​

 

​

 

My preferred 'Running Mate' for Trump.​

 

​

 

Hugh Fitzgerald: One More Time: “What Race Is…”

May 30, 2016 2:21 pm By Hugh Fitzgerald 142 Comments



The other day, in Melbourne, an anti-Islam rally was announced by the United Patriotic Front, and, in immediate response, a counter-rally was quickly organized, to be held at the same time, and same place, by a group of assorted leftists eager to confront the anti-Islam group. It was billed as the “No To Racism” rally. And the two groups went at it, while the police, with great difficulty, tried to keep them apart.
It was depressing, if unsurprising, to see how the event was reported.

First there was Al Jazeera. Its headline to the story reads: “Anti-Islam protest descends into violence.” A hasty reader might be forgiven for thinking that the “violence” was a product of, came from, was caused by, those taking part as supporters of the “anti-Islam protest.” But of course it takes two to tangle. It was the anti-Islam rally that had first been announced, and there would have no violence at all had the “No To Racism” rowdies not shown up, but decided, instead, to hold their own rally at a different time and place.
Even reporters clearly sympathetic to the “anti-racism” side were compelled to convey what had been caught on tape – the “anti-racist” people, armed with poles and sticks, were the ones hell-bent on violence, as they “persistently circumvented police lines”:

“There was a heavy police presence, fighting against the crowd as the two sides marched toward each other, but the anti-racist activists persistently circumvented police lines, armed with poles and crates.”
The subheading to the Al Jazeera report affixed yet one more flattering epithet to those protesting against the anti-Islam rally: “Police arrest seven as violence breaks out between anti-Islam and anti-fascist groups in Melbourne.” So the counter-protesters are also now being described for readers as “anti-fascist,” a word that through overuse and misuse has largely been emptied of meaning, but still employed by left-wing groups everywhere as one of those self-labels that puts them on the side of the angels, and credulous and lazy reporters are perfectly happy to pass on that label to their lazy and credulous readers.
Jihad Watch’s genius domus never tires of asking the question “What race is Islam again?” and, in the reports from Melbourne, that question ought to have been asked many times. “Anti-racist” and “anti-racism” appeared all over the place. For example, here:

“Police in Australia have used pepper spray to separate more than 300 angry protesters as anti-Islam and anti-racism groups clashed in the streets of Melbourne, the country’s second biggest city.”
If one group of protestors describes itself as “anti-racist” because it is opposed to another group that calls itself “anti-Islam,” the sleight-of-word conclusion for those too lazy to think, is that being “anti-Islam” is to be “racist,” and thus, Islam becomes a “race.” Q.E.D., in the nonsense world of the universal Left, which for a long time has been winning the battle of language, with its humpty-dumpty strategy: when the Left uses a word it always means what the Left wants it to mean.

Meanwhile, the violence seemed clearly to be more pronounced on the “anti-racist” side.
Even Al Jazeera had to admit that their “anti-fascist” and “anti-racist” good guys had been violent:

“In one incident, a member of the United Patriots Front (UPF), which organised Saturday’s anti-Islam and anti-immigrant rally, fell to the ground [and] was kicked several times by two anti-racism activists.”
And the report from another source, television’s 9News, included a statement from the police that suggested, obliquely, that the “anti-racism activists” were less sinned against than sinning:
“We [the police] will be looking at the footage to track these people down….We saw inappropriate and cowardly behaviour of people wearing masks and hiding their identity, making them more violent.”
On which side were the mask-wearers? These are the very same “Anonymous” or “Guy Fawkes” masks favored by Leftist protesters ever since Julian Assange was in the headlines; the police statement suggests that the worst violence came from those wearing the masks, “hiding their identity, making them more violent,” that is, the “anti-racist” side.

With its loaded epithets, 9News did just as Al Jazeera had done:
“Opposing rallies in the north Melbourne suburb of Coburg have erupted into violence, with anti-racism activists clashing with the extreme right-wing United Patriots Front.”
For 9News, in this corner, wearing white, were “the anti-racism activists” and in that corner, wearing black, was “the extreme right-wing United Patriots Front.” The viewer or reader has his adjectives, and thus his attitudes, supplied at no extra cost.

The coverage in The Guardian began and ended with the same sentence: “In November, a survey by the Western Sydney University found that Muslims in Australia experience racism three times the national average.” We have no idea what questions were asked, or how they were answered, for anyone to arrive at such a conclusion. (How many times you received dirty looks? How many times someone shouted at you? What exactly constituted “experiencing racism”?) More importantly, this (pseudo) information is irrelevant to the coverage of the clashing groups. But it is most relevant and useful if your aim is to keep raising the issue of this putative “racism” against Muslims in Australia, and thereby to support, and not merely report on, the leftist “anti-racist” protesters. And between the two identical sentences at the beginning and end of The Guardian’s piece, there was still more mention of “anti-racism,” including the caption to a photograph that accompanied the text:

“Riot police use capsicum spray to separate more than 300 rival protesters after things turn nasty between anti-Islam and anti-racism groups.”
I checked the Huffington Post of Australia; its coverage of Melbourne contained a photograph of an “anti-racist” protester’s poster: “Muslims Are Welcome, Racists Are Not.” The text mentioned a “No To Racism” rally. And the Huffington headline was to the (anti-) anti-Islam point: “Seven Arrested in Melbourne Anti-Islam, Anti-Racist Rallies.” It might have read: “Seven Arrested In Clash of Protestors.” But then it would no longer be the Huffington Post.

A glutton for punishment, I then decided to see how the French and Italian television news covered the Melbourne clashes. But I stopped counting the number of times — once I had reached fourteen — that the word “anti-racist” (and an occasional “anti-fascist”) was used to flatteringly describe the leftist protesters.

So whatever the medium, the anti-Islam groups (in Australia, in Germany, in Austria, etc.) are always described as “racist” or “fascist” or “anti-immigrant” or “hard-right,” and those protesting them, no matter how hard left they may be, as “anti-racist” and “anti-fascist,” defending too against those who, it is claimed, are “anti-immigrant.”

Why did I bother subjecting myself, and you, too, come to think of it, to this tedious toting up of the tendentious? Because we all need to keep reminding ourselves that one of the weapons of Jihad is the war of words, a war the Jihadis are winning because we in the West allow it. It is the steady stillicide of these words, dripping into our collective (un)conscious, that causes so many to assume that Muslims must be the victims of “racism.” Mere repetition imposes its reality.

So do your bit. If among the unenlightened company, and The Subject comes up, unhesitatingly point out, that Islam is not a race, by continually asking, in the Spencerian manner, “What race is Islam again?” Put others on the spot; force them to try to defend what is indefensible in both senses of that word, force them to think. Don’t tire of the task. “What race is Islam again?” Repeat ad libitum. Run that up the collective mental flagpole, and you might be surprised at who, if you keep at it, starts to salute. And if you are asked by a frustrated opponent to supply another name to describe the protesters who are against the people who are against Islam, why not offer something both simple and true? What about “pro-Islam”?

If instead of reading that “anti-Islam and anti-fascist groups” or “anti-Islam and anti-racism groups” clashed , you were to read: Anti-Islam and Pro-Islam groups clashed in Melbourne, that would be much closer to the necessary, if dismal, truth.

Why not run that up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes?

Pope Francis might jettison idea of a ‘just war’
Uganda: Muslim kills Christian wife for leaving Islam

​

 

​

Hugh Fitzgerald: What’s a European Liberal to Do?

June 5, 2016 10:38 am By Hugh Fitzgerald 37 Comments



Sylvie Kauffmann, a well-known left-wing journalist in France, and the former editor of Le Monde, has been writing about the dilemma of the French Left, faced with a growing widespread unease about Islam in France, an unease not confined to those routinely dismissed as “racist” or “Islamophobic” or “far-right,” but within the Left itself. I’ve reprinted one of her pieces below, unchanged, but with some parts in bold, and with my own comments interspersed.

PARIS — On Sunday [April 13], Air France will resume regular flights to Tehran. For its female flight attendants and pilots, there is a catch: On arrival, they will be asked to wear not only the most conservative version of their uniform, a pantsuit with a knee-length jacket, but also a head scarf to cover their hair, in line with Iranian law and with other foreign airlines’ practice. The unions have protested. “This is contrary to what I stand for as a woman,” an Air France flight attendant complained in Le Figaro Madame. The company quickly gave in. Only those comfortable with the requirements will fly the Paris-Tehran route.
What is really interesting is that the issue did not arise earlier when Air France was flying to Tehran, before international sanctions forced it to stop in 2008. Yes, secularism is in France’s DNA; this is the country that passed a law in 2004 to ban all emblems of religion in public schools, including Muslim head scarves, and a second law in 2010 to ban the burqa (full veil) in public areas. But the flight attendants’ reaction shows how much attitudes toward Islam have hardened in the past 14 months, which brought three waves of attacks by Islamic State terrorists in Paris and Brussels.

Indeed, Kauffmann could have made her remark stronger, so that it would read “Three waves of murderous attacks by Islamic State terrorists in Paris and Brussels have hardened views toward Islam in France, most noticeably on the left.”

The French government has declared “war” on the Islamic State, but another war is also underway — an undeclared culture war over the status of women. Its symbol is “le voile” (the veil), a generic term that has come to encompass all forms of Islamic garments used to cover women’s heads. The dividing lines are confusing liberals and feminists, intellectuals and human rights activists, left and right.

But those lines are not confusing all of them. They are not confusing those French liberals who have forthrightly recognized the misogynistic nature of Islam and its regulation of women’s lives, with rules that include, but go far beyond, strict dress codes. The only people who are “confused” are those liberals, feminists, “intellectuals” and human rights activists who can’t allow themselves to acknowledge this aspect of Islam because to do so would be to show Islam in a bad light, which means to lend aid and comfort to the “islamophobic” far-right.

Such confusion has been evident in a broader controversy about Islamic fashion. It is not a new issue, but suddenly the fact that Western ready-to-wear brands like Marks & Spencer or Dolce & Gabbana are designing and promoting “modest fashion” collections for the growing Muslim market has hit a raw nerve in France. Pictures of embroidered abayas and stark burkinis — full-cover swimming garments — flourish in the media and have incited puzzled comments, prompting the women’s rights minister,

A feminist and Socialist, i.e., on the left.

Laurence Rossignol, to declare those brands “irresponsible.” They “promote the confinement of women’s bodies,” she said. True, she said, some women favor this type of fashion. But, she added, it was also true that some black people in America had supported slavery.
Though she later regretted having used the word “Nègres” — a French equivalent of “Negroes” — her condemnation of Western-designed Islamic fashion resonated. Agnès B, a respected designer involved in social causes,

“Involved in social causes” implies someone on the left.

said she would never design such clothes, “which have a political and religious element.”

Sylvie Kauffmann might have added: “And the wearing of such clothes is not a fashion statement, but an act of Muslim defiance against the laic state.”

The mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo, admitted that she found modest fashion “a little upsetting.” In an interview with Le Monde, the feminist author and philosopher Élisabeth Badinter called for a boycott of such brands.
Ms. Badinter, 72, has predicted trouble before. A longtime critic of radical Islam, she thinks a part of the French left, “nurtured on the cultural relativism of Claude Lévi-Strauss” and convinced that “all traditions and religions are equal,” has “lowered its guard.” As early as the 1990s, she said, warnings from feminists from Algeria and Iran were ignored, while “in French neighborhoods, many girls started to wear the veil.”
This is a wrenching time for European liberals, when taking a stand on such issues may meet approval from the far-right leader Marine Le Pen and anti-immigration quarters.

A “wrenching time” for all European liberals? No, only for those “European liberals” who still are fearful of expressing negative views of the Muslim head scarves and burqas, lest that appear to align them with, and win approval from, “far-right” leader Marine Le Pen. But now, as Kauffmann has just informed us, three prominent women, Elizabeth Badinter, Agnes B., and Laurence Rossignol, who have always been on the French left (the first a “feminist,” the second a “social activist,” the third a member of the Socialist cabinet), are expressing those negative views, and are not experiencing a “wrenching time.” This signifies a historic break within the Left.

Sociologists and experts on religion are divided, as are French Muslim women. In a book last year, “Des voix derrière le voile” (“Voices Behind the Veil”), the journalist Faïza Zerouala drew portraits of 10 young Frenchwomen who voluntarily wear the head scarf. “Some people feel uncomfortable in the company of a veiled woman, but what makes her uncomfortable are naked women on billboards,” she said. And what feminist would argue that such ads are liberating?

Whatever else Victoria’s Secret lingerie may offer, wearing it does not constitute a political statement; wearing the head scarf or burka in France, on the other hand, does.

Confusion also reigns in the continuing debate over the New Year’s Eve attacks on women in Cologne, Germany, and the way they were analyzed by the Algerian author Kamel Daoud. In an essay published in Le Monde in January, he blamed the “sexual misery of the Arab-Muslim world” and its view of women for the attacks. “In Allah’s world,” he wrote, “the woman is denied, refused, killed, veiled, locked up or possessed.” He wrote later, in a similar vein, in The New York Times. But while many praised his argument as brilliant, some European academics, most of them French, attacked it as Islamophobic. The quarrel still rages.

Why does Sylvie Kauffmann use the word “Islamophobic” in earnest, sans quotation marks, and thereby give it legitimacy? She might have written something along the lines of: “How curious it is that the left-wing defenders of Islam have chosen to attack a Muslim Arab man when he dares to defend Muslim women against the misogyny of mainstream Islam. Who, after all, can deny the accuracy of Daoud’s description of that Islamic world where ‘the woman is denied, refused, killed, veiled, locked up or possessed’? Apparently, those who keep trotting out the tiresome charge of ‘Islamophobia’ can.”

So what is a European liberal to do? France’s Socialist prime minister, Manuel Valls, has committed himself to fighting alongside Ms. Badinter in “an essential battle for culture and identity.” He refuses to leave this fight in the hands of the far right. His warrior tone worries many activists, who fear further antagonizing the disenfranchised suburbs.

In other words, it is dangerous to stand up for French values, because it is only causing trouble by “further antagonizing the disenfranchised suburbs.” When were they “antagonized” before? When some French apparently resented the constant challenges to the principles of the laic state, as exemplified by the burka ban and limits on wearing the hijab? Or resented being attacked by domestic terrorists? Or refused to recognize Islam’s “No-Go Areas” and treated all places in France as…places in France? Are those Muslims – we know that is who Kauffmann means, because in French the word “suburbs” (banlieues) stands metonymically for the “Muslims” who live in those suburbs — prevented from voting, or from exercising any of the civil or political rights, or from taking full advantage of any of the generous government benefits, available to non-Muslim French citizens? No, of course they are not. So why describe them as “disenfranchised”? If the Muslims in France insist on not integrating into the larger society, that is, if they choose not to participate as fully as they could in the political system, why should non-Muslims be blamed? And what of the role of Islam in teaching its adherents to distrust or despise democracy and not to take part in its workings? In Western democracies like France, after all, what gives a government legitimacy is the will expressed by the people, however imperfectly, through elections, while in Islam the government’s legitimacy depends on its following the will expressed by Allah in the Qur’an. French Muslims are not disenfranchised; they disenfranchise themselves.

But similar doubts over traditional liberal views are being voiced in neighboring countries. In Germany, Social Democratic and Green voters are notably less open to immigration than they were six months ago, according to a poll published by the French Public Opinion Institute.

Why are even the left-wing Social Democratic and Green voters now “less open to immigration”? It is simply that they have had six more months to observe the behavior of Muslims in Germany toward women, as in Cologne on New Year’s, and to begin to make sense of it. And if they have become, as a result, “less open to immigration,” so what? When did the “immigration of Muslims” become a duty for the West, as Kauffmann may be implying? There is no such duty. Is it a bad thing when many on the left (Greens, Social Democrats) overcome their fears of being labelled “Islamophobic” and dare express “doubts” about enduring even more societal disruption, expense, and physical danger that have been the direct result of mass Muslim migration into Europe? And that does not mean that these leftists are now becoming the “far-right,” but that they are at long last seeing things steadily and whole.

Speaking in Berlin, the sociologist Paul Scheffer, a member of the Dutch Labor Party, argued that the sharp debate occurring in countries that want to stay as open as possible — Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands — proves the need to “reinvent the moral middle ground.”
If you live in France, you may be experiencing a degree of veil fatigue. Yes, the agonizing of liberal democracies over which values to safeguard first has been around far too long. Yet if if moderates, both Muslim and non-Muslim, cannot solve these issues, the battle over culture and identity will be left to far-right populist movements or Islamist fanatics.

Kauffmann here states things incorrectly. It is not only “Islamist fanatics,” but mainstream Muslims who take issue with the French government and society on the veil and many other matters. And on the other side, it is not only “far-right populists,” but such well-known leftists as Agnes B., Laurence Rossignol, Elisabeth Badinter – as Kauffmann has just told us in her report — who in France have been most ferociously opposed to the Muslim treatment of women, including the imposition of a dress code that violates French law. And still other French intellectuals who have never had anything to do with “far-right populism” – such as the writer Alain Finkielkraut and the journalist Ivan Rioufol – have consistently been the most articulate and relentless critics of Islam and Muslims in France.
It is disturbing that French values, French culture, French identity, should now be blandly discussed as up for debate (“the agony over which values to safeguard first,” “the battle over culture and identity”). In a well-ordered society, sure of itself, as France famously was until recent decades, none of this would come up as a subject for debate, but the Muslim invasion of Europe has caused France to lose its mental footing. The French who want to keep France France (Badinter, Rossignol, Agnes B., Finkielkraut, Rioufol, Valls, Sarkozy among others), do not feel obligated to compromise French values and French identity because of Muslim demands.

Most maddening of all is Kauffmann’s last sentence:

“If so [that is, if debates over culture and identity “are left to far-right populist movements or Islamist fanatics” rather than the “moderates”], the terrorists will have won.”

Think about what that means: Kauffmann is claiming “the terrorists will have won” if the “far-right populists”control the French side of the “debate” with the Muslims, and refuse to compromise on matters of “culture and identity.” But the whole article has shown that it is not “far-right populists,” but left-wing feminists – Agnes B., Elizabeth Badinter — who have been most determined not to yield an inch to Muslim demands. Kauffmann’s “the terrorists will have won” is meant to warn non-Muslims: if your values are attacked, don’t fight back, because that fight is “just what the terrorists want.” Bin Laden “wanted to start a war between civilizations.” (That war – of Islam against the West — was already 1300 years old, and hardly needed bin Laden to rekindle it). Al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, and a dozen other groups are all just trying, according to Kauffmann, to goad the Infidels into retaliating. They want that larger conflagration. According to the weird logic of the sentence, if you don’t fight back, but instead yield to “moderate” (!) Muslim demands, then there won’t be that conflict so ardently wished for by “the terrorists,” and “the terrorists will have lost.” Give them some of what they demand, and they lose. Don’t give in at all to Muslim demands, and the terrorists win. Of course. It all makes perfect sense.


Nets cover gorilla death 6 times more than Islamic State Christian beheading
How Ayatollah Khomeini suckered Jimmy Carter

​

 

How Ayatollah Khomeini suckered Jimmy Carter

June 5, 2016 10:12 am By Robert Spencer 53 Comments

The Ayatollah Khomeini was using taqiyya in its classic sense. The concept of taqiyya as such is specifically Shi’ite, developed during the time of the sixth Imam, Jafar al-Sadiq, in middle of the eighth century, when the Shi’ites were being persecuted by the Sunni caliph al-Mansur. Taqiyya allowed Shi’ites to pretend to be Sunnis in order to protect themselves from Sunnis who were killing Shi’ites. Until the conversion of Persia to Shi’ism, taqiyya was an important element of Shi’ite survival, for Sunnis, in the majority almost everywhere, would not infrequently take it upon themselves to cleanse the land of those whom they referred to as Rafidites, that is, rejecters — those who rejected the caliphates of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman.

Some Shi’ite thinkers turned the secrecy that had become a necessity into a virtue. The medieval Shi’ite scholar Ali ibn Musa ibn Tawus, who died in 1266, taught that Allah had revealed Shi’ism secretly, and it was incumbent upon the believers to practice it in secret. At the end of days, Allah will admit them secretly into Paradise. Some secrets were never to be revealed under any circumstances. The fifth imam, Muhammad al-Baqir, who died in 732, once gave a book to one of his disciples, telling him, “If you ever transmit any of it, my curse and the curse of my forefathers will fall upon you.”

The sixth Imam, Jafar Al-Sadiq, who died in 765, had a servant who was suspected of having revealed some of the secrets of the faith. The Imam lectured, “Whoever propagates our tradition is like someone who denies it.…Conceal our doctrine and do not divulge it. God elevates in this world one who conceals our doctrine and does not divulge it and he turns it in the next world into a light between his eyes which will lead him to Paradise. God abases in this world one who divulges our tradition and our doctrine and does not conceal it, and in the next world he removes the light from between his eyes and turns it into darkness which will lead him to hell. Taqiyya is our religion and the religion of our fathers; he who has no taqiyya has no religion.”

Other Imams also emphasized the cardinal importance of taqiyya, apparently not only because Shi’ites were under constant threat from Sunnis, but because Shi’ite Islam contained doctrines that must stay hidden from outsiders. Some sayings of the Imams include, “He who has no taqiyya has no faith”; “he who forsakes taqiyya is like him who forsakes prayer”; “he who does not adhere to taqiyya and does not protect us from the ignoble common people is not part of us”; “nine tenths of faith falls within taqiyya”; “taqiyya is the believer’s shield (junna), but for taqiyya, God would not have been worshipped.”


“How Ayatollah Khomeini suckered Jimmy Carter,” by John Bolton, New York Post, June 4, 2016:

New depths to Jimmy Carter’s fecklessness have emerged through the declassification of State Department cables relating to the fall of the Shah of Iran.
As reported by the BBC, the Ayatollah Khomeini, in January 1979, secretly sought Carter’s assistance in overcoming opposition from Iran’s military, still loyal to the shah. Khomeini promised that if he could return to Iran from exile in France, which the United States could facilitate, he would prevent a civil war, and his regime would not be hostile to Washington.
The soon-to-be Supreme Leader of Iran certainly knew a sucker when he saw one. What Carter did in response to Khomeini’s pledge is not entirely clear from the newly declassified materials, but Khomeini did return; the military either fell into line or was ruthlessly purged; and Iran switched 180 degrees from being a strategic US ally to being one of our most implacable adversaries.
Carter’s unwillingness to back the shah, a staunch American ally, has long been well-known, despite constant protestations of support at the time. Khomeini could not then, however, have relied on that for certain. Within Carter’s administration, hostility to the shah over his human-rights record, a centerpiece of Carter’s policy, was certainly extensive.

Iran thus posed one of the first clear tests of an American administration’s devotion to abstract principles over concrete US military and political interests.
The shah was no Jeffersonian democrat, but can anyone seriously argue that 35 years of authoritarian rule by religious extremists have been more favorable to human rights in Iran? And can anyone doubt that Iran’s seismic shift from being a strategic ally of the United States to being a terrorist-sponsoring nuclear proliferator has not left the Middle East and the wider world a more dangerous and unstable place?
The new documents, sadly, reveal how gullible an American president can be, how naïve and otherworldly and how oblivious to the real-world consequences of his decisions. Apparently, we have learned precious little from the shah’s overthrow.

Barack Obama’s 2015 deal with Khomeini’s successors over Iran’s nuclear-weapons program is a textbook lesson in getting our pockets picked diplomatically. Ayatollah Khamenei knew how to manipulate Obama just as Ayatollah Khomeini manipulated Carter. And the consequences could be even worse than the shah’s downfall.
The failures of the Iran nuclear deal are already all too evident. Iran’s ballistic-missile program continues unabated (providing delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons); Tehran is already renegotiating the deal to its advantage; and Iran’s malign influence in the Middle East continues to spread.

It comes as little surprise that Iran’s current Supreme Leader has already denounced the newly released documents as forgeries. After all, Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1979 efforts to secure American assistance dramatically undercut the urban legend that Khomeini was always implacably anti-American, the only attitude appropriate with regard to “the Great Satan.”
Of course, Khomeini’s unrestrained duplicity is hard to disguise for anyone with eyes to see. For a supposedly holy man, Khomeini brought new meaning to the saying, “The end justifies the means.”
What does defy credulity is that Jimmy Carter was so detached from reality that he would fall for Khomeini’s line of chatter, and that subsequent American leaders right down to the present day would do so as well. And it’s not just the American left that is taken in by such nonsense, but all too many Republicans as well. As Casey Stengel might have asked about Washington, “Don’t nobody here know how to play this game?”…


Hugh Fitzgerald: What’s a European Liberal to Do?
Hillary Clinton blames San Bernardino jihad attack on "gun lobby"

​

 

“The history of Islam was completely different from what we were taught at school”

June 6, 2016 3:13 am By Robert Spencer 59 Comments

“I found that the history of Islam was completely different from what we were taught at school.”
There is a concerted effort to whitewash the bloody history of jihad and mislead people about the history of Islam in general. Take a small example: the Sphinx’s nose. It was destroyed not by Napoleon’s troops in target practice (as goes the common story), but by the Muslim precursors of the Islamic State. In a rare moment of candor, Russia Today noted in 2015:

​

“Attacks on the Sphinx date back centuries. Despite many legends surrounding the monument’s missing nose – with harm from Napoleon’s cannon being among the most popular myths – historians believe it was actually destroyed by Sufi Muslim Muhammad Sa’im al-Dahr in the 14th century, after he learned that some peasants worshipped the Sphinx.”

Many of the incidents of Muslim destruction of artifacts are ascribed to Infidels, in keeping with the general tendency of Islamic supremacists to blame everyone but themselves for their own wrongdoing. In Balkan Ghosts: A Journey Through History, Robert D. Kaplan repeats uncritically what he probably heard from local Muslims: that the icons in the local churches had their eyes scraped off because the superstitious local Christians had taken them to mix in health potions.

It is, however, virtually inconceivable that Orthodox believers, even the most ignorant and superstitious, would desecrate icons in this way. It is much more likely that the icons had no eyes because Islamic authorities consider that it is sufficient to destroy the representation of the face in order to ruin the image as a representation of the human form. And that’s why the nose of the Sphinx was gone long before Napoleon’s troops ever had target practice.
Then there is the persistent myth of a tolerant, peaceful al-Andalus, supposedly a paradise of proto-multiculturalism under Muslim rule. Reality does not at all match politically correct fantasy. Even Maria Rosa Menocal, in her romantic and fantastic hagiography of Muslim Spain, The Ornament of the World, acknowledges the second-class status to which Jews and Christians were relegated there. “In return for this freedom of religious conscience the Peoples of the Book (pagans had no such privilege) were required to pay a special tax–no Muslims paid taxes–and to observe a number of restrictive regulations: Christians and Jews were prohibited from attempting to proselytize Muslims, from building new places of worship, from displaying crosses or ringing bells. In sum, they were forbidden most public displays of their religious rituals.”

According to historian Richard Fletcher, “Moorish Spain was not a tolerant and enlightened society even in its most cultivated epoch.” On December 30, 1066, about four thousand Jews in Granada were murdered by rioting Muslim mobs–more than would be killed in the Crusaders’ infamous Rhineland pogroms of the mid-twelfth century. What enraged the Granadan Muslims was the political power of the Jewish vizier Samuel ibn Naghrila and his son Joseph: the mob resented the fact that these men had authority over Muslims, which they saw as a “breach of sharia.” The mob was incited to kill the Jews by a poem composed by Muslim jurist Abu Ishaq: “I myself arrived in Granada and saw that these Jews were meddling in its affairs. … So hasten to slaughter them as a good work whereby you will earn God’s favor, and offer them up in sacrifice, a well-fattened ram.”
The mob heeded his call. A Muslim chronicler (and later sultan of Granada), ‘Abd Allah, said that “both the common people and the nobles were disgusted by the cunning of the Jews, the notorious changes they had brought in the order of things, and the positions they occupied in violation of their pact [of second-class status].” He recounted that the mob “put every Jew in the city to the sword and took vast quantities of their property.”
This whitewash of history in general is for the purposes of dawah. But sometimes, as in this case, Johannes, a Muslim who was raised with these kinds of falsehoods, discovers the truth, and they have the opposite effect.


“European churches say growing flock of Muslim refugees are converting,” by Harriet Sherwood and Philip Oltermann, Guardian, June 5, 2016 (thanks to Rod):

A growing number of Muslim refugees in Europe are converting to Christianity, according to churches, which have conducted mass baptisms in some places.
Reliable data on conversions is not available but anecdotal evidence suggests a pattern of rising church attendance by Muslims who have fled conflict, repression and economic hardship in countries across the Middle East and central Asia.
Complex factors behind the trend include heartfelt faith in a new religion, gratitude to Christian groups offering support during perilous and frightening journeys, and an expectation that conversion may aid asylum applications.

At Trinity church in the Berlin suburb of Steglitz, the congregation has grown from 150 two years ago to almost 700, swollen by Muslim converts, according to Pastor Gottfried Martens. Earlier this year, churches in Berlin and Hamburg reportedly held mass conversions for asylum seekers at municipal swimming pools.
The Austrian Catholic church logged 300 applications for adult baptism in the first three months of 2016, with the Austrian pastoral institute estimating 70% of those converting are refugees.
At Liverpool’s Anglican Cathedral in the UK, a weekly Persian service attracts between 100 and 140 people. Nearly all are migrants from Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere in central Asia.
One in four confirmations conducted by the bishop of Bradford, Toby Howarth, over the past year were of converts from Islam. Most were Iranian and most of those were asylum seekers.
Mohammad Eghtedarian, a curate at Liverpool Cathedral and a refugee from Iran who converted to Christianity and was later ordained, said the church was helping people to develop their faith and to apply for refugee status. “These two are intertwined. Most people apply for asylum on the basis of their religion,” he said.
His own journey, from the Iranian city of Shiraz to the UK, took him through half a dozen European countries, by truck, train and on foot. Destitute and terrified, he was offered practical and emotional support from Christians along the way….

Johannes, another Iranian, left Tehran for Vienna. Born into a Muslim family, the 32-year-old – who was previously called Sadegh – began questioning the roots of Islam at university. “I found that the history of Islam was completely different from what we were taught at school.
“A religion that began with violence cannot lead people to freedom and love. Jesus Christ said ‘those who use the sword will die by the sword’. This really changed my mind.”
Johannes began the process of converting to Christianity in Iran. He was ambushed with a group of others leaving a bible class but managed to escape and went into hiding. When the Austrian visa he had already applied for came through, he left the country.

Now waiting for the outcome of his asylum application, he has not told his parents of his conversion: only his sister knows his “secret”.
Authorities say there are about 90,000 Christians in Iran, though some human rights organisations put their number as high as 500,000. While Iranian law does not order the death penalty for converting from Islam to another faith, courts have handed down death sentences based on interpretation of Sharia law and legal opinions issued by religious leaders….
The Church of England does not collate figures on conversion. “This can be a delicate issue and we want to be sensitive to the backgrounds that people are from,” said Howarth….

Yes. People with backgrounds in a religion that mandates death for apostasy present a difficult challenge indeed.


Hugh Fitzgerald: Among Schoolchildren, or Islam Outreach in Japan
Iran accuses US of backing the Islamic State and the "Zionist Regime"

​

 

Wilders warns Australia of Muslim takeover

Aug 5, 2014
Posted by cairnsnews

Geert Wilders is a Member of the Dutch Parliament ​

Dutch MP Geert Wilders

In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: “Who lost Europe ?” Here is the speech of Geert Wilders, Chairman, Party for Freedom the Netherlands, at the Four Seasons in New York, introducing an Alliance of Patriots and announcing the Facing Jihad Conference in Jerusalem.

Dear friends, Thank you very much for inviting me.

I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe.
First, I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe. Then, I will say a few things about Islam. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem .

The Europe you know is changing.

You have probably seen the landmarks. But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration.
All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It’s the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corners. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim , and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe.. These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe, street by street, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, city by city.

There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe. With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.
Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam , Marseille and Malmo in Sweden. In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighbourhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities.
In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims.

Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils.
In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear ‘whore, whore’. Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin.
In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin. The history of the Holocaust can no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity.
In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system.
(As a “Brit” I couldn’t believe this particular speech so I decided to investigate this bit – to my utter astonishment it is quite true!).
Many neighbourhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels, because he was drinking during the Ramadan.

Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel. I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.
A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe. San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now.

Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.
Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Centre reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France . One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favour of a worldwide caliphate. Muslims demand what they call ‘respect’. And this is how we give them respect. We have Muslim official state holidays.
The Christian-Democratic attorney general is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority.

We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey .
Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behaviour, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. I call the perpetrators ‘settlers’. Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies; they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam.

Therefore, they are settlers.
Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighbourhoods, their cities, their countries. Moreover, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.
The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet.
His behaviour is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized.. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages – at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad.

Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means ‘submission’.
Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.

​

Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam ‘the most retrograde force in the world’, and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel. First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz; second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defence.
This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam’s territorial advance.
Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon , and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.

The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.
Many in Europe argue in favour of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behaviour, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel , they can get everything.
So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamisation as a ‘right-wing extremists’ or ‘racists’. In my country, the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II.
And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat. Yet there is a greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine.

An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America – as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem ….

Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe, American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe’s children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.
We have to take the necessary action now to stop this Islamic stupidity from destroying the free world that we know.
Please take the time to read and understand what is written here.

Please send it to every free person that you know, it is so very important.

https://cairnsnews.org/2014/08/05/wilder-warns-australia-of-muslim-takeover/

​

 

British Police Introduce Official Hijab, Will Do ‘Anything’ For ‘Diversity’




METROPOLITAN POLICE/AFP/Getty


by Liam Deacon8 Jun 20162,290
8 Jun, 2016 8 Jun, 2016

Police Scotland have said they will do “anything” to be more “diverse” and will be introducing a special hijab to encourage more female Muslims to join the force.

The Scottish Police authority released a detailed report on how they are working “to achieve a workforce that is more representative of our society,” and encourage “people from under-represented groups to consider policing as a career.”
The report is critical of the fact that 2.6 per cent of Scottish officers are non-white British, as the percentage of Scots from non-white backgrounds has recently doubled to 4 per cent, up from 2 per cent in 2001.

Therefore, “…in an effort to attract more Muslim women into policing a sample hijab has been sourced and tested” the report states.
Police Scotland are far from leading the way, however, as London’s Metropolitan Police approved a uniform hijab more than 10 years ago (pictured).
“Anything that can help increase diversity within the service is surely to be welcomed and I don’t see why anyone would have any problem with that,” Brian Docherty, chairman of the Scottish Police Federation, told The Scotsman.

Police Scotland put a questionnaire to the Scottish Police Muslim Association (SPMA) to find way of accommodating Islamic needs and values into the force.


Fahad Bashir, chair of the SPMA, said the creation of a Police Scotland hijab was a “step in the right direction”.
He said: “It’s not just about the hijab, but any religious headwear. It’s a productive thing on behalf of Police Scotland to make the organisation be seen to be inclusive.”
“From SPMA’s point of view, we’re fully supportive. Under-representation is an issue Police Scotland is trying to address. I couldn’t give you a definitive answer as to why it’s an issue.
“It’s not just the Muslim community, but in different communities across Scotland there will be cultural barriers to joining certain organisations. But we’re looking to see how we can break down those barriers.”

The Liberal Democrats recently described the representation of non-white and Muslim people in the police as “appalling”, and said it was time for immediate action.
It followed a submission to the Scottish Parliament’s equal opportunities committee from the SPF, a staff association, which said Police Scotland was merely paying “lip service” to the issue of ethnic minority recruitment.