Archive for the ‘Hate speech’ category

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

France: Jewish scholar prosecuted for hate speech for criticizing Islamic anti-Semitism

December 23, 2016

France: Jewish scholar prosecuted for hate speech for criticizing Islamic anti-Semitism, Jihad Watch, , December 23, 2016

(“Multiculturalism” in its truest form, penalizing non-Muslims for speaking truthfully about Islam. When will Islamist nations become “multicultural” and penalize Muslims for “hate speech” about Jews, Christians and non-Muslims in general?– DM)

Is truth a defense? The Qur’an depicts the Jews as fabricating things and falsely ascribing them to Allah (2:79; 3:75, 3:181); claiming that Allah’s power is limited (5:64); loving to listen to lies (5:41); disobeying Allah and never observing his commands (5:13); disputing and quarreling (2:247); hiding the truth and misleading people (3:78); staging rebellion against the prophets and rejecting their guidance (2:55); being hypocritical (2:14, 2:44); giving preference to their own interests over the teachings of Muhammad (2:87); wishing evil for people and trying to mislead them (2:109); feeling pain when others are happy or fortunate (3:120); being arrogant about their being Allah’s beloved people (5:18); devouring people’s wealth by subterfuge (4:161); slandering the true religion and being cursed by Allah (4:46); killing the prophets (2:61); being merciless and heartless (2:74); never keeping their promises or fulfilling their words (2:100); being unrestrained in committing sins (5:79); being cowardly (59:13-14); being miserly (4:53); being transformed into apes and pigs for breaking the Sabbath (2:63-65; 5:59-60; 7:166); and more.

georges-bensoussan

“Leading Jewish Scholar Prosecuted in France for Alleged anti-Muslim Remarks,” JTA, December 20, 2016:

One of the world’s leading historians on the Jewish communities in Arab countries is being prosecuted in France for alleged hate speech against Muslims.

The Morocco-born French-Jewish scholar Georges Bensoussan, 64, is due to appear next month before a Paris criminal court over a complaint filed against him for incitement to racial hatred by the Collective Against Islamophobia in France, the group recently announced on its website.

The complaint, which leading French scholars dismissed as attempt at “intimidation” in a statement Friday, was over remarks about anti-Semitism by Muslims that Bensoussan, author of a definitive 2012 work entitled “Jews in Arab Lands,” made last year during an interview aired by the France Culture radio station, the Collective said.

The Collective based its complaint on two remarks by Bensoussan.

“Today, we are witnessing a different people in the midst of the French nation, who are effecting a return on a certain number of democratic values to which we adhere,” read the first quote flagged.

The second quote cited read: “This visceral anti-Semitism proven by the Fondapol survey by Dominique Reynié last year cannot remain under a cover of silence.” Conducted in 2014 among 1,580 French respondents, of whom one third were Muslim, the survey found that they were two times and even three times more anti-Jewish than French people as a whole.

“Besides, with the animosity toward the French nation, there will be no integration as long as we will not be rid of this ancestral anti-Semitism that is kept secret (…) as an Algerian sociologist, Smain Laacher, very bravely said in a film that will be aired on France 3, ‘it’s disgraceful to keep in place this taboo, knowing that in Arab families in France and beyond everybody knows but will not say that anti-Semitism is transmitted with mother’s milk,” the quote continued.

At least 12 people have been murdered in three attacks by suspected jihadists from France on Jewish targets in that country and in Belgium since 2012.

The anti-Islamophobia collective called Bensoussan’s statements “dangerous and in line with far-right rhetoric” targeting Muslims.

But three prominent French writers and historians — Jacques Tarnero, Yves Ternon and Michel Zaoui – disputed the allegations, calling the complaint against Bensoussan “scandalous.”

The cautions taken against Bensoussan “are part of a strategy of intimidation intended to censure any lucid statement, any form of criticism,” they wrote in a statement they published online last week….

Categories: France, Hate speech, Islamic antisemitism
Tags: , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

The Dutch Death Spiral

December 11, 2016

The Dutch Death Spiral, Gatestone Institute, Giulio Meotti, December 11, 2016

“It would have been better if the Dutch state had sent a clear signal [to terrorists] via a Dutch court that we foster a broad notion of the freedom of expression in the Netherlands.” — Paul Cliteur, Professor of Jurisprudence, Leiden University.

The historic dimension of Wilders’s conviction is related not only to the terrible injustice done to this MP, but that it was the Netherlands that, for the first time in Europe, criminalized dissenting opinions about Islam.

“I will never be silent. You will not be able to stop me… And that is what we stand for. For freedom and for our beautiful Netherlands.” — Geert Wilders, Dutch MP and leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV).

“We have a lot of guests who are trying to take over the house.” — Pym Fortuyn, later shot to death to “defend Dutch Muslims from persecution.”

Before being slaughtered, clinging to a basket, Theo van Gogh begged his assassin: “Can we talk about this?” But can we talk?

A country whose most outspoken filmmaker was slaughtered by an Islamist; whose bravest refugee, hunted by a fatwa, fled to the U.S.; whose cartoonists must live under protection, had better should think twice before condemning a Member of Parliament, whose comments about Islam have forced him to live under 24-hour protection for more than a decade, for “hate speech.” Poor Erasmus! The Netherlands is no longer a safe haven for free thinkers. It is the Nightmare for Free Speech.

The most prominent politician in the Netherlands, MP Geert Wilders, has just been convicted of “hate speech,” for asking at a really if there should be fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands. Many newly-arrived Moroccans in the Netherlands seem to have been responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime there.

Paul Cliteur, Professor of Jurisprudence at Leiden University, who was called as an expert witness, summed up the message coming from the court: “It would have been better if the Dutch state had sent a clear signal [to terrorists] via a Dutch court that we foster a broad notion of the freedom of expression in the Netherlands.”

Here are just a few details to help understand what Wilders experiences every day because of his ideas: No visitors are allowed into his office except after a long wait to be checked. The Dutch airline KLM refused to board him on a flight to Moscow for reasons of “security.” His entourage is largely anonymous. When a warning level rises, he does not know where he will spend the night. For months, he was able to see his wife only twice a week, in a secure apartment, and then only when the police allowed it. The Parliament had to place him in the less visible part of the building, in order better to protect him. He often wears a bulletproof vest to speak in public. When he goes to a restaurant, his security detail must first check the place out.

Wilders’s life is a nightmare. “I am in jail,” he has said; “they are walking around free.”

The historic dimension of Wilders’s conviction is related not only to the terrible injustice done to this MP, but that it was the Netherlands that, for the first time in Europe, criminalized dissenting opinions about Islam.

The Netherlands is a very small country; whatever happens to this enclave is seen in the rest of Europe. The Netherlands refused to surrender to the Spanish invasion. It was from Rotterdam, the second-largest Dutch city, that the Founding Fathers left to create the United States of America. It was to the Netherlands that some of the most brave, original European philosophers and writers — Descartes, Rousseau, Locke, Sade, Molière, Hugo, Swift and Spinoza — had to flee to publish their books. It is also the only corner of Europe where there were no pogroms against Jews, and where Rembrandt painted Jesus with the physical traits of Jews.

Take Leiden: “Praesidium Libertatis” (“Bastion of Freedom”) is the motto of the Netherlands’ most ancient university. Leiden was the university of Johan Huizinga, the great historian who opposed the Nazis and died in a concentration camp. Leiden was also the university of Anton Pannekoek, the mentor of Martinus Van der Lubbe, the Dutch hero who torched the Nazi Parliament in 1933.

In Leiden today, you meet brave intellectuals such as Afshin Ellian, an Iranian jurist who fled Khomeini’s Revolution in Iran and who also now lives under police protection for his observations on Islam. Ellian’s office is close to the former office of Rudolph Cleveringa. When the Nazis invaded the Netherlands and called on Dutch public officials to fill out a form in which they had to declare whether they were “Aryans” or “Jews”, everyone but Cleveringa capitulated. He understood the consequences of such commands.

Twelve years ago, the Netherlands was again plunged into fear for the first time since World War II. In Linnaeusstraat, a district of Amsterdam, Mohammed Bouyeri, a Muslim extremist, ambushed the filmmaker Theo van Gogh and slaughtered him, then pinned on his chest a letter threatening the lives of Geert Wilders and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Before that murder, Pim Fortuyn, a professor who had formed his own party to save the country from Islamization, was shot to death to “defend Dutch Muslims from persecution.”

2117Twelve years ago, Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh (left) was assassinated by an Islamist who pinned on van Gogh’s chest a letter threatening the life of Geert Wilders (right). Today Wilders, the most prominent politician in the Netherlands, lives in hiding under round-the-clock protection.

Fortuyn had said, “We have a lot of guests who are trying to take over the house.”

Since then, many Dutch artists have capitulated to fear.

Sooreh Hera, from Iran, submitted her photos to the Gemeentemuseum Museum in The Hague. One of these works depicted Mohammed and Ali. After many threats, the museum proposed that it would acquire the photos without publishing them and that one day, perhaps, when the situation was calmer, they might show them then. Hera refused: it would have been self-censorship, a sad day for the West. Rants Tjan, director of Museum Gouda, bravely offered to exhibit her censored images, but that event was later cancelled, too. Hera was forced to go into hiding.

Paul Cliteur, a critic of multiculturalism, announced that he would no longer write for Dutch newspapers about Islam, for fear of reprisals: “With the murder of van Gogh, everyone who writes takes a certain risk. That is a scary development. What I am doing do is self-censorship, absolutely….”

Then a columnist, Hasna el Maroudi, from the newspaper NRC Handelsblad, stopped writing, after receiving threats.

The Dutch artist Rachid Ben Ali, irreverent about Islam, no longer satirizes Muslims.

Amsterdam, a city famous for its exuberant cultural life, had already lived through threats to artists: the occupation by the Nazis during World War II.

Several artists still refuse to mention Theo Van Gogh, so as not to “contribute to… divisions”, according to the New York Times. Translation: They are afraid. Who would not be?

In the Oosterpark, a steel sculpture by the artist Jeroen Henneman, dedicated to Van Gogh, is entitled “De Schreeuw” (“The Scream”). But it is a scream you hardly hear in the Dutch society.

What you do hear is the defiant protest after the conviction of a brave MP, Geert Wilders: “I will never be silent. You will not be able to stop me… And that is what we stand for. For freedom and for our beautiful Netherlands.”

Before being slaughtered, clinging to a basket, Theo van Gogh begged his assassin: “Can we talk about this?”

But can we talk?

Ask Geert Wilders, just the latest brave victim of Europe’s Bolshevik thought police.

Categories: Censorship, Europe, Freedom of speech, Geert Wilders, Hate speech, Islam - submission, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Multiculturalism, Netherlands, Thought police
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

VIDEO: Merkel Says ‘Trolls’ and ‘Fake News’ Could Influence German Election

November 24, 2016

VIDEO: Merkel Says ‘Trolls’ and ‘Fake News’ Could Influence German Election, Breitbart, Liam Deacon, November 24, 2016

merkelbows

Angela Merkel has said public opinion is being “manipulated” on the internet, claiming “fake news” websites and “trolls” could influence the approaching German elections.

In her first major address since announcing her intention to seek a fourth term, the German chancellor was also heckled and labelled a “disgrace” as she claimed to be “fighting illegal immigration” in Germany.

“Something has changed. As globalization has marched on, debate is taking place in a completely new media environment. Opinions aren’t formed the way they were 25 years ago,” she said, according to AFP.

“Today we have fake sites, bots, trolls – things that regenerate themselves, reinforcing opinions with certain algorithms and we have to learn to deal with them,” she added.

The chancellor linked the rise of alternative media to populist politics in the West during the speech.

“A lot of people are concerned about the stability of our social order,” she said. “Suddenly it seems that what we considered self-evident isn’t that self-evident after all.”

She reportedly claimed that democracy itself, and even the economy, were under threat.

The chancellor also insisted that “hate speech” should be censored in Germany, because “it’s not compatible with our ideals”. Debates, she said, should be carried out in what she saw as “the spirit of respect for others”.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81Yf154k034

The speech also covered the topic of migration, which saw the German leader shouted down in her own legislative chamber.

“We have passed the EU-Turkey agreement and I want to clearly state that, also looking at other areas…” she started, before a woman interrupted her, crying: “Disgrace!”

“Careful,” the Chancellor replied.

“It is your opportunity to openly express your opinions. I believe fighting illegal immigration,” she added. But the woman shouted back, “yeah, yeah”, dismissing the claim sarcastically.

Mrs. Merkel continued her speech: “Putting a stop to illegal smugglers who do vicious trade with human beings, to do something against the fact that this year 4,500 or more refugees have drowned is one of the most important requirements of political trade.”

Allies of the chancellor applauded her as she asserted: “Those who have to rely on smugglers because they can’t shape politics, they do not do their job in the sense that I envision it.”

More than a million illegal migrants walked into Germany last year. The numbers began rising sharply immediately after Mrs. Merkel promised to suspend the Dublin agreementin August, and “welcome” any migrant who could make it across Germany’s borders.

Categories: "Fake news", Germany, Germany open borders, Hate speech, Islamic invasion, Islamisation, Merkel, social media
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

Reaction of Geert Wilders to Penal Demand of Public Prosecutor

November 17, 2016

Reaction of Geert Wilders to Penal Demand of Public Prosecutor, Gatestone Institute, Geert Wilders, November 17, 2016

I just heard the penal sentence demanded by the Public Prosecutor: a penalty of 5,000 euros.

Speaking about one of the biggest problems of our country – the problem with Moroccans – is now punishable, according to the elite. And, hence, we are slowly but surely losing our freedom of speech. Even asking a question is no longer allowed. Even though millions of people agree. And Moroccans have suddenly become a race. So if you say something about Moroccans, you are now a racist. Nobody understands that. It is utter madness. Only meant to shut you and me up.

2051

While in other countries the people send the elite home, here they want to silence an opposition leader. The Netherlands is running the risk of becoming a dictatorship. It looks like Turkey. The differences between the Netherlands and Turkey are getting smaller. The opposition is silenced.

I was elected by nearly a million people. That number will be even higher on March 15th next year. And it is my duty to talk about the problems, even when the politically-correct elite led by Prime Minister Rutte prefers not to mention them. Because looking away and remaining silent is not an option.

I have to say it like it is.

What is the use of political cowards who no longer dare to speak the truth? Who are silent about the problems in our country? Who pander to the government? Who cowardly look the other way?

Nothing at all! Putting one’s head in the sand is cowardliness.

And if you must keep quiet about problems, because simply asking a question has become punishable, the problems will only grow bigger. Then, the Netherlands will become a dictatorship of fearful and cowardly politicians.

I will never accept that. I will continue to fight for a free and safe Netherlands. That is why Islamic terrorists have been trying to kill me for 12 years. Today, these terrorists rejoice. Wilders is going to be punished. The Public Prosecutor has made himself their ally today.

But I will not allow anyone to shut me up!

No terrorist will be able to silence me!

No prosecutor in a black gown or cowardly prime minister will get me on my knees!

I shall therefore not care about their penal demand at all. They can do whatever they want. It will only make me stronger. I will only get more motivated.

And you can support me with this. By continuing to fight with me for the preservation of freedom of expression. For the maintenance of a safe and free Netherlands. Our country.

Geert Wilders is a member of the Dutch Parliament and leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV).

Categories: Freedom of speech, Geert Wilders, Hate speech, Netherlands, Racism
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: 3 Comments

Will Alberta police investigate Mohammad’s ruling on gays as hate speech?

October 21, 2016

Will Alberta police investigate Mohammad’s ruling on gays as hate speech? CIJ News, Jonathan D. Halevi, October 20, 2016

pride-parade-in-toronto-photo-cijnewsPride Parade in Toronto. Photo: CIJnews

Global News reported that a second “an anti-Islam flyer” was found in mailboxes in Edmonton, Alberta. The police hate crimes unit has launched an investigation.

The flyer reads the following:

I HATE GAYS

Thinks Islam

The Quran:

Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to him. (in

reference to the active and passive partners in gay sexual intercourse)

Is this advocating peace, love and freedom in your eyes?

IT’S TIME TO

#ShiptThemThe****Back

www.siotw.org [STOP ISLAMIZATION OF THE WORLD]

To see the flyer click HERE.

Alannah Davies, Edmonton resident who received the flyer in her mailbox and Jesse Lipscombe, founder of the racism initiative Make It Awkward, condemned the hate content of the flyer.

Faisal Khan Suri, president of the Alberta Muslim Public Affairs Council (AMPAC), called on police to investigate the flyer. The Alberta Muslim Public Affairs Council (AMPAC) sent the following statement to Global News:

“AMPAC emphatically condemns the hate flyers being distributed in Edmonton for the second

time. The flyers are hate propaganda with fabricated assertions about Islam and Muslims.

“Islam does not condone the killing of any innocent life.

“We are urging the EPS to investigate these acts as hate crimes and brings those responsible to justice…

“Islamophobia in not just a Muslim issue – it’s an Alberta issue and a Canadian issue.”

Does the flyer contains “fabricated assertions about Islam”?

The authors of the flyer quoted hadith (narration) attributed to Mohammad, the prophet of Islam, explaining the Islamic ruling in case of homosexuality.

The same hadith and interpretation appears on the Islamic website Mission Islam:

“Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to.” (in reference to the active and passive partners in gay sexual intercourse).”

The team behind Mission Islam website present themselves as “concerned Muslims” who strive to “promote accurate representation of Islam… to increase awareness as to the extent of oppression against Muslims… [and] to remind Muslims of their responsibility to participate and support their brothers and sisters in Islam.”

The hadith in question also included in an Islamic ruling published by the Islamic website “Islam Question and Answer” which is recommended by Islamic organizations in Canada.

The following are excepts from the Islamic ruling on the punishment for homosexuality:

“The crime of homosexuality is one of the greatest of crimes, the worst of sins and the most abhorrent of deeds, and Allaah punished those who did it in a way that He did not punish other nations…

“al-Tirmidhi (1456), Abu Dawood (4462) and Ibn Maajah (2561) narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.”. Classed as saheeh [reliable narration] by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi…

“The Sahaabah [Mohammad’s companions] were unanimously agreed on the execution of homosexuals, but they differed as to how they were to be executed.

“Some of them were of the view that they should be burned with fire…

“and some of them thought that they should be thrown down from a high place then have stones thrown at them…

“Some of them thought that they should be stoned to death…

“After the Sahaabah, the fuqaha’ [scholars] differed concerning the matter.

“Some of them said that the homosexual should be executed no matter what his situation, whether he is married or not.

“Some of them said that he should be punished in the same way as an adulterer, so he should be stoned if he is married and flogged if he is not married.

“Some of them said that a severe punishment should be carried out on him, as the judge sees fit.”

The Islamic ruling on the punishment for homosexuality – The Canadian perspective

Imam Dr. Abdullah Hakim Quick (Toronto):

“So he [journalist] said: what is the position of Islam on homosexuality? They ask me. So newspaper, right? So I said: put my name in the paper. The position is death. And we cannot change Islam…

“If he is serious, and a person came to me, and he came in the office and and he said he was homosexual, cried. I said: what happened to you? And he said: my father abused me. Heis a Muslim. So I… said: brother, you know your are sick. He said: I’m sick.

“So we sent him to a Muslim psychiatrist, so he can work through his problem, and then bring him back into the masjid (mosque).

“So anything can can come now these days. Anything is going to come at us, but we cannot allow in the name of Islam gay masjid (mosque) to come. We cannot allow this, man. And they’re trying to do this…

[Question from the audience whether the “Jews” are behind homosexuality]

“It [homosexuality] goes with Zionism. And really it seems like, Allah knows best (الله اعلم), if they are Dajjal’s (Antichrist دجال) army while it is mostly Jews (يهود) but probably there will be homosexuals with them too. Allah knows best (الله اعلم).

Syed Muhammad Rizvi (Toronto):

“In the Islamic legal system, homosexuality is a punishable crime against the laws of God. In the case of homosexuality between two males, the active partner is to be lashed a hundred times if he is unmarried and killed if he is married; whereas the passive partner is to be killed regardless of his marital status.

“In the case of two females (i.e., lesbianism), the sinners are to be lashed a hundred times if they are unmarried and stoned to death if they are married.

Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips (Toronto):

“It becomes a problem. Delaying Marriage… That’s the consequence. Once we delay it brings in corruption. Worse than that, you end up with lesbianism, homosexuality gets born out of those circumstances.”

Imam Wael Shihab (Toronto):

“Homosexuality is a sinful act in Islam. As for you question about how we should deal with homosexuals, I’d cite the following fatwa of Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi, president of the Fiqh Council of North America:

“We should consider them people who get themselves engaged in a sinful act. We should deal with them in the same way we deal with any people who are involved in alcoholics, gambling or adultery.

“We should have deep repugnance to their acts and we must remind and warn them. Those who insist on this lifestyle, consider it legitimate and feel ‘gay pride’, we should not associate with them and should not take them as friends. We should certainly avoid those people.

“If we see a person who has committed this sin and wants to repent then we should help that person as much as we can to get out of this evil. We should not leave him/her to thetemptations of the Satan…”“In Islam, changing one’s sex is not permissible if the person (male or female) has ‎complete male or female sex organs….

“Moreover, I have consulted reliable medical sources, which confirm the following:

“1. A person who undergoes sex-change operation will not be a complete man or woman. So, if a man changed his gender to a woman, she then will not be able to bear children or breastfeed them. The same also applies to a woman who changes her gender to a man; he will not be able to have children.

“2. It is easy for a person, after having sex-change operation, to return back to his or her original sex.

“Given the above, it’s my advice for him to return back to his original sex and go through professional counseling and treatment to lead normal happy life.”

Imam Syed B. Soharwardy (Calgary):

“According to the teachings of Islam homosexual behaviour is an abnormal behaviour and must be cured. Homosexuality is completely forbidden in Islam and it is one of the KABA-IR (big) sins according to Islam.”

Imam Mustafa Khattab (Edmonton):

“Homosexuality is not permissible. The reason the people of Lot peace be upon him were destroyed in Sodom and Gomorrah, because of this sin, so it is not permissible. Deal with someone, with a homosexual, in my view, as I said homosexuality is abnormal, this is not the norm.

“So, for me, someone who is homosexual is like someone who has diabetes or someone who has cancer or AIDS, he has a special case and this person needs special treatment.

“Can I talk to them? Why not? Just like I talk to everybody, ok. But, personally I don’t like to be associated with them.

“One day, we were in California, in Los Angeles and we were sitting around a table… this guy was sitting next to me… he said: I’m personally a gay… I moved my chair. I didn’t feel comfortable to sit next to the guy. Again, you can talk to them.”

Imam Muneer El-Kassem (London, Ont.):

El-Kassem implied that Allah punished mankind with global wide economic crisis because of homosexuality (“some sexual orientations”) and immodesty (“dressed half naked”). According to Munir El-Kassem, the climate change as it is seen reflected in the prolonged drought in Middle East is actually Allah’s retribution for the people who avoid giving charity.

Muslim preacher at Toronto’s Dundas Square:

“If you are gay you are cursed, because it is disgusting, because you area man and you are having sex with another man which is the cause of AIDS.”

“You want to be proud to be a gay and this is the cause of AIDS and that is a punishment from God.”

“You’ll see all these homosexuals, they are spitting… because they are dying of AIDS, and the truth is the truth. I’m here to bring the truth… It is the punishment of God. God is punishing them by bringing them AIDS.”

“Homosexuality is wrong and a sin and if you are a homosexual you are cursed. It doesn’t matter if it is your right… you will have to answer your Lord… when you die you will have to answer to God for your evil Satanic actions.”

“The truth is the truth and the truth has to be spread… because the City is days before the Gay Parade, right? and as a Muslim I have to enjoy the good and forbid the evil. I have to do it because I’m committed by Allah as a Muslim to enjoy good and forbid evil.”

“If you go to Church and Wellesley you see these homosexuals spitting, because they are dying of AIDS.”

“People want to defend them. How can you defend something Satanic… how can you defend AIDS? It is immoral… Homosexuality is immoral.”

The book Minhaj – Al – Muslim, or “The way of a Muslim” (sold in Islamic bookstores in Canada), p. 511 of the book (Vol. 2):

“The Hadd [fixed punishment] of homosexuality is stoning to death, with there being no difference between the married or unmarried person. This is due to the Prophet’s statement:

“Whoever you find doing the deed of the people of Lut (i.e. sodomy), then kill the doer and the one

to whom it is being done.” (Abu Dawud, At-Tirmithi and others, and it is Sahih [reliable])

The methods of killing them (the two who committed the homosexual act) that have been related from the Companions have differed. From among them there were those who burned them with fire. Others among them killed them by stoning them with stones. Ibn ‘Abbas said about them. “The highest building in the village should be sought, then they should be thrown from it upside down (i.e. on their heads). Then they should stoned after that.”

The book “The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam” By Yusuf Al Qaradawi (sold in Islamic bookstores in Canada):

“Sexual Perversion: A Major Sin…

“Lut’s people were addicted to this shameless depravity, abandoning natural, pure, and lawful relations with women in the pursuit of this unnatural, foul and illicit practice…

“The jurists of Islam have held different opinions concerning the punishment for this abominable practice. Should it be the same as the punishment for zina [adultery, which means that the married sinner is stoned to death], or should both the active and passive participations [sic] be put to death? While such punishments may seem cruel, they have been suggested to maintain the purity of the Islamic society and to keep it clean of perverted elements.”

The book Fatawa Islamiyah or Islamic Verdicts (sold in Islamic bookstores in Canada), (Vol. 6, p. 199):

“The Ruling on Sodomy and the Punishment Thereof

“What is the ruling on sodomy in Islam and what is the punishment?

“The shameful act of sodomy is one of the most repugnant of shameful acts and we seek refuge with Allah (from it). Because of it, Allah destroyed the people of Lut, peace be upon him, and punished them with a terrible punishment, turning their homes upside down and raining stones of baked clay upon them, layer upon layer, (as Allah said): “marked from your Lord and they are not ever far from the wrongdoers.”

“It has been reported from the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, that the punishment for one who does that or allows it to be done to him is that he be killed. Or, tobe burnt or to be stoned. Or, to be thrown from the highest point (mountain, tower, lofty building etc.), then to follow it with stoning.

“This is because of its corruption of morals, customs, and because of its violation of the natural human state, and because the abandonment of lawful marriage by those who practice.

“Ibn Jibreen”

The book “Clear Your Doubts About Islam” (distributed for free at the Islamic book at Toronto’s Dundas Square):

“Why does Islam oppose homosexuality? Where is freedom of choice?

“In the West today. homosexuality and lesbianism have come to be seen as an alternative lifestyle subject to personal preference. It is no longer considered an abnormality that requires restraint and treatment, and is being actively promoted by its adherents and their sympathizers as a legitimate way of life. Arguments in favor of tolerance toward same sex relationships arc based on the assumption that homosexual behavior is biologically based and not merely learned from society.

“Islam considers homosexuality to be the result of human choice. Human beings are not robots that do only what they are programmed to do. They choose how to behave and God holds them responsible for their choices. It is inconceivable that God would have made some people homosexuals then declared it a punishable crime. To accept such a proposition is to suggest that God is unjust.

“Inclinations can exist within humans toward a variety of natural acts and unnatural ones such as rape, paedophilia or bestiality. These inclinations may arise from media influence or direct contact, but it does not mean that free reign should be given to them.”

The book “24 Hours With The Prophet” (distributed for free at the Islamic booth at Dundas Square in Toronto):

Homosexuality is a “major sin”

The Meadowale Islamic Centre in Mississauga, Ontario included “sodomy, homosexuality” in the list of “The Five Evils” (newsletter. March & April 2015).

Categories: Canada, Hate speech, Islam and homosexuals, Islamists in Canada, Islamophobia
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Liberals Demand Trump be Arrested for “Hate Speech” – Petitioning Attorney General for Indictment

September 26, 2016

Liberals Demand Trump be Arrested for “Hate Speech” – Petitioning Attorney General for Indictment, Mark Dice via YouTube, September 26, 2016

The blurb beneath the video states

Social Justice Warriors sign a petition to arrest Donald Trump for “hate speech” crimes, and throw him to jail for ten years. This shocking social experiment was conducted by media analyst Mark Dice to discover how far liberals would go in hopes of stopping Donald Trump from becoming President of the United States. Media analyst Mark Dice has the story. © 2016 by Mark Dice

Categories: Department of Justice, Donald Trump, Hate speech
Tags: , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Hugh Fitzgerald: Those Danish Right-Wing “Racists,” Their “Harsh” Demands and “Hate” Speech

September 8, 2016

Hugh Fitzgerald: Those Danish Right-Wing “Racists,” Their “Harsh” Demands and “Hate” Speech, Jihad Watch, , September 8, 2016

denmark-migrant-and-native

The other day the New York Times published a story about how Danes are souring on Muslim immigrants, and how some feel guilty about it:

Johnny Christensen, a stout and silver-whiskered retired bank employee, always thought of himself as sympathetic to people fleeing war and welcoming to immigrants. But after more than 36,000 mostly Muslim asylum seekers poured into Denmark over the past two years, Mr. Christensen, 65, said, “I’ve become a racist.”

He believes these new migrants are draining Denmark’s cherished social-welfare system but failing to adapt to its customs. “Just kick them out,” he said, unleashing a mighty kick at an imaginary target on a suburban sidewalk. “These Muslims want to keep their own culture, but we have our own rules here and everyone must follow them.”

When Christensen says “I’ve become a racist,” he has internalized the false charge made by Muslims, and their willing collaborators, that those who are sensibly anxious about Islam are “racists.” Since that scare-word automatically consigns one to the outer darkness, when even perfectly intelligent people with perfectly reasonable grievances turn that word on themselves, it is clear that something is amiss. Mr. Christensen needs to be unapologetic for his views, and he should start by watching his language: Islam is not a race, antipathy to Muslims does not constitute “racism.” Leave that word alone.

If Mr. Christensen wishes to feel guilty, he ought to feel guilty only about what future generations of Danes will inherit: a country which, because of the numbers of Muslims allowed in during Mr. Christensen’s time, will be far more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous for native Danes than it might otherwise have been.

As the Times story notes, “Denmark, a small and orderly nation with a progressive self-image, is built on a social covenant: In return for some of the world’s highest wages and benefits, people are expected to work hard and pay into the system. Newcomers must quickly learn Danish — and adapt to norms like keeping tidy gardens and riding bicycles.”

But just look at how the Times reporter then slants the story at every point: “The center-right government has backed harsh measures targeting migrants, hate speech has spiked, and the anti-immigrant Danish People’s Party is now the second largest in Parliament.”

“Harsh measures targeting migrants,” “hate speech has spiked,” “anti-immigrant party.” It all sounds so terrible, until you ask a few questions.

What “harsh measures” are these? Apparently the “harshest” measure, passed in January, empowers the Danish authorities to confiscate valuables from new arrivals, both Muslim and non-Muslim, to offset the cost of settling them. It has seldom been enforced, and does not apply to the first $1,500 a migrant possesses.

Why exactly is this considered “harsh”? Should migrants not be expected to contribute, when they are capable of doing so? After all, they arrived uninvited, are immediately the recipients of a cornucopia of expensive benefits, and these benefits now flowing to them were paid for by generations of Danish taxpayers, who thought they were providing for poorer members of their own, that is Danish, society.

Is it “harsh” to require immigrants to pass exams in Danish? At present, only 72%, or a little more than 2/3, manage to learn even elementary Danish. Is it “harsh” to make immigrants take a citizenship exam, requiring them have studied the laws and mores of the Danes, given that they have the great good fortune to have been admitted to this peaceful pleasant land? Is it wrong to require immigrants to study the history of Denmark, since they have decided they’ve come to Denmark to stay? If the goal is to integrate these foreigners, the free courses and tests required will only further that goal.

And why are these putatively “harsh” measures described as “targeting immigrants,” rather than, in less loaded words, described simply as “applying to immigrants”? Since these are measures to further the successful integration of immigrants, of course they apply only to — but do not “target,” which has a distinctly menacing ring — immigrants. As to the casual assertion that “hate speech has spiked,” where is the evidence for this? Since not a single example of such “hate speech” appears in the entire Times piece, the reader must simply take it on faith that Danes – again labelled as “right-wing” – have been guilty of “hate speech.”

Let’s try to figure out what the reporter had in mind as conceivable “hate speech.” Suppose a member of the Danish People’s Party points out that Muslim Somalis in Denmark commit ten times as many crimes per capita as native Danes. That is a statement of fact, not “hate speech.” Or suppose a member of the Danish People’s Party notes that Muslim immigrants receive a much larger benefits package, and for a longer period, given their high unemployment, as compared to what non-Muslim immigrants and native Danes receive. Would that be “hate speech,” or simply a statement of fact?

“There is new tension between Danes still opening their arms and a resurgent right wing that seeks to ban all Muslims and shut Denmark off from Europe.”

So the reporter sees a Morality Play with two kinds of Danes: the Good Danes, “still opening their arms,” and the Bad Danes, “a resurgent right wing that seeks to ban all Muslims.” But even the Good Danes did not invite the Muslims in, and never quite were “opening their arms.” And even if the Bad Danes want to end Muslim immigration, none have as yet called for removing all of the Muslims already in Denmark. Not quite a Morality Play.

The Times reporter continues:

There is tension, too, over whether the backlash is really about a strain on Denmark’s generous public benefits or a rising terrorist threat — or whether a longstanding but latent racial hostility is being unearthed.

First, what does it mean to write “there is tension” over whether the “backlash” is about “a strain on generous public benefits” OR “a rising terrorist threat”? “Tension” over trying to apportion blame for the anxiety Muslims have caused? Why can’t there be anxiety among Danes about both the cost to their welfare system of Muslim migrants, and about the threat of Islamic terrorism to their very lives? Why can’t there be more than one reason for growing antipathy to Muslim migrants in Denmark?

And then there is that other proffered reason, which Muslims and their apologists find much to their liking: Could anxiety about the effect of Muslim migrants on Danish society reveal “a longstanding but latent racial hostility”? Just think, this “racial hostility” has been so longstanding but so very latent that no one noticed it, and strange to say, now that the Danes have revealed themselves as “racists,” their “racism” apparently doesn’t apply to all black people, for black African Christians in Denmark have rarely had any troubles, while, strange to say, even white Muslims (as from Syria) have engendered antipathy. So this hostility must have to do not with race but with Islam. The Danes are not revealing “racial hostility,” but well-grounded fears about Islam and the behavior of Muslims. Those who talk about a “latent racial hostility” in this famously tolerant country are deliberately trying to make the Danes feel guilty about their well-justified fears, and to deflect attention away from Islam

The Times reporter does concede that “perhaps the leading — and most substantive — concern is that the migrants are an economic drain. In 2014, 48 percent of immigrants from non-Western countries ages 16 to 64 were employed, compared with 74 percent of native Danes.” There then follows the sensible comments of immigration officials about the need to avoid “parallel societies,” and the story of one Muslim immigrant family’s success (but no similar stories about the many cases of immigrant unemployment and crime), that of an Iraqi engineer who allows his children to eat pork at school, and who with his family attends church to learn about Christianity. How typical do you think this Muslim immigrant family is?

This report from Denmark, with its loaded words – “right-wing,” “hate speech,” “targeting immigrants,” “harsh measures” – does not leave much room for thoughtful analysis of what is clearly a grave problem everywhere in Western Europe. That problem, let me repeat, is that Muslim migrants, in large numbers (one million arrived in Germany alone in 2015), have been moving into Europe, bringing Islam with them in their mental luggage, putting great strain on the welfare systems of every country in which they end up, and on the criminal justice systems because of their sky-high crime rate, and, given Muslim terrorist attacks in nearly a dozen Western countries, on the security services too.

Yet it is amazing that even now, after all the murder and mayhem that has been committed by Muslims, and not only those of ISIS who dutifully cite Islamic texts to justify their every act, people in Denmark are embarrassed to admit to an anxiety about Islam, and instead accuse themselves (“I’ve become a racist”) rather than ask what it is about the ideology of Islam that makes it uniquely difficult, perhaps even impossible, for Muslim migrants – always with a few remarkable exceptions — to integrate.

That is the question to be asked again and again: what explains the success of so many non-Muslim immigrants in managing to integrate into many different European countries, and the failure of so many Muslim immigrants to do so in those same countries? And why do the peoples of Western Europe allow themselves to feel so apologetic about their anxiety about, and antipathy toward, Islam? And when will we, the world’s Infidels, dare to study the texts that explain Muslim acts and attitudes, or shall we forever deny ourselves the right to engage in such study, that is, from doing the one thing that makes the most sense?

Categories: Denmark, Hate speech, Islam - submission, Islam in Europe, Islamic culture, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Language, Media and Islam, Welfare
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

London Builds Intelligence Unit to Target Cyber “Hate Speakers”

September 7, 2016

London Builds Intelligence Unit to Target Cyber “Hate Speakers” Counter Jihad, September 7, 2016

The office of the Mayor of London has issued a grant for an online “hub” designed to identify so-called ‘hate speakers’ for police.  The grant promises to “improve the police response” as well as develop the “intelligence to facilitate counter measures that can reduce and prevent further criminal activity.”  British and European law do not contain the robust protections for freedom of speech that America’s First Amendment provides.

Saying anything that falls under the poorly-defined rubric of ‘hate speech’ is already criminal in London:  they just want to improve their capacity to send the police to your house.  The penalty can be six months in prison per offense.

Well, actually, they want to do a little more than that.  The grant also promises to “build community capacity to respond collectively to online hate.”  So it isn’t just a rule-of-law response that they are looking for here.  They want to organize online mobs to go after you for expressing disapproved thoughts.

Breitbart news points out that this is the brainchild of London’s first Muslim mayor.

The office of London’s first Muslim mayor has secured millions of pounds to fund a police “online hate crime hub” to work in “partnership with social media providers” to criminalise “trolls” who “target… individuals and communities.” … In May this year, the EU announced that Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft had “committed” to working more closely with them and national governments and “their law enforcement agencies” to help “criminalise” perceived “illegal hate speech” online.

Naturally, the law will also be used to criminalize political opposition to the establishment — one of the first uses was to target what the UK Standard refers to as “Brexit hate crime.”  But it seems from the grant application that speech critical of Islam is the real target.  The announcement of the grant states that a recent report “identified 45% of anti-Muslim hate crime took place online, and the organisation is seeing up to 80% of its resources used in monitoring online hate and supporting the victims.”

The claim is that seeing online ‘hate crime’ results in “higher levels of depression, stress and anger,” and can cause changes in “which streets they walk down, how they answer the phone, reactions to strangers, and suspicion of co-workers.”  That last element sounds particularly ominous given Islamist workplace attacks such as the San Bernardino shooting.  The London police appear to be suggesting that seeing criticism of Islam on-line leads to murders of this sort.  Indeed, the criminalization of critical speech even seems to suggest that these psychological effects to some degree justifyIslamist violence against society.

Breitbart points out that convictions under the law banning speech of this kind have increased ten-fold in the last decade.  They quote Frank Furedi, emeritus professor of sociology at the University of Kent.  [T]he police [are] becoming more and more involved in controlling our morality,” he told the BBC.  “[They are] almost playing the role of a moral police. And instead of dealing with real crime in the offline world, [the police] find its very convenient to ‘send the message’ in the online world because it’s a relatively easy thing to do.”

Doubtless it is a lot safer than targeting Islamist militants.  The only cost is a little liberty.  Well, maybe more than a little.

Categories: Britain, Freedom of speech, Hate speech, Islam - submission, Islam and human rights, London
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Fighting Hate Speech — British Style

August 7, 2016

Fighting Hate Speech — British Style, Gatestone Institute, Judith Bergman, August 7, 2016

♦ The review found that chaplains at some prisons encouraged inmates to raise money for Islamic charities linked to international terrorism.

♦ In June, a Muslim cleric told the BBC that a manual used by imams to teach prison inmates about Islam risks “turning people into jihadis.” A section of the program on jihad says that taking up arms to fight “evil” is “one of the noblest acts.”

♦ Tommy Robinson was recently pictured at the Euro 2016 football championships in France wearing an anti-ISIS T-shirt and holding up a flag with “F**k ISIS” written across it. Upon his return to London, Bedfordshire Police immediately charged Robinson with inciting racial hatred.

♦ So, offending a murderous terrorist organization such as ISIS is apparently no longer protected by the rules of free speech and is now considered “inciting racial hatred” against Muslims.

In April, leaks from the review of extremism in prisons, which was commissioned by former British Justice Secretary Michael Gove and conducted by former prison governor Ian Acheson, revealed that Islamic hate literature — misogynistic and homophobic pamphlets and hate tracts endorsing the killing of apostates — is freely available on the bookshelves of British prisons. The hate literature is distributed to inmates by Muslim chaplains, who themselves are appointed by the Ministry of Justice.

According to the Daily Mail, a Whitehall source said that the material was kept in prison chaplaincy rooms and was available for anyone to come in and pick it up. The leaked review also found that chaplains at some prisons encouraged inmates to raise money for Islamic charities linked to international terrorism.

The review will finally be released to the public in August, after a long delay due, according to theDaily Mail, to the findings of the review sparking an urgent internal alert, because of the risk of “severe reputational damage” to the Ministry of Justice. Chris Phillips, the former head of the National Counter Terrorism Security Office, a police unit that works closely with the government on its counter-terrorism strategy, warned last year that staff shortages in prisons were making it harder to tackle Islamic radicalization, because extremists were not properly monitored. Then Home Secretary Theresa May rejected the claim by saying that the government was looking at “and continue to look at” preventative measures.

One former prison officer told the BBC that the “problem within prisons now is getting to a critical point”, with “many Muslim prisoners basically taking over the law of the prison.”

In June, a Muslim cleric told the BBC that a manual used by imams to teach prison inmates about Islam risks “turning people into jihadis.” Sheikh Musa Admani, who according to the BBC is a chaplain and expert in interpreting Islamic texts, and has worked extensively on anti-radicalization programs in the UK and abroad, told the BBC that the so-called Tarbiyah programme, used in English and Welsh prisons since 2011, could turn people towards violence and should be withdrawn. A section of the program is on jihad, and it says taking up arms to fight “evil” is “one of the noblest acts.” According to the BBC, the Tarbiyah program was co-written by a number of imams and Ahtsham Ali, a prisons adviser to the Ministry of Justice. According to Sheikh Musa Admani:

“This document sets out the steps and then addresses various forms of jihad and then goes on to emphasise a particular type i.e. the killing and the fighting. It incites people to take up arms… It prepares people for violence. It could turn people when they come out of prison, supposedly rehabilitated, back into violence.”

Notably, all this is happening despite the fact that the British government’s anti-extremism Prevent strategy requires prisons to stop extremists radicalizing inmates. Clearly, that is not going very well.

Ian Acheson presented his findings from the review for the first time on July 13 at a meeting in the Commons Justice Committee. According to the Daily Mail, Acheson said that he found staff lacked the training to confront and deter Islamist extremist ideology, and were often fearful that they would be accused of racism if they did.

Judging by Acheson’s words, the review is damning of the National Offender Management Service (the institution in charge of prisons): “The service had made no provision at all to forecast the return of jihadi fighters from Afghanistan or ISIS-controlled territory or anywhere else… I found that quite astonishing.”

He also said that there were countless examples of extremist literature being present, while the recruitment, training and supervision of prison imams was “seriously deficient.”

Acheson spoke of an “institutional timidity” in “confronting this problem front and central” adding that the “extremism unit” at the National Offender Management Service “lacked an actual strategy to deal with extremism.”

He also said, “It seemed more concerned with briefing and collating information than providing robust operational support to the front line.”

British authorities are indeed in trouble, if a fear of being called “racist” interferes with their willingness to deal with Islamism.

Hate speech, moreover, is not only being preached in prisons. The young and impressionable are also getting their fair doses at British universities where, in the words of the Express, “Red-carpets [are] laid out for Islam hate preachers at universities and no one challenges them.” According to the Express, 27 events at UK universities had radical speakers in just four months, a rise of 35% in just the last year. This welcome exists despite the requirement of all universities to comply with the government’s anti-extremist program, Prevent.

According to the Express, the messages peddled at these academic events were contemplations such as “Jews are evil”, and a man wanting to marry a Muslim woman, if he did not pray, “should be executed.” Those universities in the British capital that hosted the most extreme events were London’s School of Oriental and African Studies, King’s College, Kingston University, the Institute of Education and University College London.

Among those given a platform at these universities were former Guantanamo inmate Moazzam Begg, director of the lobbying group CAGE, which opposes the British government’s anti-terror program, and South African politician Julius Malema — convicted of a hate crime for claiming a rape victim must have had a “nice time.”

In 2014, at least 70 events with Islamic hate preachers took place at British universities.

Under the Prevent strategy, British universities have to put in place policies to stop extremists radicalizing students and ensure they have measures in place to recognize and respond to signs of radicalization among their students. That, too, does not seem to be working very well.

While the British authorities do not seem equipped to deal with Islamic hate speech, they are impressively efficient when it comes to dealing with what they perceive as “Islamophobia.” British police acted promptly when Tommy Robinson was recently pictured at the Euro 2016 football championships in France wearing an anti-ISIS T-shirt and holding up an English Saint George Cross flag with “F**k ISIS” written across it.

Upon his return to London, Bedfordshire police immediately charged Robinson with inciting racial hatred and brought an application for a “football banning order” against him. Robinson, a Pegida UK organizer, previously received a three-year football ban, which expired in 2014. He has not been known to be involved in football disturbances since. The application against him claimed that he

“poses a significant risk of both violence and disorder… This is especially so in terms of his established capacity to organise disorder from an anti-Muslim perspective… Despite… recently reported ‘good conduct’ at Luton Town Football Club, significant concerns remain regarding his intentions and influences upon others to inflame racial hatred in a country where tensions are already high.”

Offending a murderous terrorist organization such as ISIS is apparently no longer protected by the rules of free speech and is now considered “inciting racial hatred” against Muslims. Does this, then, mean that British police assume that all Muslims identify with ISIS and are thus in some way victims of “racial hatred” when someone wears a T-shirt or holds up a flag that says “F**k ISIS”?

Not only do British police know how to deal swiftly with other people’s “Islamophobia”, they also know how to censor their own speech, when need be, in order not to come across as “Islamophobic.” At one of the UK’s largest shopping centers, during a terror drill designed to be similar to the Paris and Brussels terror attacks, the Greater Manchester police had the fake suicide bomber shout “Allahu Akbar” before detonating a mock device.

1596 (1)A video still from the mock terrorist attack staged on May 9, 2016 by the police in Manchester, England.

For this realistic scenario — after all, that is what Muslim terrorists shout before they detonate themselves or their bombs — the Greater Manchester Police were subsequently criticized: The mayor of Greater Manchester and the area’s police and crime commissioner, Tony Lloyd, said the operation had been “marred by the ill-judged, unnecessary and unacceptable decision by organisers” to have those playing the parts of terrorists shout the Islamic phrase. “It didn’t add anything to the event, but has the potential to undermine the great community relations we have in Greater Manchester.”

The new British government has its work cut out for it.

Categories: Britain, Britain and Islam, Hate speech, Islam - submission, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic radicalization, Islamic State, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Islamophobia
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

YouTube bans video on Muslim Brotherhood, Sharia and Civilization Jihad as “hate speech”

July 6, 2016

YouTube bans video on Muslim Brotherhood, Sharia and Civilization Jihad as “hate speech” Jihad Watch, , July 6, 2016

Here is a full transcript of the video. Where is the “hate speech”? Where is there even any factual inaccuracy?

For the Left, truth is no defense. What they want to do is silence their ideological foes. That’s all. The problem with the increasingly mainstream concept that “hate speech is not free speech” is that what exactly constitutes “hate speech” is a subjective judgment, often based on the political proclivities of the person doing the judging. If a Leftist analyst who subscribes to the fantasy that the Muslim Brotherhood is a “firewall against extremism” is doing the judging, he may think that the information below is “hate speech,” while if someone who is aware of the true nature and magnitude of the jihad threat is the judge, he would more likely consider Hamas-linked CAIR’s “Islamophobia” reports to be genuine “hate speech.”

The concept of “hate speech” is, in reality, a tool of the powerful to silence and demonize their critics. It has no place in a free society. This action by YouTube is ominous in the extreme, and is almost certainly the harbinger of much worse to come.

hate-speech-YouTube

You can still see the video on Facebook here, and here is the full transcript: “Killing for a Cause: Sharia Law & Civilization Jihad,” Counter Jihad, June 29, 2016:

What is Civilization Jihad? This video explains in three minutes.

We have a new video aimed at non-experts as an introduction to the basic ideas behind the Counterjihad. Please watch it, and share it with those whom you think need to see it. The text of the video is as follows:

Terrorism seems to be everywhere, and it’s getting worse. The bad guys have lots of names—ISIS, al Qaeda, Boko Haram—but they have one thing in common. They are all killing for a cause: Islamic Law known as Sharia.

Sharia is a return to medieval Islam. Sharia demands a Holy War called Jihad. The most widely available book of Islamic Law in English says: “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims.”

There are two kinds of Jihad. Violent Jihad is horribly simple, slaughtering innocents and forcing submission. Violent Jihadists want to conquer land for their Caliphate – essentially an Islamic State where Sharia Law is supreme.

But there is another kind of Jihad. In their Explanatory Memorandum, theMuslim Brotherhood, calls this, “civilization jihad,” saying, “The [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers…”

Civilization Jihad has the same goal as the Violent Jihad—to conquer land for their Caliphate—but instead of waging war or staging terror attacks like their brothers in the violent jihad, these Civilization Jihadists wear suits and ties, and their work is much more subtle.

So what do they do? They file lawsuits for Muslim truck drivers who don’t want to drive beer. They convince schools to hold Muslim Day, where the girls wear head scarves and the kids say Muslim prayers. They complain when our government watches to see if their violent buddies are hanging out with them.

They call anyone critical of Islamic Law an “Islamophobe,” a term they invented to make people scared to speak out—like the neighbors of the terrorists in San Bernardino who knew something was wrong, but didn’t want to say anything because they’d be accused of profiling.

These bad guys have lots of names, too: the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR); the Muslim Student Association (MSA); Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). The Justice Department found that these groups were, in fact, started by the Muslim Brotherhood.

These groups like to say that terrorism has no religion, but only Islam has Sharia and Jihad.

Not all Muslims practice Sharia or support it, but an awful lot do. They believe that anyone who insults Islam can be killed; they believe thatwomen are property; that gays should be killed; and that little girls should be mutilated and forced to marry old men they’ve never men. These things are simply not allowed in our free society and are against the Constitution.

There are plenty of Modern Muslims who want to “live and let live,” but unfortunately the groups that speak most often for the Muslim community follow the medieval version based on Sharia.

They are working to make the US more like the Caliphate. They have to go.

Categories: Censorship, Civilization jihad, Hate speech, You Tube
Tags: , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »