Islam – submission | WarSclerotic | Page 4

Posted tagged ‘Islam – submission’

Hugh Fitzgerald: May God Save “God Save The Queen”

October 15, 2016

Hugh Fitzgerald: May God Save “God Save The Queen” Jihad Watch, October 15, 2016

queen-elizabeth

A Muslim student at King’s College London, and an officer of its Student Union (3 of its 5 top officers are Muslims), one Mahamed Abdullahi, has called for “God Save the Queen,” Great Britain’s national anthem, to be omitted from the school’s graduation ceremonies. He claims the song is “outdated” and “not reflective of the global values the college espouses.” Abdullahi – who is, by the way, a Danish citizen, though not exactly a Dane – insists that this anthem is dangerous “in the context” of the “increasing far-right nationalism across Europe and the legacy of the British Empire.” His obscenity-filled rant can be read here.

What makes “God Save the Queen” outdated? Has the monarchy fallen out of favor with the people of Great Britain? Or is their interest and enthusiasm for the Queen and the idea of the monarchy perfectly understandable, for the Royals are a human symbol of stability and national identity, in a world more dizzyingly in flux than ever before? Look at the British popular press, which appears to devote half its space to Kate Middleton’s children, and another quarter to the Queen. Clearly the British people have no wish to jettison their monarchy. If there were no royal family on which to focus, popular attention might instead be given, as in the United States, to empty celebrities, such as the Kardashians, or to the mix-n’-match couplings and uncouplings of assorted jolies and pitts.

“God Save The Queen” is mild in its winsome expression of national fervor (compare, for example, the martial theme of La Marseillaise); the first two verses go like this:

God save our gracious Queen!
Long live our noble Queen!
God save the Queen!
Send her victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us,
God save the Queen.

O Lord our God arise,
Scatter her enemies
And make them fall;
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On Thee our hopes we fix,
God save us all!

There is nothing conceivably “far right” about these sentiments. I doubt if Mahamed Abdulllahi comprehends the useful role of the constitutional monarch in Great Britain as a focus of national identity, unity, and pride, providing the British with a sense of continuity and stability. What enrages him is the very idea that the British people in this deuteroelizabethan age should permit themselves to have feelings of national pride, and what’s more, to express them. For Abdullahi, that is enough to constitute “far-right nationalism.” When your child pledges allegiance “to the flag and to the republic for which it stands” and wishes “liberty and justice for all,” is he being “far-right”? At a baseball game, do you feel part of a “far-right” crowd because you listen to, or even join in singing, “The Star-Spangled Banner”? Of course not.

Is there any expression of pride in a national identity that Mahamed Abdullahi would find acceptable? I don’t think so. I think that the only kind of “identity” he approves of is that of the supranational umma, or Community of Muslim Believers, and that he obscurely senses that a shared sense of affection and pride in one’s own nation (as expressed in England in many ways, including singing “God Save the Queen) is also, nowadays, a part of the West’s psychological defense against the encroachments of aggressive Islam. For Mahamed Abdullahi, that’s enough to make it “far-right” nationalism.

What about the charge that “God Save the Queen” carries with it the “legacy of the British Empire”? (The anthem itself was first published in 1745, before there was much of a British Empire to celebrate.) Perhaps Abdullahi objects to the fact that many former colonies, once part of that Empire, are now enthusiastic members of the British Commonwealth, keeping up ties to Great Britain, and delighting in receiving visits from Queen Elizabeth II and younger members of the Royal Family. It is not just Canada and Australia and New Zealand that are thrilled, but India, Singapore, Uganda, Nigeria, Jamaica, indeed every country in the Commonwealth (save for Rwanda and Cameroon, but only because they are the latest to join, and the Queen hasn’t yet fit them into her schedule), eager to bask in the reflected glory of a royal visit.

Apparently very few of those actually in the Commonwealth share Mahamed Abdullahi’s sour vision of the “legacy of the British Empire.” Mahamed Abdullahi may have forgotten that even Yassir Arafat once hoped that his future state of “Palestine” would be allowed to join the Commonwealth.

But since he contemptuously dismisses the “legacy of the British Empire” without discussing it, perhaps we should ask: just what was that legacy? First, the English language, which has been perhaps the greatest gift to colonized peoples anywhere, the language that has served as a lingua franca for many different peoples in Africa and in the subcontinent; and the spread of English has allowed them entrée into the worlds of science, technology, business, sport, entertainment, and that same English brings with it, of course, an unrivalled literary heritage. Among the former British colonies in Africa, the spread of English now permits Nigerians to talk to Tanzanians and Kenyans to talk to Ghanaians. And in India, with a multitude of tongues — Hindi, Bengali, Telugu, Marathi, Tamil, Urdu, Gujarati, and Punjabi being the most widely used – the educated in every state can communicate with each other, and with those similarly educated throughout India, in English. It is the English language that, paradoxically, unifies India.

Second, the British introduced the rule of law, specifically the Common Law, including what had been built up through centuries of cases as contract and property law, and rules of civil and criminal procedure. Third, public works – roads, bridges, canals, railroads – that the British built in so many of their colonies, and that promoted economic development.

Fourth – modern medicine, including vaccinations for many previously untreatable diseases. Fifth – free trade within the Empire, stimulating economic growth. Sixth—universal schooling, from elementary grades all the way up, in many of the colonies, to universities. And seventh, the abolition first of the slave trade, and then of slavery. The slave trade that the British abolished first was that vast and cruel enterprise conducted by Muslim Arabs in East and Central Africa and involving 17 million black Africans, many of them young boys castrated where they were captured and, if they survived the operation (only 20% did), were then brought to the slave markets of Islam, to be sold as eunuchs. It was the Royal Navy that finally stamped out that slave trade, preventing the Arab slavers from landing with their cargo on the Arabian peninsula.

Mahamed Abdullahi has nothing good to say about “legacy of the British Empire,” but we have a right and a duty to remind him of that positive legacy (language, law, public works, medicine, free trade, education), and particularly to remind him that it was the British who ended the brutal slave trade conducted by Muslim Arabs.

Finally, Mahamed Abdullahi claims that the British national anthem is “not reflective” of the “’global values’ the college espouses.” What are those “global values”? Would they include such values as equal treatment of all, including minorities and women, before the law? Would they include the free exercise of any religion or the right to believe in none? Would those “global values” include the right to change one’s religion? Would they include the right of both sexes to equal education?

Would they include the right to criticize religions, even if that offends some believers? Would they include the right of children not to be treated as their parents’ chattel? These are not so much “global” values, in fact, as values originating in the countries of the advanced West, and especially Great Britain and its political offspring, the United States. The university’s administrators, who had initially (and shamefully) shown themselves willing to discuss Abdullahi’s nauseating proposal, have fortunately been forced by public outrage to backtrack. Perhaps they need to be reminded – Mahamed Abdullahi can bring them up to snuff — on the Muslim version of “global values” espoused by such models of religious freedom and legal equality as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Libya, Syria, Iraq, the Sudan, and many dozens of other Muslim countries. And then he might also explain what the “legacy” of the Muslim Empire has been for so many different lands and peoples. That should prove most instructive.

And meanwhile, may God save “God Save The Queen.”

Categories: Britain, Britain and Islam, Islam - submission, Islam and human rights, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamists in Britain
Tags: Britain, Britain and Islam, Islam - submission, Islam and human rights, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamists in Britain

Comments: Be the first to comment

On the Road to a Sharia State – Investigating the UK’s Sharia Courts

October 14, 2016

On the Road to a Sharia State – Investigating the UK’s Sharia Courts, Creeping Sharia, October 14, 2016

uksharia

Source: Machteld Zee: “Islamization is Planned” – Vlad Tepes

Machteld Zee Ph.D. is a Dutch scholar who investigated sharia courts in the UK for her Ph.D. thesis. This interview was published in the Algemeen Dagblad, a nationwide Dutch newspaper, on October 4, 2016.

The interview is relevant for several reasons:

Very few non-Muslims ever have gained access to the world of sharia courts in the UK. She has.
The University of Leiden is fairly highbrow in the Netherlands, because it is not only one of the oldest universities. but also because the heir to the Dutch throne traditionally studies at this university (for example, our former Queens Juliana and Beatrix did, just like our current head of state King Willem-Alexander). The reputation of this university gives authority to her voice.
She has become a target of attacks by leftist apologists for radical Islam since she published her thesis. She could do with some positive publicity. Similarly, Islam-sceptics could benefit from her work.

The translated interview:

“Islamization is Planned”

Investigating Sharia

The Islamization of Europe follows a strategy, according to Machteld Zee in her bookHoly Identities, which was published today. ‘Once you have knowledge of it, you understand what is going on.’

‘I discovered a comprehensive system of law that contradicts our secular laws.’

Investigating sharia courts

Machteld Zee (32), a Dutch political scientist from the University of Leiden, studied sharia courts in the UK and wrote her Ph.D. thesis on it in 2015.

She was one of the few outsiders who gained access to the sessions of these Islamic courts. 95% of the cases before these courts are divorce cases. Her investigations resulted in a pamphlet, Holy Identities.

‘If you compare the Netherlands in the 1980s with today,’ says the political scientist and law school graduate Machteld Zee, ‘you will see an increased influence of Islam everywhere. Saudi Arabia and other countries flooded the world with thousands of imams, Islamic text books, mosques and tons of money.’

Machteld Zee needed barely 150 pages to describe the background of Islamic fundamentalism, which is gaining ground in Western countries. Her book Holy Identities: On the Road to a Sharia State is an analysis of the problems of the multicultural society.

You say that conservative Muslims want to convince their fellow Muslims to embrace sharia, the religious law of Islam. These fundamentalists are being helped by ‘useful non-believers’, non-Islamic intellectuals, politicians and opinion leaders who don’t want to offend Muslims.

‘Yes, leading multiculturalists actually believe that Muslims should be shielded from criticism because it would inflict psychological damage on them. Although many Muslims consider this an idiotic point of view, others use it to call those who criticize Islam ‘Islamophobes’ and ‘racists’.

You described yourself as left-leaning liberal when you started your investigation on sharia courts in the UK. Now you warn against a lack of knowledge of and a lack of resistance against the advancing radical Islam.

‘I discovered a comprehensive system of law — far more systematic then I had expected — that contradicts our secular laws. Many Muslim women are locked into a religious marriage because their community thinks a divorce according secular law is insufficient. In these communities — Muslim communities — sharia law trumps secular law when it comes to marriage. Women have to ask a sharia judge or an imam to dissolve their marriage, for example when the husband physically abuses her. Even Dutch Muslim women travel to the UK to appear before sharia courts. It is a parallel society. I object to it because these practices go against women’s rights.’

You have analyzed the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood. It is a political and religious movement that aims for world domination, and is supported by lots of money from fundamentalist circles. The sharia courts are part of this project, you wrote.

‘That is why it is so important that we know what is going on. Authors that I studied for my investigation were generally benevolent towards sharia courts. It turned out, however, that none of them ever attended a session of such a court. They don’t know what is going on in these courts. Now they ask me to tell all about it. Women are advised by these courts to accept polygamy and to not file criminal complaints in case of domestic violence. Physically abusive fathers are given custody of their children. I have the impression that the tide of the public debate is turning now that these facts are becoming public. I hardly hear anyone pleading in favour of sharia courts anymore.’

In your book you call out the politically correct elites, who tries to cover up abuse within Islam and tries to downplay the threat of Islamic fundamentalism.

‘In the first place, I think I am reporting facts. Where I notice that influential Western intellectuals tend to discourage critics of Islam and help fundamentalists to isolate and ‘Islamize’ Muslim communities, that is a matter of fact. My book is a compact discourse that aims to bring its readers up to date on fundamentalist Islam.’

How do you see the future?

‘We will have to act more defensively and resist Islamization. We should not yield to demands that images of scantily dressed women in public have to be covered up, for example. Just say no. Citizens should not leave everything to the government. They can defend our beliefs and values themselves, too. Why does a college in The Hague decides to abandon the Christmas tree pre-emptively? Why is alcohol banned in places where Muslims show up? There is no need for that. We are doing it to ourselves.’

Do you fear criticism? Undoubtedly, you will be labeled as a right-winger.

‘I don’t experience that when I speak in public. Even a ‘leftist’ audience responds positively to my story. Right-wing? Come on, equal rights for women and resistance against representatives of a religion who make threats of violence — let’s call that common sense.’

Categories: Britain, Islam - submission, Islam and human rights, Islamic law, Islamists in Britain, Sharia law
Tags: Britain, Islam - submission, Islam and human rights, Islamic law, Islamists in Britain, Sharia law

Comments: Be the first to comment

Pope denounces Christians who don’t want Muslim migrants as “hypocrites”

October 13, 2016

Pope denounces Christians who don’t want Muslim migrants as “hypocrites”, Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer, October 13, 2016

Seven of the jihadists who murdered 130 peoples and injured 360 more in Paris last November had just come to Europe as Muslim migrants. Did the nearly 500 victims of these jihadis reach the “lowest levels of human degradation”? Or do they not count because they don’t fit Francis’ narrative?

What about the “lowest levels of degradation” that will be reached by the victims of future jihad massacres and their families — jihad massacres perpetrated by Muslim “refugees”? Do they have any place in the Pope’s moral calculus at all? Apparently not.

“It is hypocritical to call yourself a Christian and to chase away a refugee, or anyone who needs your help.” Is it hypocritical to chase away someone who is trying to kill me and destroy my nation, culture, and civilization? Is being a genuine Christian tantamount to approving the suicide of Europe and the West? That appears to be the Pope’s view.

Pope Francis kisses the foot of a man during the foot-washing ritual at the Castelnuovo di Porto refugees center, some 30km (18, 6 miles) from Rome, Thursday, March 24, 2016. The pontiff washed and kissed the feet of Muslim, Orthodox, Hindu and Catholic refugees Thursday, declaring them children of the same God, in a gesture of welcome and brotherhood at a time when anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant sentiment has spiked following the Brussels attacks. (L'Osservatore Romano/Pool Photo via AP)

Pope Francis kisses the foot of a man during the foot-washing ritual at the Castelnuovo di Porto refugees center, some 30km (18, 6 miles) from Rome, Thursday, March 24, 2016. The pontiff washed and kissed the feet of Muslim, Orthodox, Hindu and Catholic refugees Thursday, declaring them children of the same God, in a gesture of welcome and brotherhood at a time when anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant sentiment has spiked following the Brussels attacks. (L’Osservatore Romano/Pool Photo via AP)

“Pope denounces Christians who don’t want refugees as ‘hypocrites,’” DPA, October 13, 2016:

People who call themselves Christians but do not want refugees at their door are hypocrites, Pope Francis said Thursday, amid reports of new tragedies involving migrants crossing the Mediterranean.

“It is hypocritical to call yourself a Christian and to chase away a refugee, or anyone who needs your help. Jesus taught us what it means to be a good Christian in the parable of the Good Samaritan,” Francis said in a meeting with German Lutheran pilgrims at the Vatican.

The pope, a vocal champion of migrant rights who was born in Argentina from an Italian immigrants, earlier issued a message ahead of the World Day of Migrants and Refugees, which the Catholic Church will observe on January 15.

“Children are the first among those to pay the heavy toll of emigration, almost always caused by violence, poverty, environmental conditions, as well as the negative aspects of globalization,” Francis said in the message.

Renewing arguments that welcoming migrants is a Christian duty, the pope cited a passage from the Biblical Book of Exodus stating: “You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”

He criticized attempts “to curb the entrance of migrants, which in turns fosters illegal networks” for people smuggling and trafficking, “instead of favouring the social integration of child migrants, or programmes for safe and assisted repatriation.”

Francis said governments should balance their right to control migration flows “with the duty to resolve and regularize the situation of child migrants,” saving them from abuse, exploitation and the “lowest levels of human degradation.”…

Categories: Islam - submission, Islamic refugees, Islamic terrorism, Islamic war on Christians, Islamist moral values, Pope Francis
Tags: Islam - submission, Islamic refugees, Islamic terrorism, Islamic war on Christians, Islamist moral values, Pope Francis

Comments: Be the first to comment

Romania: Lawsuit Launched to Stop Bucharest Mega-Mosque

October 13, 2016

Romania: Lawsuit Launched to Stop Bucharest Mega-Mosque, Gatestone Institute, Soeren Kern, October 13, 2016

The original deal called for a “mutual exchange” in which Romania would build a new Orthodox Church in Istanbul, while Turkey would build the mosque in Bucharest. In July 2015, however, Prime Minister Victor Ponta revealed that the Romanian government had abandoned the Istanbul church project because it is “not allowed under Turkish law.” Ponta approved the Bucharest mosque project anyway, saying it was a multicultural symbol of Romania’s acceptance of the Muslim community.

Ponta’s decision to approve the mosque, which will mimic Ottoman-era architecture, was greeted with outrage in a country that was under Ottoman Turkish domination for nearly five centuries until 1877.

“This plan is not about worship, it is about marking the territory of their authority through a monument.” – Ozgur Kazim Kivanc, a Turkish activist opposed to Erdoğan’s destruction of public commons to build mosques.

“Once Islam enters a land, that land becomes Islamic and Muslims have the duty to liberate it someday. Spain, for example, is Islamic land, and so is Eastern Europe: Romania, Albania, Macedonia, Serbia, Kosovo and Bosnia…” – Omar Bakri Muhammad, a prominent Sunni Islamist cleric.

“We consider the disposal of free land which, ironically, belonged to the family of Prince Constantin Brâncoveanu, who was beheaded by the Turks on August 15, 1714, to be a betrayal of the Romanian people.” – Pending lawsuit calling on the court to annul the government’s grant of free city land for the mosque project.

Opponents of a proposed Turkish mega-mosque in Romania’s capital, Bucharest, have filed a lawsuit against the government in an effort to halt the project. The court is set to begin hearing the case on October 14.

The lawsuit seeks to reverse a June 2015 decision by the Romanian prime minister at the time, Victor Ponta, to approve construction of what could become the largest mosque in Eastern Europe — second only to the Blue Mosque in Istanbul — on a large tract of city-owned land in northern Bucharest.

The property, valued at more than four million euros ($4.4 million), is being provided for free by the Romanian government, while the construction costs, estimated at three million euros ($3.3 million), are being paid for by Turkey.

Ponta said the mosque will reap economic benefits for Romania because Turkey is the country’s leading non-EU trading partner. The mosque’s critics, including an array of Romanian academics, historians, politicians, anti-immigration groups and even some Muslims, counter that not only will it increase Turkish influence over Romania, it will also encourage Muslim immigration to the country.

The Bucharest mosque is the result of more than a decade of talks between the Romanian and Turkish governments. The original deal called for a “mutual exchange” in which Romania would build a new Orthodox Church in Istanbul, while Turkey would build the mosque in Bucharest.

In July 2015, however, Ponta revealed that the Romanian government had abandoned the Istanbul church project because it is “not allowed under Turkish law.” Ponta approved the Bucharest mosque project anyway, saying it was a multicultural symbol of Romania’s acceptance of the Muslim community.

Ponta’s decision to approve the mosque, which will mimic Ottoman-era architecture, was greeted with outrage in a country that was under Ottoman Turkish domination for nearly five centuries until 1877.

“Turkey attempts a symbolic conquest of Europe through these mosques,” said Tudor Ionescu, leader of the anti-immigration Noua Dreaptă (New Right) party. “I don’t know why we are the recipients of such a ‘blessing.'” Noua Dreaptă has organized protests against the project where people have chanted, “Romania is not a Turkish province.”

1945

Romanians protest against a proposed Turkish mega-mosque in Bucharest, April 10, 2016. (Image source: RT video screenshot)

Critics say the large size of the mosque is out of proportion to the small size of Bucharest’s Muslim population. The 13,000 square meter (140,000 square foot) project, to be situated near the Romexpo trade fair grounds, includes a mosque for 2,000 worshippers, a Koran school, a library and a recreational center.

Bucharest is home to around 9,000 Muslims who are being served by ten mosques scattered throughout the city. The Muslim population of Romania is 65,000, or less than one percent of the country’s population of 19.5 million. Most are ethnic Turks and Tatars living in the Dobrogea region of eastern Romania.

In an interview with Balkan Insight, historian Ionut Cojocaru said:

“It is a bit surprising, building such a big mosque in a country where the number of Muslims is very small. This is just a sign of Turkey’s neo-Ottoman policy, which is designed to promote its economic and political interests all around the Balkans.”

Turkey has been on a mega-mosque building spree across the Balkans and Eastern Europe as part of an effort by Ankara to expand its influence — and its brand of Islam — in the region.

In interviews with Balkan specialist Michael Bird, several observers said that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s international mosque-building program is part of a plan to project Turkey as the pre-eminent Muslim nation.

“Ultimately every mosque abroad with a Turkish brand name seems to contribute to the discourse of Turkey as a leading Islamic power,” said Kerem Oktem, Professor of Modern Turkey at the University of Graz.

Ozgur Kazim Kivanc, an activist opposed to Erdoğan’s destruction of public commons to build mosques, added:

“The Roman Empire used to build temples on the places they took over to remind people of their conquest. We believe the instinct is the same. Places of worship are not compulsory for a belief system to spread — especially in Islam. This plan is not about worship, it is about marking the territory of their authority through a monument.”

Former Romanian President Traian Basescu worries that the Bucharest mosque could fuel Islamic extremism in the country. He has said the mosque project is “irresponsible” and a threat to national security. On Facebook he wrote:

“Perhaps you cannot imagine a subway station in Bucharest, during rush hour, where a young man would blow himself up in the name of Allah. Or perhaps your intelligence cannot help you imagine young Romanians who have failed in life being sent off to training camps in Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan and brought back to Europe in order to bring us the benefits of the Islamic State.”

Islamic State has repeatedly stated that Romania and other parts of Eastern Europe and the Balkans are part of its “pan-Islamic Caliphate.” Omar Bakri Muhammad, a prominent Sunni Islamist cleric who has recruited British jihadis for Islamic State, has alleged that Romania is Islamic territory. In an interview with the Bulgarian daily 24 Chasa (24 Hours), he said:

“Once Islam enters a land, that land becomes Islamic and Muslims have the duty to liberate it someday. Spain, for example, is Islamic land, and so is Eastern Europe: Romania, Albania, Macedonia, Serbia, Kosovo and Bosnia…”

Basescu has also said he believes the mosque — the first purpose-built mosque in the Romanian capital (the existing places of Muslim worship in the city are buildings converted into mosques or prayer rooms) — is not actually meant for Bucharest’s Muslim population, but for Muslim migrants who will arrive in the years ahead.

During a visit to Romania in April 2015, President Erdoğan said the mosque will be the “the most beautiful expression of dialogue and solidarity between the two countries.”

A Romanian Muslim leader, however, expressed skepticism about Turkey’s intentions. “We heard about it on TV, like everyone else,” he said. “We are Romanian Muslims, but now the Turkish are coming and they get the land. When they complete the building, they won’t even allow us there. So we are sold, thrown out.”

During an official visit to Turkey in March 2016, Romanian President Klaus Iohannis tried to reassure Erdoğan that the mosque project is moving forward, despite mounting opposition at home. Commenting on the trip, the daily România Liberă wrote:

“Apparently Iohannis demanded nothing but a measly Orthodox chapel that will probably be built somewhere on the outskirts of Istanbul in exchange for the construction of the mosque…. Erdoğan has inherited from the Ottomans the skill of making his guests feel more important than they are. … Iohannis was welcomed with a military ceremony including the firing of 21 cannon salvoes which only sultans offer their guests. … In the end, however, Erdoğan will despise him for letting himself be tricked and making it so easy for him to turn the president of an EU state into a vassal of his court.”

Some Romanian politicians are now calling for a referendum on the mosque. More than 90% of the public is opposed to the project, according to an online survey conducted by the mainstream newspaper Gândul.

Meanwhile, the pending lawsuit calls on the court to annul the government’s grant of free city land for the mosque project. The lawsuit states:

“We consider the disposal of free land which, ironically, belonged to the family of Prince Constantin Brâncoveanu, who was beheaded by the Turks on August 15, 1714, to be a betrayal of the Romanian people. In the current context in which all of Europe is being brought to its knees by terrorist attacks by Muslim extremists, we are entitled to fear the establishment of Islamic learning schools. We believe the Romanian state is unable to ensure the security of its citizens, and approving a mega-mosque in Romania could set a precedent with unintended catastrophic consequences.”

Categories: Islam - submission, Islam and colonialism, Islam in Turkey, Islamic immigration, Islamic refugees, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Mega mosque, Multiculturalism, Romania, Turkey
Tags: Islam - submission, Islam and colonialism, Islam in Turkey, Islamic immigration, Islamic refugees, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Mega mosque, Multiculturalism, Romania, Turkey

Comments: Be the first to comment

Refugees or an Occupation Army?

October 11, 2016

Refugees or an Occupation Army? Gatestone Institute, Maria Polizoidou, October 11, 2016

“Allah requires from the believers to be masters of the land where they live, and only they can have property, and only we will be able to own the land.” — Muslim migrants in Crete, Greece.

The migrants were ready to wage jihad because they believed a rumor about an event for which, even had it been true, the Greek State and its inhabitants had no responsibility.

The establishment in Greece is a miniature of the American establishment: politicians and institutions of government corrupted to the bones.

We Greeks have already been crushed by Islam, by the twentieth century genocide in Turkey and the more recent Turkish occupation of Cyprus, again with the world’s complicity.

What is happening in Greece, as in much of Europe, is actually a massive replacement of its population, its values and its way of life.

The mainstream political parties obey the self-destructive EU policies on immigration that could eventually cause the end of the Hellenic-Judeo-Christian values of Europe, such as individual freedom, critical thinking and dispassionate inquiry.

What does an occupation army do when it is installed in a country? It occupies the land, forcing residents to follow its own way of life. It implements measures against the country’s inhabitants, it propagandizes its beliefs and uses force to have them imposed.

This, sadly, is what has been happening in Greece from the migrants who seem to “forget” that they are hosted in Greece and force the Greeks to feel like guests in their own country.

If someone is a war refugee or his life is in danger in his homeland, it would seem appropriate, when he arrives in the country which offers him asylum, to be grateful to this country, respect its history, its people its values and its laws. The same would hold true for an immigrant who wants to go to a country where he hopes he will find a better future.

In Greece, conversely, illegal immigrants — all of whom the media call “refugees,” apparently trying artificially to legalize them in the moral consciousness of citizens — have been occupying spaces that do not belong to them, using violence, blocking roads, committing crimes against public property, acting aggressively toward residents and the police, and saying that they feel offended when they see symbols that represent Christianity. The guests seem to be trying to take over the house.

A few weeks ago, 200 North Africans and Pakistanis rioted in the middle of the night, demanding to leave Mytilene Island. They were chanting, “Jihad! Jihad!”, smashing the residents’ cars in the center of the island and disrupting the local community. The migrants claimed that someone told them about the death of seven migrants on a ship, so they rose up against the authorities. The police and NGO workers explained that this was misinformation, but the 200 migrants were evidently not interested in hearing that. The migrants were ready to wage jihad because they believed a rumor about an event for which, even had it been true, the Greek state and its inhabitants had no responsibility. The authorities were unsuccessful at calming them down and trying to make them return to their living area.

As it turned out, there were no dead migrants; the uprising was a “mistake,” but the police and the locals had to spend the night tracking down refugees and migrants on the streets of Mytilene.

The illegal immigrants stated that the information about the seven dead migrants came through phone calls to them during the night. Police sources say, off the record, that this incident has all the hallmarks of covert “black operations.”

A few days later, on September 19, 2016, on Mytilene Island again, there was a new eruption from migrants in the Moria district. This time, the information the migrants heard, which again turned out to be false, was that they were about to be returned to Turkey. Immediately they set fire to 16 acres of olive trees, as well as to the camp in which they were living.

Now 300 migrants, who had earlier escaped from their camp and tried to protest in the center of the island, were burning everything in the camp and the area around it, until the police stopped them and made them to return to the camp, where again they tried to burn everything.

Residents saw their groves of olive trees turn to cinders as well as much of the migrant camp, three shipping containers, clothing and footwear.

Some of the illegal immigrants were taking selfies during the burning and chanting, “Allahu Akbar” [“Allah is the Greatest”].

The Port of Mytilene Island was turned into a battlefield, where migrants and many Greek “leftists” tried to prevent the military contingent from lowering the Greek flag in front of the town’s old port. Many Greeks hate the national flag. They appear to prefer multinational states without any references to the state’s national foundations. They were chanting slogans and provoking both the military contingent and the people of Mytilene Island, who watched amazed from the opposite side of the road. It was a demonstration of power from behalf of “leftists” and illegal immigrants. Many citizens of Mytilene Island evidently could not stand to see the illegal immigrants and other Greeks provoke them and try to halt the lowering of the flag. So some citizens moved aggressively against them and engaged them in street fights.

Every Sunday morning on Mytilene Island, soldiers hoist the flag and in the evening, an hour before sunset, soldiers lower the flag. A week after this incident, thousands of Greeks gathered around the soldiers and the flag in Mytilene Port and were singing Greek National Anthem, showing their faith and honoring the national symbol. People are scared. They are gathering around the flag and the Army apparently because they feel they are losing their homeland and their sovereignty to the thousands illegal immigrants who have occupied their island.

On September 26, 2016, in the Tympaki region of the island of Crete, people found all over the streets quotes from the Quran. The text, signed by the “Muslim Brotherhood of Crete Island”,stated among other things:

“You are the senior people of the whole world, Only your faith counts and no one else has the right of life and death and ownership over every other person who dares to challenge your leadership and will not embrace your faith.
“Allah requires from the believers to be masters of the land where they live, and only theycan have property, and only we will be able to own the land.
“Allah said that we should conquer all the planet, and the faithful ones should own the land and the crops.
“Unbelievers cannot have land and crops because it belongs only to us – the believers.
“Unbelievers will have from us – as the holy Quran assures us – only alms.”

On the same day, September 26, in the Asprovalta region near the city of Thessaloniki, a 49-year-old man from France who came to Greece through Turkey was followed by police officers because he was suspected of being a jihadist. The moment he saw the police car, he rammed it, while chanting “Allahu Akbar”. [Allah is the greatest”] The attacker was arrested and the district attorney ordered his deportation.

A month ago, the inhabitants of Vavilon, a small village in Chios, another island that received a large number of illegal immigrants, decided to take the law into their hands, because, it seems, the state was not protecting them. The residents set up a militia to protect their families and their property from illegal immigrants. Within a week, they had recorded more than ten burglaries and vast property damage.

The media covers these disruptions only when they are like earthquakes, when one large one causes major disasters; the small ones are evidently not interesting. The same indifference of the media can also be seen regarding daily problems caused by the illegal immigrants. The media covers drug trafficking, conflicts between migrants of different Islamic doctrines, rebellions in migrant shelters, conflicts between countries and races, and underage boys and girls being raped. On September 24, in the Moria area of Mytilene Island, four 17-year-old migrants from Pakistan raped an underage Pakistani migrant, age 16, and recorded the rape with their phones. The police arrested the perpetrators, who had been blackmailing the boy before they raped him.

Illegal immigrants have also been blocking roads in many cities; halting traffic for hours. They occupy the roads whenever they feel like it; the police do not stop them and there are no arrests.

The Greek government has been friendly to the migrants. Illegal immigrants have, in an apparent demonstration of power, been asking Greek drivers to show their IDs and driver’s licenses. They have established checkpoints as an occupation army does. The government and the police did nothing to stop them. People showed their documents because of the great numbers of migrants; the drivers were evidently scared for their lives and their cars, and did not want things to get nasty. If you consider that the police were just watching all this passively, the drivers did not have much choice.

Another day, illegal immigrants blocked a road because they apparently did not have a good enough internet connection in the “refugee shelter.”

How would Americans feel if Muslim illegal immigrants living in America said that they were offend by the Statue of Liberty because she was not wearing a burqa?

The Archbishop of Athens and All Greece, Hieronymus, last March removed his cross, the symbol of Christianity, from his vestments during his visit to the Port of Piraeus, in order, he said, not to “offend” the Muslim migrants.

1938

Archbishop Hieronymus of Athens and All Greece is pictured distributing food to migrants at the Port of Piraeus. The Archbishop removed his cross from his vestments during the visit to Piraeus, in order, he said, not to “offend” the Muslim migrants. (Image source: HellasNewsTv video screenshot)

Who warned him that Muslim migrants would be offended by his cross? What would they do if the Archbishop visited them while wearing his cross? Would they kill him? Would they burn the city of Piraeus? They would wage jihad against the Greek people?

Why are we hiding the symbols of our faith from people who come illegally and uninvited into our countries? What power could make an Archbishop remove the symbol of his faith, apart from a country’s political power?

The problem in Greece is not only the government or the mismanagement of illegal immigration. All traditional mainstream political parties in Greece, directly or indirectly, have been encouraging illegal immigration and the transfer of huge Muslim populations into Greek society. They obey the self-destructive EU policies on immigration that could eventually cause the end of the Hellenic-Judeo-Christian values of Europe, such as individual freedom, critical thinking and dispassionate inquiry.

We Greeks have already been crushed by Islam, by the twentieth century genocide in Turkey — that even now targets anyone not Muslim such as Christians, Alevis and Kurds — and the more recent Turkish occupation of Cyprus, again with the world’s complicity.

In spite of that, the mainstream political parties clearly do not care about protecting the nation, its identity or the safety of its citizens.

The establishment in Greece is a miniature of the American establishment: politicians and institutions of government corrupted to the bones, mainstream media and oligarchical fans of globalization. Greece is, in fact, being paid 198 million euros for the refugees.

The Greek establishment suffers from the same symptoms as Western European and American regimes. They no longer believe in the foundations of the Republic: “Vox Populi, Vox Dei”: the voice of the people is the voice of God.

The political establishment, when the public does not agree with their policies about illegal immigration and the protection of national identity, prefers to blame the voters for immaturity, stupidity or fascism. So as the voters persist in retaining their views for national identity and against illegal immigration, the elites in Greece are replacing the native population by giving the illegal immigrants citizenship.

That is their solution to the migration crisis and Greece’s economic meltdown, from failed authoritarian policies of the unelected, unaccountable and untransparent EU. What is happening in Greece, as in much of Europe, is actually a massive replacement of its population, values and way of life. There is only one way now to save what is left of Greece: The British way. Exit. Now.

Categories: Islam - submission, Islam and conquest, Islam and terrorism, Islam in Europe, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamic tolerance, Islamisation
Tags: Islam - submission, Islam and conquest, Islam and terrorism, Islam in Europe, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamic tollerance, Islamisation

Comments: Be the first to comment

Canadian Red Cross Outsources Guide for Refugees to CAIR

September 28, 2016

Canadian Red Cross Outsources Guide for Refugees to CAIR, Clarion Project, John Goddard, September 28, 2016

canada-red-cross-booklet-hp

Photo: images from the teacher’s guide

The Canadian Red Cross has funded a teachers’ guide depicting Canadian society as practicing a “terrorist ideology of hate” against Muslims.

The guide, written ostensibly to coach teachers on how to help Syrian refugee children adapt, suggests that “hate,” “discrimination” and “Islamophobia” amount to a terrorist ideology, and that non-Muslim Canadians are its perpetrators. The solution is Islam, the guide says.

“The core values and central tenants of Islam are immutable,” it says, “and are the best counter-narrative to the terrorist ideology of hate.”

The Red Cross is expressing vague misgivings about the publication.

“The original intention… was to provide educators with a resource to help children deal with cultural transition and possible trauma due to war and significant cultural change,” the charity’s spokesperson said in an interview. “In our view, the majority of the publication achieves its intended purpose, but there are specific areas that we don’t feel fit with its original intention.”

To produce the booklet, the Red Cross gave $3,000 from its “Syrian refugee resettlement fund” to the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), formerly CAIR-Canada. The group changed its name three years ago after its parent organization, the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), was repeatedly shown to have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

Canada has accepted 31,000 Syrian refugees in the past year, but the guide shows less concern for refugee children than for “Canadian Muslim youth.” The word “refugees” does not even appear in the title, “A Guide for Educators: Helping Students Deal with Trauma Related to Geopolitical Violence & Islamophobia.”

The 16-page booklet portrays Muslim youth as under attack not from Islamic State terrorists or President Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian forces, but from non-Muslim Canadians.

“To constantly feel under attack, to have to defend one’s faith, and to be continuously called upon to condemn the actions of criminals and terrorists is emotionally traumatic,” the booklet says.

The word “trauma” appears often, mostly referring to Muslim life in Canada. “Trauma can be related to historical events such as the history of colonization,” the guide says. And: “Being marginalized and categorized as ‘the other’… can be traumatic.”

The guide includes specific tips for teachers. One is to examine oneself for anti-Muslim bias — “recognize your own judgments and biases.” Another is to let Muslims proselytize in schools — “provide space for Muslim students to speak to their peers about their faith.”

In italics, the tip sheet says: “Care should be taken by teachers on the language and tone they take when discussing world events and the Islamic faith.”

TV commentator Ezra Levant put the last point in plainer language. “This is an instruction to anybody working in the school system to shut-up about Islam — it is a favored religion,” he said last week on his online news channel, The Rebel.

The self-described conservative channel sent the Red Cross more than $25,000 this summer to help with forest-fire relief in Fort McMurray, Alberta, but will never donate to the Red Cross again, Levant told viewers of The Ezra Levant Show.

“I think the Red Cross should withdraw its support [for the booklet] and apologize to Canadians,” he said.

Two years ago, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police abruptly cut its collaboration with the NCCM on a “United Against Terrorism” guide. The police force “could not support the adversarial tone” of the booklet, they said.

The Red Cross said its specific objections to the teachers’ booklet include three reprinted op-ed pieces. One is by the head of the Winnipeg-based Islamic Social Services Association, a partner on the booklet, comparing the circumstances of Canadian Muslims to that of Japanese-Canadians interned during World War Two.

“We are in discussions with the organization that produced the publication,” the Red Cross spokesperson said. “I’m not sure what the end result will be.”

Another collaborator on the guidebook was the Canadian Human Rights Commission, an ostensibly neutral federal government body, which “translated the booklet into French to reach a broader audience,” a spokesperson said.

Two years ago, the NCCM sued then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his press secretary for libel when the press secretary referred to NCCM as “an organization with documented ties to a terrorist organization such as Hamas.” The case is still before the courts.

Categories: CAIR, Canada, Islam - submission, Islamic indoctrination of children, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Islamist organizations, Islamists in Canada, Islamophobia
Tags: CAIR, Canada, Islam - submission, Islamic indoctrination of children, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Islamist organizations, Islamists in Canada, Islamophobia

Comments: Be the first to comment

80% of Swedish police consider quitting over Muslim migrant danger

September 27, 2016

80% of Swedish police consider quitting over Muslim migrant danger, Jihad Watch, Christine Williams, September 27, 2016

Sweden may be descending into a crisis as a new report suggests 80 per cent of police officers are considering switching careers due to the danger they face in the field.

Every single day, the “crises” of jihadist incursion on Western soil and continued atrocities in Islamic states keep tallying up in this full blown jihad war. The situation in Sweden has been rapidly deteriorating. Last year, Stockholm released a stunning policy document which dealt with “ISIS fighters returning to the city after having had their fill of rape and beheadings of civilians.” It indicated that:

The city of Stockholm will make it a priority to provide the returning ISIS fighters with housing, free health care (physical and mental) and full financial support, until they have received earmarked jobs. All this of course fast-tracked past the line of law-abiding immigrants and indigenous Swedes.

Why? So that the poor, downtrodden jihadists don’t feel alienated; they need the generous help of Swedish politically correct politicians to help integrate them back into society. Unbelievably, Swedish councilor Rasmus Persson told the news program Tvärsnytt:

We have discussed how we should work for these guys who have come back, and to prevent them from returning to the fighting, and that they should be helped to process the traumatic experiences they have been through.

Not an iota of consideration for the innocent law-abiding citizens of Sweden. It’s no surprise that 80 percent of Swedish police are currently considering quitting; the very profession which is designated to serve and protect is now being insidiously prevented from carrying out that sworn duty by a politically correct leftist-jihadist alliance which has the West under siege.

swedish-police

“80 Per Cent Of Swedish Police Consider Quitting Over Migrant Danger”, by Chris Tomlinson,Breitbart, September 20, 2016:

Sweden may be descending into a crisis as a new report suggests 80 per cent of police officers are considering switching careers due to the danger they face in the field.

The criminal situation in Sweden may be heading for an even worse turn as a new report has shown that the vast majority of the Swedish police force is so unhappy they are looking into other careers. Sweden has been rocked by increasing levels of criminality from sex attacks at music festivals, hand grenade attacks and violence toward the police in areas populated mostly by migrants.

The report states that up to three Swedish police quit every day as they feel the government isn’t giving them the tools to tackle the epidemic of criminality Norwegian broadcaster NRK reports.

Swedish police Sergeant Peter Larsson told the broadcaster the challenges Swedish authorities face with the ever decreasing number of officers saying, “We have a major crisis. Many colleagues have chosen to leave. We will not be able investigate crimes, we have no time to travel to the call-outs we are set to do. A worsened working environment means that many colleagues are now looking around for something else.”

Larsson singles out violence against emergency services employees saying, “The violence against us in the police and the paramedics and firefighters, has become much worse. We’re talking about stone throwing, violence, fires. It has become much worse in recent years.”

Tina Svensson, a resident of one of the outer suburbs of Gothenburg says that crime has reached a fever pitch and police rarely ever arrive. Ms. Svensson described a particular incident of violence to the Norwegian broadcaster as an example of her experiences saying, “there were two guys who were shot. With some kind of automatic weapons. Two magazines, perhaps. It may not be what you would expect when you are out walking the dog.”

Ms. Svensson said that many people would not travel to her suburb because of the violence and admitted most were scared to live there.

Much of the crime in Sweden is linked to specific suburbs in large cities like Stockholm and Gothenburg that generally also have a high population of migrants. Suburbs like Rinkeby in Stockholm have become particularly famous for residents attacking journalists on more than one occasion.

Swedish police have accounted for a total of 14 no-go areas in which they rarely venture outside of their heavily fortified police stations for fear of being attacked by locals.

Categories: Islam - submission, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terror groups, Islamisation, Law enforcement, Sweden
Tags: Islam - submission, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terror groups, Islamisation, Law enforcement, Sweden

Comments: Be the first to comment

Trump Sees the Jihadist Trojan Horse

September 25, 2016

Trump Sees the Jihadist Trojan Horse, American Thinker, Ted Belman, September 25, 2016

(This article relies substantially on materials posted by Dr. Bill Warner, much of which is presented in the following video:

The article also elaborates on the relevance of the presented material to America’s November 8th presidential elections. — DM)

Ever wonder why there are so many Muslims and Muslim countries in the world? Over the millennia many countries were conquered, but didn’t remain Persian or Greek or Roman as the case may be. You see, the countries conquered in the name of Islam, became and remained Islamic. For example Pakistan, part of India, and Malaysia both were Hindu; Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Egypt and N. Africa were Christian; Afghanistan was Buddhist. They are all Islamic now.

This transformation was not by chance but by design. All these countries were conquered by force then shorn of their wealth and many of their women. Then the Muslim conquerors introduced Sharia and continued fighting the local inhabitants. The inhabitants were either forced to convert or accorded Dhimmi status. As time went on all cultures submitted and eventually became Islamic.

The advance of Islam was finally reversed in Spain and stopped at the Gates of Vienna in 1642. Thereafter the power of Islam went into decline but other than Spain, it never lost its hold on the people it conquered. This decline was reversed in the Twentieth Century when Arabs became wealthy as a result of their vast oil reserves. This wealth was then deployed to conquer the west, not by Violent Jihad, but by Stealth Jihad.

This design was referred to as The Islamic Doctrine. It consists of Koran (14%) which stipulates that “there is no god but ALLAH and Mohammed is his messenger”, Sira, Mohammed’s biography (26%) and Hadiths, traditions, (60%). There are two different Korans combined into one, the Mecca Koran and the Medina Koran.

Dr. Moorthy Muthuswamy writes,

About sixty-one percent of the contents of the Koran are found to speak ill of the unbelievers or call for their violent conquest; at best only 2.6 percent of the verses of the Koran are noted to show goodwill toward humanity. About seventy-five percent of Muhammad’s biography (Sira) consists of jihad waged on unbelievers.

Mohammed started as a religious preacher in Mecca. It was during this period that the Koran 2:256 stipulated. “There is no compulsion in religion” and 109:1 stipulated “You have your religion I have mine.” Ultimately he was chased out of Mecca and migrated with his followers to Medina.

Then began the Jihad period. From then on people were forced to convert under pain of death or were forced to live as Dhimmis (second class citizens) and pay (Jizya) for the privilege of living there.

This Jihad continued until there was no more discord.

Koran 2:193. “Fight them (Kafirs) until there is no more discord and the religion of Allah reigns absolute but if they submit, then only fight those who do wrong.”

Thus it continues until everyone in the territory has submitted to Islam, accepts Dhimmi status and pays Jizya.

Quotes from the Qur’an and Hadith on war, violence, infidels, and unbelievers may be found here. For example:

Ayhat 8:12, “I shall cast terror into the hearts of those who are bent on denying the truth; strike, then, their necks, [O believers,] and strike off every one of their finger-tips!”

Sura 9:5,29,41. “Slay the idolators [non-Muslims] wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the last Day…. Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! “

This inconsistency in the Koran is resolved by the doctrine of abrogation, wherein the Medina principles abrogate the Mecca principles.

Migration intends to overtake the host country through this doctrine. It is driven by Islam’s proscription against assimilation, and its will to dominate.

51% of the Koran concerns itself with the Kafir. It is a political doctrine not a religious one. There is no golden rule. Kafirs are to be subjugated. Muslims are to dominate.

Dr Bill Warner summarizes this as follows:

Migration is part of the doctrine of jihad. Migration is so important that the Islamic calendar is based upon the Hijra, Mohammed’s migration from Mecca to Medina. Why? Because it was migration that lead to the creation of jihad in Medina. And it was jihad that made Islam triumphant.

In the past Muslims tended to stay in Islamic countries. Today, the new politics is to migrate to Kafir lands and immerse themselves in local politics. This is the jihad of money, writing and speech. Their politics is to bring the Sharia to Kafir culture. An example is using Islamic money is to build departments in universities that will support Sharia and never criticize Islam.

To understand how they do it, read 4 Stages of Islamic Conquest.

Unfortunately this migration is encouraged by globalist leaders such as Chancellor Merkel and President Obama. And of course, Hillary Clinton aspires to be one of them.

Professor Belhaj explains elites “encourage migration and accommodate Islam”, and described the harmony between Muslim migrants and neoliberalism as “structural, and not accidental”. “Migration is useful for the neo-liberal model of the borderless, minimal, global society…”

The Muslim Brotherhood met in 1991 and produced a document which set out its strategic goals for North America. The document was entered as evidence in the 2008 Holyland Terror Funding Trial. It contained among other things, the following paragraphs:

Enablement of Islam in North America, meaning: establishing an effective and a stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood which adopts Muslims’ causes domestically and globally, and which works to expand the observant Muslim base, aims at unifying and directing Muslims’ efforts, presents Islam as a civilization alternative, and supports the global Islamic State wherever it is.

…the Movement must plan and struggle to obtain “the keys” and the tools of this process in carry out [sic] this grand mission as a ‘Civilization Jihadist’ responsibility.

The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [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…

[W]e must possess a mastery of the art of “coalitions,” the art of “absorption” and the principles of “cooperation.”

Pres Obama and Secretary Clinton, upon taking office, embraced the Muslim Brotherhood and worked with them to depose Mubarak and Assad. Luckily General al Sisi reversed their victory in Egypt and Assad, with the help of Iran and Russia, thwarted their plans in Syria.

In “Why is Obama in Bed with the Muslim Brotherhood?” I wrote “The alliance between the Obama administration and the Muslim Brotherhood is the cornerstone of Obama’s New Middle East policy.”

Capt. Joseph R. John, USN (Ret), the Chairman of Combat Veterans for Congress PAC, wrote in June 2016:

Members of the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR, and MPAC have sinister goals that are not in support of the US Constitution or The Bill of Rights. They have become a very dangerous “Fifth Column” in the United States, appointed by Obama to very high and sensitive positions in the US Government agencies.

For nearly 8 years Obama has been filling the Washington bureaucracy including DHS, the CIA, DOD, the National Security Council, the White House, the State Department, every US Intelligence Agency, and the US Armed Forces with thousands of members of the CAIR, MPAC, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other Muslim Brotherhood front groups.

In June of this year Donald Trump recognized the danger of Muslim migration and said, “This could be the all-time great Trojan horse.” And so it is but the US elites refuse to recognize it.

On August 15/16 he gave a speech on immigration and terrorism in which he clarified;

A Trump Administration will establish a clear principle that will govern all decisions pertaining to immigration: we should only admit into this country those who share our values and respect our people.

In the Cold War, we had an ideological screening test. The time is overdue to develop a new screening test for the threats we face today.

In addition to screening out all members or sympathizers of terrorist groups, we must also screen out any who have hostile attitudes towards our country or its principles – or who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law.

Those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry and hatred, will not be admitted for immigration into the country.

So you can see, rather that limiting his policy to weeding out terrorists, he advocates weeding out Jihadists who want to subjugate America to Islam. This is not racism. It is common sense.

Trump has been stressing that Hillary Clinton wants to let in 550% more refugees than the 10,000 Obama let in. In response I wrote “Don’t be duped about Muslim migration to the US” in which I pointed out that the problem is much bigger and that no distinction should be made between refugees and immigrants.

According to a report highlighted by Megyn Kelly,

According to the Report, Obama has issued over 832,000 green cards to Muslim majority countries in his first 6 years of his presidency. In addition, 482,000 Muslims overstayed their visas and are not being sent back. These Muslims support Sharia to an astonishing degree. In Afghanistan 99%, in Iraq 91% and in Pakistan 70%. When in the US 70% vote Democrat.

And now Obama is intending to allow in another 1 million Muslims.

Jewish Americans are very supportive of allowing such numbers into the US. They argue either we have a duty to do so or that Jews should be more welcoming given the history of America banning Jewish immigration in the thirties and forties. But this analogy doesn’t hold up at all. Jews were no threat to Americans personally and to their values, whereas the Muslims are both. Furthermore Muslims are very anti-Semitic and very anti-Israel. The Muslims have many other countries they could go to. The Jews had no other country willing to take them in. Jews are, in effect, welcoming their enemies into the country.

As for a duty to allow Muslim immigration or any immigration, there is none.

We need Donald Trump.

Categories: 2016 elections, Donald Trump and Islamists, Hillary Clinton and Islamists, Islam - submission, Islam and colonialism, Islamic immigration, Islamic refugees, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamist organizations, Islamist vetting, Islamists in America, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama and Islamists, Sharia law
Tags: Donald Trump and Islamists, Hillary Clinton and Islamists, Islam - submission, Islam and colonialism, Islamic immigration, Islamic refugees, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamist organizations, Islamist vetting, Islamists in America, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama and Islamists, Sharia law

Comments: Be the first to comment

France: Human Rights vs. The People

September 22, 2016

France: Human Rights vs. The People, Gatestone Institute, Yves Mamou, September 22, 2016

♦ French politicians seem to believe they are elected NOT to defend French people and the French nation, but to impose a “human rights ideology” on society.

♦ The rule of law is there to protect citizens from the arbitrary actions of the State. When a group of French Muslims attacks the entire way society is constructed, the rule of law now protects only the perpetrators.

♦ For Western leaders, “human rights” have become a kind of new religion. Like a disease, the human rights ideology has proliferated in all areas of life. The UN website shows a list of all the human rights that are now institutionalized: they range from “adequate housing” to “youth.” At least 42 categories of human rights fields are determined, each of which are split into two or three subcategories.

♦ With what result? More than 140 countries (out of 193 UN members) engage in torture. The number of authoritarian countries has increased. Women remain a subordinate class in nearly all countries.

♦ “Saudi Arabia ratified the treaty banning discrimination against women in 2007, and yet by law subordinates women to men in all areas of life. Child labour exists in countries that have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Powerful western countries, including the US, do business with grave human rights abusers.” — Eric Posner, professor at the University of Chicago Law School.

♦ Human rights, originally conceived of as an anti-discrimination tool, became a Trojan horse, a tool manipulated by Islamists and others to dismantle secularism, freedom of speech and freedom of religion in European countries.

On August 13, the Administrative Court in Nice, France, validated the decision of the Mayor of Cannes to prohibit wearing religious clothing on the beaches of Cannes. By “religious clothing,” the judge clearly seemed to be pointing his finger at the burkini, a body-covering bathing suit worn by many Muslim women.

These “Muslim textile affairs” reveal two types of jihad attacking France: one hard, one soft. The hard jihad, internationally known, consists of assassinating journalists of Charlie Hebdo (January 2015), Jewish people at the Hypercacher supermarket (January 2015) and young people at the Bataclan Theater, restaurants and the Stade de France (November 2015). The hard jihad also included stabbing two policeman in Magnanville, a suburb of Paris, (June 2016); truck-ramming to death 84 people in Nice on Bastille Day (July 14), and murdering a priest in the church of Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray, among other incidents. The goal of hard jihad, led by ISIS, al-Qaeda, and others, is to impose sharia by terror.

The soft jihad is different. It does not involve murdering people, but its final goal is the same: to impose Islam on France by covering the country in Islamic symbols — veils, burqas, burkinis and so on — at all levels of the society: in schools, universities, hospitals, corporations, streets, beaches, swimming pools and public transportation. By imposing the veil everywhere, soft Islamists seem to want to kill secularism, which, since escaping the grip of the Catholic Church, has become the French way of “living together.”

1347-1

Scenes from the “hard jihad” against France; the November 2015 shootings in Paris, in which 130 people were murdered by Islamists.

No one can understand secularism in France without a bit of history.

“Secularism is essential if we want the ‘people’ be defined on a political basis” wrote the French historian, Jacques Sapir.

“Religious allegiance, when it turns into fundamentalism, is in conflict with the notion of sovereignty of the people. … the Nation and State in France were built historically by fighting feudalism and the supranational ambition of the Pope and Christian religion. … Secularism is the tool to return to the private sphere all matters that cannot be challenged comfortably …. Freedom for diversity among individuals implies a consensus in the common public sphere. The distinction between the public sphere and the private sphere is fundamental for democracy to exist.”

And this distinction is secularism.

The Problem Now is Political

French politicians seem to believe they are elected NOT to defend French people and the French nation, but to impose a “human rights ideology” on society. They also seem unable to understand the challenges that common people in the streets are currently facing. They are also unable or unwilling to defend the country against either hard or soft jihad.

French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, for instance, said in a July 29 interview for Le Monde:

“We must focus on everything that is effective [to fight Islamism], but there is a line that may not be crossed: the rule of law. … My government will not be the one to create a Guantanamo, French-style.”

Only Yves Michaud, a French philosopher, dared to point out that the rule of law is there to protect citizens from the arbitrary actions of the State. When a group of French Muslims attacks the entire way society is constructed, the rule of law now protects only the perpetrators.

The same is true for French President François Hollande. After the murder by two Islamists of the Father Jacques Hamel in Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray in July 2016, he said: “We must lead the war by all means in respect of the rule of law.”

Elisabeth Levy, publisher of the French magazine, Causeur, wrote in response:

“We need to know: by all means? … Or in respect of the rule of law? What is this rule of law that authorizes a judge to release an Islamist interested in waging jihad in Syria and, because he could not go to Syria, was free while wearing an electronic bracelet, to walk the streets to slit the throat of a priest?”

She concluded: “If we want to protect our liberties, it might be interesting to take some liberties with the rule of law.”

The ideology of human rights is common to all European countries. Because authorities in European countries act, speak and legislate on the basis of human rights, they put themselves in a position of weakness when they have to name, apprehend and fight an Islamist threat.

A 46-year-old Bosnian ISIS jihadi, considered extremely dangerous, was taken into custody by the Malmö police. The terrorist immediately applied for asylum, the Swedish Migration Agency stepped in, took over the case — and prevented him from being deported. Inspector Leif Fransson of the Border Police told the local daily newspaper, HD/Sydsvenskan: “As soon as these people throw out their trump card and say ‘Asylum’, the gates of heaven open. Sweden has gotten a reputation as a safe haven for terrorists.”

In Germany: Chancellor Angela Merkel said in a press conference, at the end of July 2016, that her mission was not to defend German people and German identity but “to fulfill humanitarian obligations [towards migrants].” She added it was “our historic task… a historic test in times of globalization.”

For Western Leaders, Human Rights Has Become a New Religion

The human rights movement was born in 1948 with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, launched by Eleanor Roosevelt. For 70 years, nine major “core” human rights treaties were written and ratified by the vast majority of countries.

Like a disease, the “human rights ideology” has proliferated in all areas of life. The United Nations website shows a list of all the human rights that are now institutionalized: they range from “adequate housing” to “youth” and include “Food”, “Freedom of Religion and Belief”, “HIV/AIDS”, “Mercenaries”, “Migration”, “Poverty”, “Privacy”, “Sexual orientation and gender identity”, “Situations”, ” Sustainable Development”, “Water and sanitation.” At least 42 categories of human rights fields are determined, each of which are split into two or three subcategories.

With what result? More than 140 countries (out of 193 countries that belong to the UN) engage in torture. The number of authoritarian countries has increased: “105 countries have seen a net decline in terms of freedom, and only 61 have experienced a net improvement” reported the NGO, Freedom House, in 2016. Women remain a subordinate class in nearly all countries. Children continue to work in mines and factories in many countries.

Professor Eric Posner of the University of Chicago Law School, writes:

“Saudi Arabia ratified the treaty banning discrimination against women in 2007, and yet by law subordinates women to men in all areas of life. Child labour exists in countries that have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child: Uzbekistan, Tanzania and India, for example. Powerful western countries, including the US, do business with grave human rights abusers.”

What is disturbing is not that the “religion” of “anti-discrimination” has become a joke. What is disturbing is that human rights, originally conceived of as an anti-discrimination tool, became a Trojan horse, a tool manipulated by Islamists and others to dismantle secularism, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion in European countries. What is disturbing is that human rights and anti-discrimination policies are dismantling nations, and placing States in a position of incapacity — or perhaps just unwillingness — to name Islamism as a problem and take measures against it.

The Religion of Human Rights as a Tool of Europe’s Muslim Brotherhood

Jean-Louis Harouel, Professor of the History of Law at the Paris-Panthéon-Assas University, recently published a book entitled, Les Droits de l’homme contre le peuple (Humans Rights against the People). In an interview with Le Figaro, he said:

“Human rights, are what we call in France ‘fundamental rights’. They were introduced in the 70’s. The great beneficiaries of fundamental rights were foreigners. Islam took advantage of it to install in France, in the name of human rights and under its protection, Islamic civilization, mosques and minarets, the Islamic way of life, halal food prescriptions, clothing and cultural behavior — Islamic laws even in violation of French law: religious marriage without civil marriage, polygamy, unilateral divorce of wife by husband, etc.

“Through the assertion of identity, Islamists and mainly UOIF [Union of Islamic Organizations of France — the French branch of the Muslim Brotherhood] exploited human rights to install their progressive control on populations of Northern African descent, and coerce them to respect the Islamic order. In particular, they do all that they can to prevent young [Arab] people who are born in France from becoming French citizens.”

The human rights and anti-discrimination “religion” also gave Islam and Islamists a comfortable position from which to declare war on France and all other European countries. It seems whatever crime they are committing today and will commit in the future, Muslims and Islamists remain the victim. For example, just after the November 13 terrorist attacks in France, in which more than 130 people were murdered by Islamists at the Bataclan Theater, the Stade de France, cafés and restaurants, Tariq Ramadan, an Islamist professor at Oxford University, tweeted:

“I am not Charlie, nor Paris: I am a warrant search suspect”.

Ramadan meant that because of the emergency laws and because he was a Muslim, he was an automatic suspect, an automatic victim of racism and “Islamophobia.”

In another example, just after the terrorist attack in Nice on July 14, when an Islamist rammed a truck into a crowd celebrating Bastille Day, killing at least 84 people, Abdelkader Sadouni, an imam in Nice, told the Italian newspaper Il Giornale: “French secularism is the main and only thing responsible for terror attacks.”

Global Elites against the People

The question now is: have our leaders decided to cope with the real problems of the real people? In other words, are they motivated enough to throw the human rights ideology overboard, restore secularism in society and fight Islamists? The problem is that they do not even seem to understand the problem. What Peggy Noonan, of the Wall Street Journal, wrote about Angela Merkel can apply to all leaders of European countries:

“Ms. Merkel had put the entire burden of a huge cultural change not on herself and those like her but on regular people who live closer to the edge, who do not have the resources to meet the burden, who have no particular protection or money or connections. Ms. Merkel, her cabinet and government, the media and cultural apparatus that lauded her decision were not in the least affected by it and likely never would be.

Nothing in their lives will get worse. The challenge of integrating different cultures, negotiating daily tensions, dealing with crime and extremism and fearfulness on the street — that was put on those with comparatively little, whom I’ve called the unprotected. They were left to struggle, not gradually and over the years but suddenly and in an air of ongoing crisis that shows no signs of ending — because nobody cares about them enough to stop it.

The powerful show no particular sign of worrying about any of this. When the working and middle class pushed back in shocked indignation, the people on top called them “xenophobic,” “narrow-minded,” “racist.” The detached, who made the decisions and bore none of the costs, got to be called “humanist,” “compassionate,” and “hero of human rights.”

So the fight against Islamism might first consist of a fight against the caste that governs us.

Categories: France, Human rights, Islam - submission, Islam and Christianity, Islam and human rights, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamisation of France, Islamophobia
Tags: France, human rights, Islam - submission, Islam and Christianity, Islam and human rights, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamisation of France, Islamophobia

Comments: Be the first to comment

GWU’s “ex-jihadist” Jesse Morton wants to dismantle “entire counterterrorism component of military-industrial complex”

September 11, 2016

GWU’s “ex-jihadist” Jesse Morton wants to dismantle “entire counterterrorism component of military-industrial complex” Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer, September 11, 2016

He is “deradicalized,” he has renounced al-Qaeda, he’s comfortably “moderate” now. Now blames the U.S. for jihad terror, wants to dismantle the U.S.’s entire counterterrorism apparatus (such as it is), and wants to provide “holistic socio-pschological-political-economic alternatives based in the shariah” to fighting against jihad activity. And this man is teaching at George Washington University.

jesse-morton

EXPOSED: Writings of GWU’s ‘ex-jihadist’ reveal he’s not so reformed after all,” by Benjamin Weingarten, Conservative Review, September 11, 2016:

Among the inexplicable ways in which the United States has responded to Islamic supremacism in the 15 years since September 11 — beyond enabling the world’s leading state sponsor of jihad in Iran, supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and other “moderate jihadists” over relatively secular strongmen, and transitioning from a global war on terror (a tactic) to a program against “violent extremism” (a nebulous non-entity) — a recent story out of the American academy is quite telling.

George Washington University has given a research position within its Center for Cyber and Homeland Security to Jesse Morton (formerly known as Younus Abdullah Muhammad), an ex-jihadist sentenced to more than 11 years in prison for threatening the creators of “South Park” for depicting Muhammad in a bear suit.Having chosen to serve as an informant for the FBI because of his expertise ‘jihadizing’ fellow Americans through Revolution Muslim (the Al Qaeda-supporting “activist” group that he led on U.S. soil), law enforcement officials and GWU firmly believe Morton is not only no longer a threat, but also an asset.

They believe there is much that can be learned from his experience transforming from regular American to jihadist and back again.

In his defense, some like Nadia Oweidat of the New America think tank have said that Morton’s decision to come out publicly as someone working to counter “radicalism” puts Morton’s life at risk.

Morton himself claims to have been rehabilitated through hours spent in prison supposedly grappling with the great works of the Western canon, such as the writings of John Locke and Thomas Paine, and his interactions with certain friendly law enforcement officers.

He asserts that he is contrite and seeks to rectify his actions according to an interview with CNN, stating:

This is an opportunity for me to make amends, to some degree … I realize that I was completely wrong in my perspectives.

I suffer from a tremendous amount of guilt … I have seen things that people have done and to know that I once sympathized and supported that view — it sickens me.

Yet nowhere in Morton’s mea culpa is there an overt disavowal of Islamic supremacism, condemnation of Sharia law, or renunciation of his faith as in the case of other notable ex-Islamic supremacists like Hirsi Ali or ex-Communists like Whittaker Chambers.

Interestingly, Morton publicized his release from prison on an Islamic website, but that announcement as well as the website have since disappeared. As The Washington Post noted earlier this year:

Efforts to locate Morton, a father of two who has a master’s degree from Columbia University, were unsuccessful. The Bureau of Prisons website indicates that he was released in February 2015, and he appears to have announced it on the website islampolicy.com.

“While I am no doubt bewildered by the prospects of facing the currents of American society, labeled American Al-Qaeda, I do want to remain cognizant that this opportunity to be a freeman, a husband, a father, and citizen comes from Allah alone,” he wrote.

It turns out that Islampolicy.com was the successor website to Revolution Muslim. And this quotation captured by the Post, indicates that Morton remains a Muslim and harbors a victim-like mentality rather than acknowledging that he was the aggressor.

Thanks to the web archives, we can read further into Morton’s statement upon his release:

I remember being flown home in a private government jet after five months of incarceration in Morocco and finding out I was facing life imprisonment in the United States. At that moment, when one’s freedom seems to be lost forever, simply for speaking their mind, the soul has nothing left to do but turn to Allah, aza wa jaal. Today I can guarantee that a relief from hardship comes in ways that are mostly unexpected. The reflective one realizes that Allah relieves hardship in ways that oftentimes connect to pathways of deeper, spiritual healing the. Therefore, we must always pay attention to the experiences Allah puts us through, and try to remember that there are lessons to be learned from each and every passing wind. [Emphasis mine]

Clearly Morton viewed his arrest and release as being intrinsic to his Islamic experience and believed his arrest was unjustified. After all, he was just exercising his right to free speech.

Yet nowhere in Morton’s mea culpa is there an overt disavowal of Islamic supremacism, condemnation of Sharia law, or renunciation of his faith.

He continues:

I have been particularly intrigued by what has been classified as countering violent extremism (CVE). While this has led me to contemplate ways of preventing others from throwing their lives away, I remain staunchly opposed to the national security or counterterrorism state and its connection to the elite, neoliberal order, or what Dwight D. Eisenhower referred to as far back as 1961 as the ‘military-industrial complex.’ I believe that today’s counterterrorist, or national security state isn’t merely dangerous to Islam and Muslims, but to humanity and civilization generally.

I must also emphatically state that I absolutely reject the conception that terrorism is justified in any which way and by anybody. I ask Allah to accept repentance for my not having made that absolutely clear in the past. It seems to me definite that we are suffering from an era the prophet (saws) foretold; one marked by ignorant youth who recite the best of speech but do not embody it. If we are to truly stand for the ummah’s liberation, we will have to locate a balanced position between the day’s extremes. [Emphasis mine]

Morton’s views morphed from the jihadist notion that the Great Satan must be destroyed to the Left’s notion that efforts to root out and defeat jihadis represent an immoral, un-American, tyrannical enterprise.

Further, Morton puts forth the argument echoed by many Islamic supremacists that “terrorism,” is never justified. But as Daniel Greenfield has written, while some Islamic leaders have gone so far as to issue fatwas against terrorism, they fail to define the term:

Muslim religious leaders have occasionally issued fatwas against terrorism, but terrorism for Muslim clerics … is a matter of definition. The tactics of terrorism, including suicide bombing and the murder of civilians, have been approved by fatwas from many of the same Islamic religious leaders that our establishment deems moderate. And the objective of terrorism, the subjugation of non-Muslims, has been the most fundamental Islamic imperative for the expansionistic religion since the days of Mohammed.

How to square these sentiments? As Stephen Coughlin notes in his magnum opus, “Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad,” the Quran’s definition of terrorism is essentially the killing of a Muslim without right. Is this the definition Morton had in mind when he proscribed terror?

In a later post from August 19, 2015 (note: the Wayback Machine page takes a few moments to load), “Obama’s Support for Sisi’s Counterterrorism Legislation Highlights the Hypocrisy of War on Radicalization,” Morton asserts,

[T]he global war on terror, having been rebranded as a war on Islamic extremism under Obama, has become a war on radicalization that now threatens the very essence of free expression democratic societies depend on.

Morton believes that targeting of individuals on the basis of jihadist ideology is in fact detrimental and that the goal of U.S. policy is to end “Islamism” (which of course would appear to be the exact opposite of President Obama’s policy with respect to the growing global jihad):

Legislation that concentrates on ideology conflates radical belief with violence and will only guarantee perpetual conflict. This seems to be the intended effect of counterterrorism policy everywhere. It suggests that the counterterrorism community itself desires confrontation to the end, until the very existence of Islamism on earth is eradicated.

This sentiment has expanded by way of rising right-wing and anti-Islamic populism. It is aided and abided by an Islamophobia industry that serves to brandish all conservative Muslims as barbarian. Whether in London, Paris, Cairo, or Washington, governments everywhere are utilizing counterterrorism policy and practice to silence dissent and criminalize critique of government policy, particularly if one is an Islamist.

Islamists apparently are the real victims during this age of jihadist metastasization.

While recasting himself as an agent for good with a new home in the academy, he airbrushes his views to make them palatable to a progressive audience.

Morton contends, hyperbolically, that ideology is not the key driver of jihadist violence, but rather that Western (imperialist) actions are the sine qua non of jihad — that again, jihadists are merely reacting to Western aggression:

[I]t is argued that all Islamists, nonviolent and violent, must be silenced. That position, given credence by way of government allegiance with ‘moderate Muslims’, is girded in the belief that radical political preachers create the ‘mood music to which suicide bombers dance.’ That’s a fancy way of saying that radical beliefs precede and incite violent action. In fact, very few of those holding radical beliefs ever go on to commit acts of terrorism and there is no established empirical evidence for such a causal relationship.

The one common denominator in the overwhelming majority of empirical research into violent Islamic extremist incidents is actually an attempt to justify or frame violence as a reaction to western policies. Yet, this fact conveniently goes missing from most expert analysis. When pointed to as the actual cause, any citation of western policy is ruled out as conspiracy theory or paranoid delusion. It is important to note that in exposition after exposition, Osama bin Laden claimed that jihadists were engaging in terrorism not because they hate democracy but “because you (the United States) attach us and continue to attack us.”

In other words, we create jihadis with our policy.

Apparently, ISIS also never cared about the West, until we meddled:

[T]he western press hardly recognizes that ISIS mostly rejected the ‘far enemy’ doctrine and instead preferred regional or localized violence, at least until Obama announced his plan to “degrade and destroy” the movement.

Most dumbfounding of all is this quote:

Were the U.S. and its allies not in such blatant betrayal of the very “set of core principles” Obama claimed to defend at the time of the Egyptian coup, there might be a diminishing appeal of jihadism. Instead, it’s viewed as the only alternative. The only solution is a global grassroots movement dedicated to ending such blatant hypocrisy. This movement must focus on dismantling the entire counterterrorism component of the military-industrial complex. Only then might a paradigm unfold that could first rid that “one indispensable nation” of its own despots and dictatorship, and thereby encourage people across the globe to do the same. Until then, terrorism at the hand of the state and Orwellian legislation will only enhance radicalization, at home and abroad. [Emphasis mine]

Thus, this deradicalized ex-jihadist proclaims that the way to end jihadism is to dismantle the “entire counterterrorism component” of American policy. No wonder he has been so welcomed at an American institution of higher education….

One thing I realize about some of my previous work at Revolution Muslim was the way it allowed authoritiesto [sic] fulfill their own agenda. It was a lesson that all those seeking authentic Islam could benefit from. May Allah aza wa jaal liberate this ummah from its ignorance and give us insight to see through a massive propaganda war. We should be at the forefront of providing holistic socio-pschological-political-economic alternatives based in the shariah. [Emphasis mine]

Read the rest here.

Categories: Academia, Islam - submission, Islam and human rights, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamists in America, Sharia law
Tags: Academia, Islam - submission, Islam and human rights, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamists in America, Sharia law

Comments: Be the first to comment

Archives