After last Wednesday’s deadly attack outside London’s Houses of Parliament, the left-wing British media expressed outrage – not at the appalling way in which Islam and Islamic terrorism have transformed life and sown death throughout the Western world, but at the purported moral depravity of those who dare to connect the dots.
In the Guardian, Jon Henley and Amber Jamiesen sneered at Marine Le Pen for “linking the London attack to migrant policy, despite the attacker being British.” (My emphasis.) They smeared as “xenophobic” Nigel Farage’s argument “that the London attacks proved Donald Trump’s hardline immigration and anti-Muslim policies were correct.” The Independent‘s Maya Oppenheimer censured Farage’s comments, too, countering his critique of multiculturalism by saying he’d “failed to mention the fact many of the victims of the attack were in fact foreigners themselves.” (My emphasis again.) Needless to say, the issue wasn’t Britishness vs. foreignness; it was Islam. But to say so was verboten. As Theresa May said (in what already seems destined to become an immortal statement), “Islamist terror” has nothing do with Islam.
Accusing non-Muslims of doing to Muslims what Islam commands Muslims do to
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center
A little known fact: When Muslims persecute religious minorities in their midst, they often justify it by projecting the worst aspects of Islam onto the “infidels.” A well-known phenomenon, “projection” is defined as “the attribution of one’s own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people.” One academic article dealing with violence and projection states, “Projection allows the killer to project his (unacceptable) desire to kill (torture, rape, steal, dominate, etc.) onto some target group or person. This demonizes his target, making it even more acceptable to kill.”
Accordingly, anyone who listens to the last video made by ISIS inciting violence against Egypt’s Copts would think the Christian minority is oppressing the Muslim majority, hence the need for “heroic” ISIS to “retaliate.” Similarly, after ISIS slaughtered 21 Coptic Christians on the shores of Libya in 2016, it made a video portraying its actions as “revenge” against the Coptic Church, which ISIS bizarrely accuses of kidnapping, torturing, and forcing Muslim women to convert to Christianity. (Apparently the killing of nearly 60 Christians in a Baghdad church a few years earlier—which the jihadis then also portrayed as revenge to the Coptic Church’s forced conversion of Muslim women—was not enough).
I believe the old definition of a nanosecond was the gap between a New York traffic light changing to green and the first honk of a driver behind you. Today, the definition of a nanosecond is the gap between a western terrorist incident and the press release of a Muslim lobby group warning of an impending outbreak of Islamophobia. After the London Tube bombings, Angus Jung sent the Aussie pundit Tim Blair a note-perfect parody of the typical newspaper headline:
British Muslims Fear Repercussions Over Tomorrow’s Train Bombing.
And here we are, eleven years later, and it’s more of the same old same old. This story in the Washington Post by one Jennifer Hassan isn’t quite there, but it’s pretty darn close. It’s just a matter of time now:
This special edition of The Glazov Gang was joined by Sandra Solomon, an ex-Muslim who grew up in Saudi Arabia who is now valiantly fighting against the Islamization of the West — and of her new home country of Canada in particular. (Support Sandra on her Facebook Page HERE.)
Sandra came on the show to focus on Unveiling the Terror in London, revealing the true reason Jihad struck the UK Parliament and Westminster Bridge.
In a lecture posted on the YouTube channel of Montreal’s Al-Andalous Islamic Center on June 17, 2016, Canadian Imam Wael Al-Ghitawi discussed the wife’s obligations toward her husband in accordance with Islam. Al-Ghitawi said that she must not refuse her husband’s conjugal rights and must not leave the house without his permission. He cited a hadith according to which the Prophet Muhammad said that “if [a husband] has a boil oozing pus, anywhere from head to toe, the wife will not be doing him full justice even if she licks it clean.”
Wael Al-Ghitawi: “In the hadith compilation of Imam Ahmad (ibn Hanbal) it says: ‘No human being should bow down before another human being, but if this were allowed, I would have ordered women to bow down before their husbands, because of the magnitude of the husband’s rights over his wife. By Allah, if (a husband) has a boil oozing pus, anywhere from head to toe, the wife will not be doing him full justice even if she licks it clean.’ This is no trivial matter. These are the words of the Prophet Muhammad. Some people might find it difficult to stomach this hadith. I mean, if a man has a boil, does his wife really need to lick it? I am not saying that she must lick it. But the Prophet Muhammad demonstrated the magnitude of the husband’s rights over his wife by saying that even if she licks the boil, she would not be doing him full justice.
“Another of the husband’s rights is not to be refused when he summons his wife to bed. If the husband wants her, she must consent, in order to protect his faith from the temptations that lurk everywhere.
“The wife must not refuse her husband when he summons her to bed, as long as she is able, and does not suffer from any mental or physical condition preventing this, like menstruation or post-natal bleeding, in which case she may refrain from doing so. But even in such cases, the husband may enjoy her, avoiding the vagina. In order for both husband and wife to avoid Allah’s curses, the wife must obey her husband and fulfill his needs, or else the angels will curse her and the Lord’s wrath will be upon her.
“The (husband) has another right over his wife: She must not go out of the house without his permission. This is the husband’s right according to the shari’a. What about the state law? I am not talking about that now. You are a woman who married according to the shari’a, so if your husband tells you not to leave the house–don’t leave the house! ‘How come he’s allowed to prevent me?’ you ask…Just don’t leave the house! That’s one of his rights. Allah granted him this right. So don’t leave the house without his permission!”
Australia’s first female Muslim MP wants to change 18C race laws to include religion – so it is illegal to insult followers of Islam
The nation’s first female Muslim federal MP wants religion covered in race laws
Dr Anne Aly wants section 18C of Racial Discrimination Act to be broadened
She argued the existing law didn’t cover people calling someone a ‘dirty Muslim’
But she said if someone calling a person a ‘dirty Arab’ would fall under 18C law
Australia is a democracy and secular country where religion and politics are separated.
Islam however is a totalitarian ideology which has mosque, state and military all included.
“Australia’s first female federal Muslim MP Anne Aly wants racial discrimination laws broadened so it is illegal to insult followers of Islam.
Dr Aly’s call to amend racial discrimination laws to include religion comes a week after Victoria’s Multicultural Affairs Minister Robin Scott threatened to strengthen state laws that already curb the right to criticise religion.
Religious vilification laws potentially threaten secular values and open the door to blasphemy cases if they are legally exploited by religious groups.”
Malcolm Turnbull is being urged to ensure that proposed changes to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act knock out vexatious or frivolous complaints already lodged with the Human Rights Commission.
The Senate committee reviewing the government’s shake-up to section 18C of the act will also encourage the government to provide greater guidance for the courts in interpreting the meaning of the word “harass”.
As the government attempts to overhaul section 18C, West Australian Labor MP Anne Aly yesterday said there was scope for a future Labor government to extend the section to better protect Muslims, warning that anti-Islamic sentiment had become “a new form of racism”.
The Prime Minister is proposing to reform section 18C by making it unlawful to “harass” or “intimidate” someone on the basis of their race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, and is also pushing for procedural changes at the AHRC.
The government’s Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 will be debated today.
A bloc of Labor, Greens and crossbench senators look certain to defeat the government’s changes to the wording of section 18C, which currently makes it unlawful to “offend,” “insult” or “humiliate” someone on the basis of their race, but have an open mind to supporting process changes to streamline the handling of complaints at the commission.
As the crossbench yesterday pressed the government to split its bill, opposition legal affairs spokesman Mark Dreyfus left the door open to adopting 18C-style laws as the benchmark standard of acceptable speech in Labor’s promised consolidation of federal anti-discrimination laws.
Dr Aly told The Australian there was “scope to reassess” extending section 18C, warning that the debate about racism now “extends to religion”.
She cited cases of Muslim women having their hijabs ripped off and people being abused in the streets.
She lies. Whenever she opens her mouth she lies.
“I find it a little bit strange that someone can call you a ‘dirty Arab’ and that be covered under the bill, but if they called you a dirty Muslim, you’re not covered (under 18C),” she said. “I think there’s scope there. I’d like to see that discussion happen because I think we have definitely seen an increase in anti-Islamic rhetoric.”
That would be the least of our problems, considering all the nasty words the Mohammedans have in store for the disbelievers.
Islam’s Culture War Sets Sight on Multi-Billion Dollar Beauty Industry
by Shireen Qudosi • March 28, 2017
The long game of Western Muslims averse to Western values, was largely unaffected by an altered political landscape as they transitioned to a new arena: culture.
“[F]ashion is one of the outlets in which we can start that cultural shift in today’s society to normalize the hijab in America.” — Melanie Elturk, CEO of Haute Hijab.
Beautiful Nura Afia in an advertising campaign is a far more appealing and consumer-friendly alternative to CAIR’s Nihad Awad or the political complexities of the Muslim Brotherhood. The face has changed but the message is constant.
Here you have the two faces of Islamist thought, one which underscores the myth of peace while privately exiling dissenting voices as ignorant, racist or bigoted. Meanwhile, CoverGirl and other brands upholding the hijab as a new standard of beauty, ignore the hijab’s very ugly origins.
As 2016 drew to a close, many people were on the edge of their seats after a defining presidential election between one choice (Clinton) who stood for the status quo and the other (Trump), seen as the harbinger of a resolute victory against radical Islam. For many Muslims, there was a third choice. Unanchored to the changing tides of elections, the long game of Western Muslims who are averse to Western values was largely unaffected by an altered political landscape. They had transitioned to a new arena: culture.
In 2016, the élite fashion label Dolce and Gabbana launched an “Abaya and Hijab Collection.” Months later, at New York Fashion Week, a sartorial Mecca, hosted the first catwalk spotlighting models fully donned in hijabs.
Islamist influence is now using Western culture to solidify Islamist values in society’s more coveted circles: fashion and beauty.
“No one forced me to dress this way.”–USATODAY.COM
Make July 1 International Burn Hijab Day
Sandra Solomon is an apostate from Islam. She was raised in Saudi Arabia, and now lives in Canada.
In the following video Ms. Solomon talks about the oppression of women under Islam, and especially the requirement that they wear hijab. She proposes that July 1st be declared “International Burn Hijab Day”.–Many thanks to Vlad Tepes & GoV for recording and uploading this video.
Calling for harsh sanctions on European Union (EU) nations refusing to welcome migrants, UN Human Rights Council Advisor Jean Ziegler said Germany’s open borders response to the crisis set a ‘great example’.
Ziegler, who sits on the UN Human Rights Council’s Advisory Committee, argued that EU countries with restrictive policies on migrants are “violently trampling on refugees’ human rights”, Der Tagesspiegelreports.
He called on the European Commission to suspend payments to countries trying to minimise the migrant influx, highlighting Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, and Slovakia as “delinquents”.
“If the EU were to suspend the solidarity payments to the Eastern European countries for 14 days the barbed wire fences, the prisons, and the terrible camps would be gone,” he told the German newspaper.
The UN advisor pointed to Chancellor Merkel as the leader he believes to have done and said the right things in response to a tidal wave of migrants heading for Europe.
This is a primal conflict between a totalitarian system and a democratic system. Its outcome will determine whether we will be a free nation or a nation of slaves.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
A civil war has begun.
This civil war is very different than the last one. There are no cannons or cavalry charges. The left doesn’t want to secede. It wants to rule. Political conflicts become civil wars when one side refuses to accept the existing authority. The left has rejected all forms of authority that it doesn’t control.
The left has rejected the outcome of the last two presidential elections won by Republicans. It has rejected the judicial authority of the Supreme Court when it decisions don’t accord with its agenda. It rejects the legislative authority of Congress when it is not dominated by the left.
It rejected the Constitution so long ago that it hardly bears mentioning.