Andrej Babis, tipped to become the next Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, has backed the government’s decision to fight the European Union’s attempts to impose a compulsory migrant quota on the country.
“The biggest added value of the European Union is the national identity of each country,” said the Slovakia-born businessman, who was Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister as leader of the junior party in a coalition led by the Social Democrats until recently.
“We have to fight for what our ancestors built here. If there will be more Muslims than Belgians in Brussels, that’s their problem. I don’t want that here. They won’t be telling us who should live here.”
The bloc’s attempts to spread the migrant burden across Europe have met with fierce resistance in Central Europe, whose governments contend it is unfair for Brussels to expect they should pay the price for a migrant crisis encouraged by Germany despite their objections.
The Czech president, Milos Zeman, used his Christmas message in 2016 to say he was “profoundly convinced that we are facing an organised invasion and not a spontaneous movement of refugees”, and has also warned that, “By accepting the migrants, we strongly facilitate Islamic State’s expansion to Europe.”
The month of Ramadan, the month of fasting, has a special status as the month of religious spirituality and devotion. However, in Muslim tradition it is also perceived as a month of jihad and martyrdom, a month in which Allah grants military victories to His believers. It was during Ramadan that Muslims triumphed in many of their battles, among them the battle of Badr in 624 between supporters of Muhammad and a merchant caravan of the Quraysh tribe; the conquest of Mecca in 630 and of Andalusia in 711; the battle of Al-Zallaqa in 1086, in which Spanish Muslims defeated the Castilians near the city of Badajoz on today’s Portuguese border, and the 1973 War(called The Ramadan War).
Given the historic religious and military significance of Ramadan, Islamist and jihadi groups, and sometimes also mainstream Arab organizations and Arab media, escalate incitement to jihad and martyrdom during this month. Messages, articles and sermons that are published on the occasion of Ramadan and explain the connection between Ramadan and jihad and often stress the following themes:
-The commandment of jihad, which is of supreme importance at all times, assumes even greater importance during this holy month and gains precedence over all other commandments.
–There is a close connection between fasting and jihad, for the former is jihad of the soul, aimed at restraining it from sinning, while the second is jihad against the enemies, aimed at preventing them from spreading “corruption” in the world. Moreover, fasting is a powerful means to prepare the soul for jihad, i.e., to school oneself in obedience, devotion, resilience and endurance, which are the virtues of the jihad fighter that allow him to vanquish his enemies. On Ramadan Allah grants fighters special strength, despite – or rather by virtue of – their fasting.
-Those who gain martyrdom during the month of Ramadan are doubly rewarded in Paradise.
-During Ramadan, the Muslims are especially beholden to protect the sanctity of the Muslim holy places and keep the infidels from “desecrating” or threatening them.
The following are excerpts from a sampling of messages, articles and sermons on this topic, published across the Arab world from 2001 until today, compiled from previous MEMRI documents.
“Ramadan – The Month of Jihad and Victories” (image: Saraya.ps)
Former Egyptian Grand Mufti: Ramadan Is The Month Of Jihad And Victories
Under the Islamo-pandering Trudeau, Canada is turning into Canuckistan with lightning speed:
Islam critic “Wild Bill” detained, arrested in Canada for “smuggling hate speech” on his iPad
A story is unfolding in Canada about a critic of Islam, “Wild Bill,” Bill Finlay, who was scheduled to speak at a rally in Calgary over the weekend about the impact of Sharia law on women and children, and also about the freedom of speech. He was detained for hours, arrested, and had his iPad confiscated and sent to Ottawa for a “forensic investigation”; he was warned that he could be slapped with a “tariff” of an unknown sum for “smuggling” his own words into Canada. Wild Bill was subsequently blocked from entering into Canada. If events actually unfolded as he explains in his personal, recorded testimony below, then this is a horrifying and highly alarming story that bears enormous implications for free speech and free society in Canada.
Jefferson had a very dim view of Islam, which came out of his experience in dealing with the Barbary Pirates, that is, the North African Muslims (in Morocco, Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli), who attacked Christian shipping and seized ships and Christian sailors, and then demanded ransom. The sums were not trivial; the American Republic found itself spending 20% of its national budget on such payments. These continued until Jefferson became President, stopped the practice of paying such tribute, and instead made war on the Barbary Pirates. And that worked.
Hugh Fitzgerald: No Room at the Inn for an Iftar Dinner
For the first time in nearly two decades, Ramadan has come and gone without the White House recognizing it with an iftar or Eid celebration, as had taken place each year under the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations.
And the article by Amy Wang attempts to suggest that the “tradition” of the Iftar Dinner goes all the way back to Thomas Jefferson who, as is well known, was asked by a visiting Muslim envoy of the Bey of Tunis, one Sidi Soliman Mellimelli, to postpone the dinner to which Jefferson had invited him, along with others, until after sundown, which Jefferson, as a matter of courtesy, did.
The Post continues:
Jefferson’s decision to change the time of the meal to accommodate Mellimelli’s [the envoy from the Bey of Tunis] observance of Ramadan has been seized on by both sides in the 21st-century debate over Islam more than 200 years later. Historians have cited the meal as the first time an iftar took place in the White House — and it has been referenced in recent White House celebrations of Ramadan as an embodiment of the Founding Father’s respect for religious freedom. Meanwhile, critics on the far right have taken issue with the characterization of Jefferson’s Dec. 9, 1805, dinner as an iftar.
Notice how in the Post article it is “historians” (disinterested, authoritative, not to be doubted) who cite that 1805 meal as the first Iftar dinner in the White House, while those who deny that the meal was an “Iftar dinner” are described as being on the “far right,” apparently for no other reason than that very denial.
What actually happened is clear for those without an insensate need to make Islam, as Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed it was, “always part of America’s story.” And you can be as left-wing as all get out, and still recognize that Jefferson was not putting on an Iftar dinner. A little history will help: Mellimelli came to Washington as the envoy of the Bey of Tunis. The Americans had blockaded the port of Tunis, in order to force the Bey to halt his attacks on American shipping. Mellimelli was sent to make an agreement that would end the blockade. Invited by Jefferson to a dinner at the White House set for 3:30 (dinners were earlier in those pre-Edison days of our existence), he requested that it be held after sundown, in accordance with his Muslim practice, and Jefferson, a courteous man, obliged him. There is no hint that the dinner had changed in any way; no one then called it, or thought of it, as an “Iftar dinner.” Mellimelli himself did not describe it as an “Iftar dinner.” There is no record of it being anything other than the exact same dinner, the same menu, with wine (no removal of alcohol as would be necessary were it a real Iftar dinner), the only change being that of the three-hour delay until sunset. Nothing Jefferson said or did at the time, or in his later writings, indicates that he thought of that delayed dinner as an “Iftar dinner”; nor did he think he was in any way honoring Islam.
Farhana Maute’s two sons, Omarkhayam and Abudallah, are the leaders of the Maute group. The group is tied to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), and Mrs. Maute had been funding the group’s activities when they took over the Philippine city.
Marawi is a mostly Muslim city of 200,000 people in the southern part of the Philippines. A state of martial law was declared by President Rodrigo Duterte just after the beginning of the siege.
The Philippine government maintains that the violent conflict with the militant group began after they received intelligence that the Maute brothers were in the area. Instead, they spotted Isnilon Hapilon, the leader of another group affiliated with the ISIL and the Maute group and chaos ensued.
It is questionable whether or not Mrs. Maute’s two sons are still alive but she is keeping their mission, to raise the ISIL flag at the Lanao del Sur Provincial Capitol, alive with the help of child soldiers.
This information along with information that supports that the Maute matriarch, a wealthy business woman from the respected Romato clan, has, in fact, been funding the operation that has terrorized Marawi for the past month came from a former teenage soldier.
Islam and Sex (in Paradise) – the ultimate bribe in a game of oppression and fantasy. Islam = “submit” your whole life in order to spend eternity in an orgy of sexual delights:
1. Most of those that enter Paradise .. are men
2. Allah described for us the women in Paradise .. “full breasted” – so you will know what awaits you there!
3. Think how terrible it is for a man to lose all this.. for some temporary minute of lust.
Islam is about as Aussie as the plague or the Ebola virus. Here’s the corrupt little twerp hanging out with hardcore headbangers in Lakemba praising themselves about how “Aussie” they are:
But of course its not about being “Aussie”. These creeps want and work towards an Islamic Australia. Reminds me of Tariq Ramadan, when he says “integration is done, we are here, here to stay. Nothing you can do about it, kafir….”
The establishment media became upset this weekend after President Donald Trump canceled the “White House Muslim Iftar Dinner tradition started by Thomas Jefferson.” But the media is wrong in every respect. Thomas Jefferson never held any Iftar dinner and only three out of 45 presidents ever hosted one, so there is no such “tradition” to cancel.
Amy B. Wang of the Washington Post led the pack with this nonsense that Thomas Jefferson held the “first Iftar dinner” with a June 24 piece entitled, “Trump just ended a long tradition of celebrating Ramadan at the White House.”
The often-used claim that Thomas Jefferson held the first Iftar dinner at the White House was trotted out by the Post’s Wang. She recounted the time when the diplomatic envoy from the Bey of Tunis, Sidi Soliman Melli Melli, visited Washington during Ramadan in 1805.
Jefferson invited the envoy to the White House for dinner at 3:30 PM—the time most Washingtonians had dinner in those days. But after he sent the invitation he was told that Melli Melli could not partake of a meal until after sunset because of Ramadan. Thomas Jefferson was faced with two choices: cancel the dinner entirely or simply have the meal later in the evening at a time when his guest could attend. As a good host and a decent person, Jefferson chose the latter.
In fact, all Jefferson did was change the time of his meal. He had no intention of honoring Islam. Jefferson simply was not honoring the religion of “the Musselmen”—as he termed Muslims at the time—when he changed the time of the meal. Also, there is no evidence that Jefferson asked Melli Melli what sort of food a “Musselman” would eat, so no special food was prepared to suit a Muslim’s religious needs. Jefferson neither inquired about religious accommodations nor was any made. All he did was move the time of the meal as a courtesy.
Further, Jefferson sent no letters containing proclamations about the meal being an Iftar dinner nor mentioning Islam, he never mentioned such honors in his private papers, and there is no record that he spoke to anyone about his intentions to honor the Muslim practice of an Iftar dinner.
Piers Morgan had Tommy Robinson on his show recently, but only very briefly, and he hardly let Robinson have a word edgewise, interrupting him at every turn. Here is how it went:
Piers Morgan, co-host of “Good Morning Britain,” angrily denounced Tommy Robinson, an author and famous British critic of Islam, his guest on June 20, and called him a “bigoted lunatic” while debating his controversial response to the recent attack on Muslims in London.[Morgan had mistakenly identified Muslims leaving the notorious Finsbury mosque as the target; in fact, the target was Muslims leaving a nearby Islamic welfare house].
Morgan registered his objection, saying, “Here’s my point. Right, I’ve read a lot of stuff that you’ve said and done. I know your history, I know all of it. Good, bad and ugly. Some of it is ugly, some of it, I agree with.”
“My issue with what you did, yesterday,” he continued, “is within one hour of this utter lunacy, this terrorist, driving from Wales, and deliberately mowing down innocent people, as it turned out, all Muslims, outside the Muslim welfare house, not the Finsbury Park mosque, killing one, maiming maybe 10 others, is your first thought process was not to express sympathy, for what had happened.”
“I read the tweets in sequential order, right,” he added, “within one hour your thought process was to go on the attack, to talk about another mosque, not the one that had been attacked, to talk about it in historical context, of when everybody knows the Finsbury Park mosque at the turn of the century was a bad place, with Abu Hamza, and everything else, right. And what you were doing, was fomenting hatred and almost suggesting that somehow this attack, this revenge attack as you put it, was somehow deserving because of the historical behavior of certain people at a completely different mosque — that was my problem.”
“OK, Piers,” Robinson responded, “the newspaper you work for said exactly the same within an hour — Abu Hamza’s mosque. Were they fomenting hate, the newspaper you work for? Were they? Were they inciting hate?”
“I don’t run the Daily Mail,” Morgan protested.
“Now, if I hold up this book and say, ‘There will never be peace on this Earth so long as we have this book, it’s a violent and cursed book,’ Can I say that? Sir William Gladstone said that,” Robinson continued, referring to the 19th century prime minister of Great Britain’s description of the Quran.
“Would you say that of the Bible? Show some respect,” Morgan retorted.
“Show some respect? Have you read this book?” Robinson shot back. “Have you read this book? There are a hundred verses in this book that incite violence and murder against us.”
Why didn’t Piers Morgan answer Robinson’s question? Has he read the Qur’an? If he had, why wouldn’t he say so? The problem for Piers Morgan is that either he has not read the Qur’an (which is entirely possible, for study is not his strong suit, and he seems to be noticeably unwilling to engage on its contents, never having mentioned a single one of its verses) and therefore has no business taking issue with what Tommy Robinson, channeling Gladstone, maintains, or he has read it in which case he knows what it contains and and wants to keep that information from the public. After all, if he had said, “Yes of course I’ve read the Qur’an,” Robinson’s next question would have been: “Okay, can you recall even one verse out of the more than one hundred that incite violence and murder against the Infidels?”