Who is Sheik yer’mami?
Shem, Winds of Jihad Vice President and resident cartoonist, is presently in charge of editing and moderating this blog. Thank you all for news-feeds and contributions and your support. Sheik yer’mami will be saddling the camels and head off on a short expedition to the Middle East. I will keep you posted…
*
Yes: We know this page is outdated and needs to be reconstructed! Bear with us: in the meantime please go to our educational site:
* Robert Spencer:
If you speak honestly and accurately about the Islamic jihad doctrine and the Islamic supremacist agenda, and even confine your case entirely to quotes from authoritative Islamic sources and spokesmen, you will still be accused of “hating Muslims.” This is the constant refrain of apologists for jihad and their useful idiots in the West — and they constantly have recourse to it because they know that it is effective: it turns the Left and much of the squishy Right away from the message of the “hater,” regardless of how outlandish and unjust the charge is.
Myself, I don’t hate Muslims. I love Muslims. Telling the truth is not an act of hate. I am not “Islamophobic,” I am Islamorealistic. I tell the truth about Islam and work to defend Western civilization and society from the encroachments of a legal and societal system that oppresses Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
Or visit our Islam site: here
For the Nutroots:
Multicultural Europe and its suicide
Finsbury Park Mosque, London 2002
Are you willing to defend your freedom?
* Fight against sharia: “Sharia is Hate”
Unlike refugees from Nazism, or Communism, who hated Nazis and hated Communists, and wanted only to escape from them and, in many cases, to actively work against them, the so-called “refugees” or simply immigrants from Muslim lands bring with them, in their mental baggage, Islam itself. They do not realize that it is Islam, with its inshallah-fatalism and natural support for depotism as opposed to advanced Western democracy (for the belief-system locates legitimacy not in the expressed will of the people, but in the will expressed by Allah in the Qur’an, as glossed by Hadith and Sira). They carry the belief-system with them, and what is more, attempt - not without success — to spread it about, to make sure that the numbers of adherents of Islam grow and grow and grow. It is this Da’wa, and demographic conquest that is the result of fantastic, utterly unchecked Muslim migration, and the great disparity in birth-rates between Muslims (who often smuggle in plural wives, supported by Infidel taxpayers in their generous welfare payments), and the indigenous non-Muslims, that has, for example, caused the 15,000 Muslims in Holland in 1970 to become 1 million, or 5-7 million Muslims now to burden the educational and justice systems, and the welfare benefits, and the laic state, and social peace, in France, and England, and Germany, and everywhere that Muslims in large numbers have been permitted to settle — which has led, no clear-sighted Infidel can deny, to a situation far more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous — and becoming more unpleasant, more expensive, more physically dangerous every day — for the indigenous Infidels.
This must stop. This suicidal policy cannot continue.
======================
Guessing the religion of those who plant bombs, hi-jack planes, fire into crowds of civilians, take hostages and murder hostages is the world’s ultimate no-brainer. And yet our leaders, the media and many of us pretend there’s no connection between psychopathic killers and the religion which exalts the slaughter of unbelievers. Islam remains what it was at its beginning, a violent, expansionist faith that will tolerate no competitors. What other religion has the concept of jihad, the notion that if you die fighting for allah you get 72 virgins in paradise? Mohammed started by eliminating the competition, annihilating Jewish tribes in the Arabian Peninsula. More than a 1000 yrs later, it’s still business as usual for his successors. Is islam a religion of peace? Is there an Easter bunny? Can pigs fly? Calling for a war on terror is like trying to stop the bullets instead of stopping the people who are doing the shooting, decades of terror and they still dont get it. Any religious creed that promotes terrorism as a method for the conversion of infidels deserves only contempt and needs to be mocked, crushed, and expelled from the lands it has silently infiltrated. The war is, and needs to be identified without question, against islam and their numbers and attitude warrant exceptional attention…
Hugh Fitzgerald
*
So-called dialogue with the Islamic world and relativism regarding marriage, the dignity of women, and sexual equality in the name of multiculturalism is destroying European identity and doing away with womens rights.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
By Samir Khalil Samir
The ideology of multiculturalism, i.e. blind tolerance toward any culture and tradition, is destroying European identity and is above all doing away with human rights and, more specifically, women’s rights. A prime example is the increasing tolerance in European countries toward polygamy.
In theory, polygamy is prohibited in Italy and in Europe. But it increasingly happens, in the name of multiculturalism, that Muslim immigrants are registered as polygamists in the European continent: if a man is Muslim and married in his country of origin with 4 wives, we cannot but accept this as a given. All this goes against European laws and constitutions – which affirm monogamous families – but, in the name of a misplaced respect for cultures, any solution is deemed acceptable.
Tolerance for polygamy?
In Italy, some constitutionalists are suggesting, for the sake of letting people have it both ways, that only one wife be recognized as such, while the others are considered concubines: this would settle the situation of various Muslims who already have a wife in their country of origin and take another in Italy. Others think that a distinction could be made between civil marriage (at City Hall, with just one wife) and religious marriage in a mosque, where polygamous marriages could be celebrated. Naturally, to do this, they are proposing that the articles of Italian civil law, which affirm monogamy and the equality of men and women, not be read. A similar trend is spreading in Greece. In certain areas where Muslims are the majority, the government has accepted the principle that they manage themselves with their own norms. And so, in Athens, polygamy is prohibited, but in Muslim-majority areas, it is allowed, again in the name of cultural respect.
Multiculturalism is doing a lot of damage. Firstly to common sense: if a man is married in Senegal with a woman and in Italy with another, this cannot be defined as monogamy. A crime remains such whether it is committed in Italy or abroad. Such tricks are actually a way to suggest loopholes for polygamy. Thus, if an Italian wants to have more than just one wife, all he needs to do is to convert to Islam!
But multiculturalism is above all damaging to the dignity of women. Polygamy in Italy is prohibited in that it is contrary to the principle of equality between men and women. It would be useful to Islam too to affirm this principle. In Islamic society, in fact, women cannot be polygamous (only men have that “right”). The same is true for repudiation, which is permitted to a man, but not to a woman who, however, can ask her husband the favour of repudiating her. Affirming monogamy is thus the way forward on the path for an overall effort in favour of women’s rights.
The Imam of Vénissieux and women
To understand the humiliation in which women live in the Islamic world, I would like to recall a fact that sparked much debate in France. Last February 20th, the courts definitively rejected an appeal made by Imam Abdelkader Bouziane. An Algerian-national, Sheikh Abdelkader, imam of the mosque of Vénissieux, near Lyon, a polygamist and father of 16 (sixteen) children (14 of which French citizens) had been living in France since 1980.
He had been ordered on February 26, 2004, to leave the country by Interior Minister Sarkozy, for his inflammatory speeches and for incitement to hatred, but the ordinance was not enforced. On April 20, following an interview in the “Lyon Mag” newspaper, he was again served an expulsion order for his statements against women, in particular for having said that “the Koran authorizes a Muslim, in certain cases, to beat his wife,” that women must subjugated themselves to their husband and were not equal to men.
On April 23rd, the administrative tribunal of Lyon suspended the expulsion ordinance and rejected the Interior Ministry’s request. The imam went back to France in May 22. On October 5, 2004, the State Council cancelled the expulsion suspension, and the next day the iman was again expelled to Orano in Algeria. On June 21, 2005, the Lyon court declared him once again free, but on October 14, he was convicted in absentia. The imam filed an appeal, but on February 6, 2007, the courts definitively rejected his case.
The “Régards de femmes” Association of Lyon, which had sued the imam, declared: “The right to dignity, to respect, to the integrity of her body belongs to every woman in France. It will not be possible from now on to legitimize violence against women on the pretence of religion.”
The Imam’s interview
here are a few extracts of the (famous) interview with Sheikh Abdelkader on the male-female relationship.
In your opinion, are women equal to men?
No. For example, women do not have the right to work alongside men, as they [women] could be tempted by adultery.
Must women necessarily be subjugated to men?
Yes, because the head of the family is always a man. But he must be fair to his wife: he must not beat her for no reason, nor consider her a slave.
Is this why you are favourable to polygamy?
Yes, a Muslim can have more than one wife. But not more than four! Plus, there are conditions.
But why can women not have more than one husband?
Because no one would know who fathered the children!
Are you in favour of the stoning [1] of women?
Yes, because beating one’s wife is allowed by the Koran, but under certain conditions, in particular if she betrays her husband. Please note however: the man does not have the right to beat her everywhere: not on the face, but in the lower parts, her legs, her stomach, her bottom. He can beat her vigorously so as to induce fear, so that she does not start again!
The Koran: wife beating is allowed
Various readers were up in arms, but in the end the imam defended himself saying that this is the Koran. And he’s right. If we open the Koran at Sura 4, verse 34, we can read:
“Men have authority over women due to the preference that Allah concedes to them over the other and because they spend their property [for women]; Good women are therefore obedient, guarding under secrecy that which Allah has preserved [sex]. [2] ; As for those on whose part you fear insubordination, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do nothing further against them; Allah is high and great.”
Last week on Al Jazeera, I heard another imam explain the four conditions for beating a wife: not on her face; without drawing blood; without breaking bones; not in the presence of children. If all this is insufficient, one must resort to extreme punishment, i.e. the man deprives his wife of sexual relations.
The Koran is also explicit on the question of the superiority of men to women; according to the Koran, Charter 2 (The Cow), Verse 228:
“Divorced women should keep themselves in waiting for three periods; and it is not lawful for them to conceal what Allah has created in their wombs, if they believe in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have priority to take them back during this time if they wish for reconciliation; and they [women] have rights equivalent to their duties, on the basis of good custom, but the men are superior. Allah is Mighty, Wise.”
The Italian edition published by the Union of Islamic Communities and Organizations in Italy (UCOII) includes a long footnote (absent on the on-line version) on the phrase “but men are superior”:
“In a pitiful effort to standardize Islam to Western culture, certain modernist commentators have written that superiority has only to do with the right of men to repudiate their wife, a faculty which is not reciprocal. In reality, it is a much more important and fundamental matter for the maintaining of balance at the individual, family and social levels.
“Man and Woman are two complementary realities that exist unto each other. If this were not so, Allah (glory be to Him the Most High) would not have formed Eve from Adam’s rib, he would have furnished each gender with complete reproductive organs, etc., etc.
“The physical structure of men is capable of great exertion and significant exploits, that of women, of steady labour and great endurance of pain.
“Male sensitivity is entirely exterior, projected outside the realm of family and tends to become public and political. That of women is interior, careful of oneself, aimed at the protection of that which has been acquired and to the acquisition of simple means of sustenance and security.
“Male psychology is imaginative, creative, experimental, risk-loving, desirous of novelty, of affirming the Self, usually ample and superficial. That of women is concrete, traditional, risk-hating, desirous of certainty, of conserving what is “mine”, usually profound and limited.
“In the realm of family, the respect of the Laws of Allah and of the Sunna of the Messenger can create situations that require an affirmation of power that mortifies the complementarity of spouses. But apart from complementarity, there is the problem of leadership, in the family and in society, which does not mean predomination, oppression or the lack of recognition of female predominance in a number of sectors and circumstances. Allah (Glory be to Him, the Most High) assigns this management role to the male. It is an onerous and difficult task that men would often willingly do without, and for which he must respond before Allah.”
This apologetic comment, written by an Italian converted to Islam, mirrors the opinion of traditionalistic ulemas, avoiding their excesses. It assigns specific tasks to men and to women, tasks which are unchangeable because determined by God, which claim to correspond to the nature of one and the other. It is obvious that such a distribution of roles, established by God for eternity and valid for all times and cultures, is hardly compatible with Western mentality and is often incompatible with the laws and constitutions of Europe.
Conclusion
Is it possible to accept this teaching in the name of the respect for cultures and religious tolerance? This is the serious question faced by all Western countries.
I don’t know if the flag-wavers of multiculturalism realize how much human damage they cause. Actually, it is increasingly clear that so-called multicultural tolerance is only acquiescence to a subtle form of racism. In the name of cultural difference, in fact, everything is left to proceed on parallel tracks, without envisaging any progress, integration or betterment in the name of human dignity.
It is time for Europe to understand that religious law cannot prevail over civil law and that, above every form of tolerance, there is a country’s constitution. If this does not happen, Islam will be given carte blanche to colonize our customs.
NOTE :
1) The imam, who had lived in France for 24 years, did not understand the word “stoning”, which he understood to mean “beating”. Hence, his reply.
2) In UCOII’s translation, generally attributed to Hamza Piccardo (Imperia, 1994), the following note can be read “This is the ideal of the believing woman: ‘patient and modest.’ Says the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): “The best of women is she who rejoices at your gaze, obeys you, guards her person and the property of the husband in his absence.”
Was Muhammad a Sex Maniac?
From the Hadith:
Muslim (8:3309) - Muhammad married Aisha at the age of nine.
Bukhari (62:18) - Aisha’s father, Abu Bakr, wasn’t on board at first, but Muhammad explained how the rules of their religion made it possible. This is similar to the way that present-day cult leaders manipulate their followers into similar concessions.
Muslim (8:3311) - The girl took her dolls with her to Muhammad’s house (something to play with when the “prophet” was not having sex with her).
Bukhari (6:298) - Muhammad would take a bath with the little girl and fondle her.
Muslim (8:3460) - “Why didn’t you marry a young girl so that you could sport with her and she could sport with you, or you could amuse with her and she could amuse with you?” Muhammad posed this question to one of his followers who had married an “older woman” instead.
Bukhari (4:232) - Muhammad’s wives would wash semen stains out of his clothes, which were still wet from the spot-cleaning even when he went to the mosque for prayers. Between copulation and prayer, it’s a wonder he found the time to slay pagans.
Bukhari (6:300) - Muhammad’s wives had to be available for the prophet’s fondling even when they were having their menstrual period.
Bukhari (62:6) - “The Prophet used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives.” Muhammad also said that it was impossible to treat all wives equally - and it isn’t hard to guess why.
Bukhari (5:268) - “The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number.” I asked Anas, ‘Had the Prophet the strength for it?’ Anas replied, ‘We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty men.’ ”
So let me summarize:
Even if we accept a 54 year old man marrying a child, raping captured (non-believing) woman what does that make him?
Even we accept the unacceptable, what do you call a guy who rapes captured women and sells them into slavery?
Even if we accapt all that, what do you call a guy who has sex with 14 women in one night?
Here’s more:
The Sex Life of the Prophet
Some of many jihad verses:
Qur’an:2:216 “Jihad (holy fighting in Allah’s Cause) is ordained for you , though you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and like a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and you know not.” [Another translation reads:] “Warfare is ordained for you.”
*
Qur’an:8:12 “I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle.”
*
Qur’an:8:57 “If you gain mastery over them in battle, inflict such a defeat as would terrorize them, so that they would learn a lesson and be warned.”
*
Bukhari:V4B52N44 “A man came to Allah’s Apostle and said, ‘Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad in reward.’ He replied, ‘I do not find such a deed.’”
*
Bukhari:V1B2N25 “Allah’s Apostle was asked, ‘What is the best deed?’ He replied, ‘To believe in Allah and His Apostle Muhammad.’ The questioner then asked, ‘What is the next best in goodness?’ He replied, ‘To participate in Jihad, religious fighting in Allah’s Cause.’”
Is Islam a Religion of Peace? Not!
The day after 9/11, President George W. Bush made the absurd statement that Islam is a religion of peace. Ponder the findings of a monumental study of the Islamic Trilogy, the Quran, the Hadith, and the Sira published in 2007. The study was made by Bill Warner, director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam:
- Of more than 153,000 words in the Koran, only 4,018 or 2.6 percent seem to express goodness to humanity, qualified, however, by obedience to Muhammad.
- The words of Allah are only about 17 percent of the Islamic Trilogy, but the words and actions of Muhammad comprise 83 percent of the Trilogy.
- About 20 percent of the most authoritative school of the Hadith is about jihad.
- At least 75 percent of the Sira is about jihad.
- There are 146 references to hell in the Quran, only 6 percent of which concern moral failings such as murder and theft. The other 94 percent of the reasons for being in Hell are for the intellectual sin of disagreeing with Muhammad, a political crime.
Warner concludes: there is no benevolence toward good nonbelievers in Islam. Moreover, and, contrary to what Obama said in Cairo, there is no golden rule in Islam that restricts what Muslims may do to non-Muslims. This places a big question on Islamic monotheism
Open Season on British Women (The Opinionator)
Now that Europe has imported a 7th century values system and given it top priority, the continent’s women will need to remember to cover up.
Debating Islam (Answering Muslims)
A four-part video series of a debate between David Wood and Sami Zaatari. The subject is “Is Islam a Religion of Peace?” (As usual, Sami’s job is to pretend that Islam has nothing to do with what is done in the name of Islam each and everyday).
Poll: Muslim Support for Terrorism Declines (Pew Research)
Muslims are less likely to support terrorism when THEY are the targets of such attacks. Thanks to recent al-Qaeda sprees in Islamic countries, bin Laden is barely pulling 50% approval ratings. Religion of Peace, indeed!
Child Rape and the Religion of Peace (CNN)
(Video) Parents express shock that their child is raped after being “married off,” but then tell the girl that she belongs to her husband.
Sex in the Islamic City (FrontPage Magazine)
An ex-Muslim explains why Muhammad’s religion has been so successful in motivating young Muslim men to become “martyrs.”
We are Losing Europe to Islam (TownHall.com)
As a side note - If Europe goes Muslim, then where will the Muslims who have “fled” there have to flee next?
Our “Ally” Islamabad (The Australian)
One of America’s best buddies is in the process of becoming the world’s first nuclear-armed Sharia state.
Jihad for Love (FrontPage Magazine)
A new film exposes the very real persecution of homosexuals under Islam that goes far beyond mere disapproval.
‘She Doesn’t Want to be Called an Uncircumcised Girl’ (LiveLeak)
Video of female genital mutilation. Seriously, does this look natural?
Britain Adopts Sharia (Chronicles Magazine)
A must-read piece from Srdja Trifkovic.
When Someone Says You Shouldn’t Watch Something. . . (JSOnline)
. . . react accordingly. In this case, the film in question is the excellent documentary, Obsession: Radical Islam’s War against the West.
The al-Aqsa Myth (Europe News)
Just one more example of Islam’s attempt to borrow legitimacy from someone else’s religion.
(Joke) India vs. Pakistan at the UN (The Kashmir)
A bit of inside humor regarding the “disputed” region to which Pakistan lays claim.
Female Genital Mutilation in Eritrea (BBC)
Muslims in some parts of the world are beginning to realize that Allah wouldn’t have made the clitoris in the first place if he meant for it to be cut off. Women elsewhere. . . not so lucky.
Jordan’s Outreach to Hamas (JCPA)
The bonds of Islam are simply too strong to let a little thing like terrorism spoil relationships.
Gave Peace a Chance (Jerusalem Post)
A Peace Now activist in Israel reluctantly admits that his country has no peace partner in the Middle East.
No Longer One Law for All (Spectator)
“Sharia law is not compatible with English law or the principles of equality and human rights that it embodies.”
Fear and Fiction (FrontPage Magazine)
The story behind the story that was deemed too hot to handle.
Losing My Religion - Continued (Islam Watch)
The second piece to the story of a Muslim who decided that believing for the sake of believing wasn’t making much sense anymore.
From Magna Carta to Sharia: Britain’s Decline (Brussels Journal)
Labour has worked hard to give the cancer a foothold.
Islam and the Barbary Pirates (Islam in Action)
How did the Tripoli ambassador justifiy the plundering of ships and the enslaving of innocent people to Thomas Jefferson? Let’s just say the man knew his Qur’an.
Fleeing Malaysia (Islamist Monitor)
Only a few short years ago, the young country of Malaysia was held up as proof that a Muslim majority didn’t necessarily mean discrimination against other religions. Wonder what it means now?
Street Warfare in Denmark (The Opinionator)
More Islam - less peace.
Wildcatting for Allah (Max Flack)
Somalis in Colorado demand special privileges for themselves, but how do they treat other religions back home?
Islam at Face Value (Europe News)
A lot of insight into Islam can be gained from the first few verses of the Qur’an. Unfortunately, little of it is good.
The Hatred within Britain (The Telegraph)
These investigators were shocked to find that hatred exists within British mosques. Other than that, there’s nothing humorous in this article.
Honor Killings in Islam (FSM)
“What kind of an ideology causes a man to show no remorse for murdering his own daughter, but then rant and rave at being served ham sandwiches while in prison?”
Fighting for the Right to Incite Murder (Pajamas Media)
The Muslim Student Union is fighting hard to keep hate alive.
| “Sharia Is Hate” |
By Supna Zaidi
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, October 06, 2008
Imagine Dodger Stadium full of loud and whooping fans cheering on, not baseball, but your weekly stoning and flogging of adulterers, thieves and other errant citizens of southern California.
This is America under Islamic law, or Shari’a, a system that everyone should fear. Or so, Alan Kornman, director of the United American Committee (UAC) thinks. He continues to fundraise for a freeway billboard in Florida stating, “Shari’a Is Hate,” to educate America before it’s too late.
As Kornman argues, “under Shari’a law if you are accused of stealing, a hand and foot from opposite sides are amputated. If you are caught having an affair, the woman is stoned to death and the man is given 80 lashes. If you change religions, you can be charged under apostasy laws and given the death sentence by a legal Sharia court.”
The implementation of Shari’a is much more subtle than the quotation from Kornman suggests, however.
Through Shari’a, Islamists govern the private lives of individuals as well as regulate the social, political, and economic aspects of society. Islamism crosses national borders, with the final goal of asserting the Muslim ummah globally, with all non-Muslims as second class citizens. It is a totalitarian ideology, and Islamists do want to make Europe and the US Islamist states.
Don’t wait for floggings in your local neighborhood. Consider the following incidences:
1. Muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis refusing fares where would-be passengers are carrying alcohol because it is a sin to drink in Islam:
This first example exemplifies the lack of tolerance Islamists have for non-Muslims. It is one thing to believe drinking is a sin; it’s quite another to enforce your opinion on others. Muslims aren’t alone in this belief. Consider Mormons, who don’t drink coffee because of the caffeine. The problem is the belief that you have the right to impose your opinion on people of a different faith, or no faith at all.
The Metropolitan Airport Commission (MAC), possibly fearing charges of discrimination, tried to compromise and approached Kahlid Elmasry of the Muslim American Society, who sided with the cabbies: “it is expressly stated transportation of alcohol for Muslims is against the Islamic faith, and therefore forbidden.”
But this is not an Islamic country. The Constitution governs us, not Shari’a. Therefore, Elmasry’s defense of the cabbies’ position reinforced their notion that Islamic law trumps American secular law. In a later lawsuit, the cabbies lost and intend to appeal.
2. Niqabi fails to reveal face for ID purposes.
The second example concerns Muslim women and modesty. While there is no specific definition of what modesty entails in the Quran, Islamists increasingly demand the niqab, which covers a woman’s body, hair, and her face. Islamists refuse to concede that the niqab is not a requirement of Islam, but greatly debated among Muslims. Yet, when Americans raise security concerns, Islamists call them racist.
Consider, Sultana Freeman, a niqabi in Florida. She refused to remove her veil for picture identification purposes at the DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) citing modesty. In reality, she mocks any reasonable person’s definition of modesty since ID pictures have nothing to do with attraction and sexuality, completely ignoring Florida’s right to identify its citizenry for the sake of public safety. Such blind adherence to Shari’a rather than the laws of the state exemplifies the disdain Islamists have for non-Muslims wherever they may live as well as common sense.
3. Polygamy in America
United States are obligated to perform their duties within the limits of American secular law. Yet, some Imams, like Siraj Wahhaj, prefer to ignore American law where it conflicts with Islamic law. Wahhaj stated in Paul Barrett’s 2007 book American Islam* that, “If a man can have a hundred girlfriends, and it’s legal, I don’t say you can’t have more than one wife.”
Rather than explain what is wrong with men having multiple relationships, Wahhaj greenlights it under the guise of polygamy despite American law against it. This is because he only sees relationships from a usurious male perspective when he should be teaching men to see women as equals and partners. Moreover, he ignores a woman’s perspective entirely. Subsequent wives have no legal rights. Family problems, domestic abuse, combined with economic dependency, forces women to remain silent when issues arise.
Wahhaj also ignores the criminal fraud behind polygamy as well. The UK, Canada, like theUS, face welfare fraud every time polygamous marriages are made. Subsequent wives live in a marital household, yet can file for welfare as single women because they failure to register the marriage. The failure to register is not an accident. Polygamous couples know that if they file they will be arrested for violating local bigamy laws. Second, these couples realize the financial advantages given current welfare policy. Such fraud is occurring in the thousands and is a burden to all taxpayers.
It is time for policymakers to realize that Sharia is a system of hate and must not gain any influence in American society. It denigrates women, non-Muslims and the US Constitution. Policymakers must define the limits of religious accommodation in light of the Islamist agenda. Otherwise, democracy and true tolerance will be mere words with no meaning as Islamism spreads in the West. The UAC billboard is a good start in bringing the danger of Sharia to the nation’s attention.
Greetings from sheik yer’mami!
{ 73 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
Furthermore, p*ss off and die miserably.
And that’s being extremely generous…
——————————————————————–
Yourheadonaplate,
bugger off idiot!!!
Lets hope that your wishes come to pass on you.
——————————————————————————
A Christian
You have lost the plot - and you quite simply do not understand the logic of the enemy. Granted most muslims are probably OK, but there are a significant minority who are not!! These are the ones that concern us. Behaving like Neville Chamberlain is no solution. You are welcome to pray and ask your G_D for help - others will solve the problem in their own way - and for some this means waiting for the dogs of war to be unleashed. Put me in this last category, and I have lived for a short time in one so I make the statement in full knowledge of what it implies. Your logic is flawed and insulting people does little to further your cause or win adherents to your form of pacifism. The game you play requires both parties to genuinely participate - not just one! From my viewpoint there is only one that participates honestly, and that is not the muslim site.
What a bunch of Kooks, the weird Christian who sounds like a Muslim and a hate-filled bunch of Muslims who accuse the sheik of hate and wish him dead.
My head hurts!
A Christian,
It is clear that many muslims do not interpet the Quran as you, or Umar, interpret. I suggest you speak to them and correct their “musunderstanding”.
They would claim that the interpretations offered by eg Umar are incorrect. Since there is no ultimate authority in islam as in other religions (ie a body that plays the same role as the Pope and Vatican councils within the Roman Catholic community) these differences cannot be resolved. Islam needs to be destroyed/deconstructed/reconstructed, reformation is not sufficient. Until that happens the arguments offered by you and Umar are meaningless. To correct you one one further point - the main motivation for people to comment here is to provide information and comment on a problem that many consider relevant to the present time - that of muslim intolerance.
What a pontificating assclown, this “Christian!”
He calls the sheik “a sociopath - a narcissist and a fraud who is causing harm” and even invokes “genocide”, thereby projecting the Moslem mantra for wiping out the unbelievers onto us. What mental acrobat, what an infantile jackass! He doesn’t even acknowledge his own insults, but sulks like a bitch when he cops it in return.
And all he’s got to offer is some “Little Mosque in the Prairie” kumbaya, as if we had some kind of obligation to open the floodgates to the barbarians.
“A Texan friend of mine opened his house to Muslim refugees..” blah blah… as if that changed anything on the attitudes of Moslems who are religiously obliged to terrorize us and to make us Islamic! There is no proof that Muslims integrated or assimilated anywhere, Christian. But there is plenty of proof (and a long line of corpses) that the Koranimals follow their Koranic commands.
You want to get to the bottom of it?
My advice: if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!
Salam, Hi,
You don’t know the real Islam ^_^
is possible to know it !! Ho ?? !! … Here! =)
The Real Islam is ==> Scientific Method Analise… http://www.55a.net ^^
kaw,
Umar is just doing his Islamic da’awa, nothing we haven’t heard before.
The ‘Christian’ (who sounds very Islamic to me) does the same, and the fact that Umar, the Rev and a couple of others appeared in support of him doesn’t look like an accident to me.
doctor koolaid,
you are quite right that there is no evidence for any (peaceful) integration or assimilation of Muslims in any society, but there are millions of corpses to prove the exact opposite.
It is not our business to straighten the Koranimals out or to teach them that some kind of peaceful Islam exists, there is no such thing. I’ve had more than a gut full of people who tell us that opposing the Islamization of Western countries makes us “haters” or makes “us just like them” that we have to break that “cycle of violence” (how do we do that if its their religion to wage war on us?) along with the demand that we throw (even more) money at the problem which only encourages the Muselmaniacs to demand more.
No. There has to be an end to this. A reversal of the Islamic invasion, no mosques, no madrassahs,no “outreach-interfaith-da’awa’ garbage, no special rights for Islam (face coverings, Muslim holidays etc) and absolute law-enforcement, which must include the stripping of citizenship for muslims who engage in jihad, terrorism or related crime.
I call that self-preservation. That is not only our birthright, but also our duty and obligation. We owe it to our future generations, who will curse us for having been so stoopid to allow this multiculti experiment to take us to the abyss.
Ah yes, Hassan:
We infidels can’t possibly understand Islam because we’re “ignorant”.
Like here:
1. “ignorant”
–foolish (6:35); deaf, dumb, and blind, and have no sense (2:171); deaf and dumb and in darkness, Allah sends them astray (6:39); have no sense (5:103, 10:100); a folk who do not understand (9:127); their fathers were unintelligent and had no knowledge or guidance (2:170, 5:104); are “a folk without intelligence”/ “most ignorant” (8:65, 6:111); losers who are deceived by Allah (2:6), and deceived by Satan (4:60).
2. “bad/evil, liars, etc.”
–“evil” is upon them (16:27), evil (2:91, 2:99); “wicked” (80:42, 9:125); the “wrong-doers” (42:45, 2:254, 5:45); evil-doers (42:44); evil-livers (5:59); they have no good in them (8:23); are “guilty” for disbelieving (45:31, 83:29); on the side of Satan and are fighting for him (4:76-77); of the party of Satan (58:19); Allah assigns them devils for protecting friends (7:27); they choose devils for protecting friends (7:30); are partisan against Allah (25:55); “enemy” (63:4); ungrateful traitors (31:32).
–liars/they lie (2:10, 4:50, 6:28, 9:42, 16:39, 16:105, 59:11); foolish and liars (7:66), liars and losers (58:18-19),
3. “sick, perverted, etc.”
—“perverted” (63:4); disgraced lives (22:9); are ill (84:20); have a “diseased heart” (2:10, 9:125); in false pride and schism (38:2), in schism (2:137, 2:167).
There couldn’t possibly be anything wrong with (ideal) Islam or the Koran, oh no.
Have you heard of Sisters in Islam before?
Sheik,
Analysis suggests that “A Christian” is a muslim. I could trace it down, maybe even photograph it in its surroundings . hmmm, that would be amusing.
Hassan
the real Islam is what muslims practise - NO THANKS!!!!
Zahkan,
Yes Zahkan. And your point is????????
What a great debate! Remove every one of my comments so that no one can see the rubbish you’re talking! Obviously I must be a muslim kaw; what other possible explanation could there be? Maybe I just disagree with you! I note that no one except the Sheik posted any comments when I was here to debate them, but you all come out of the woodwork when I’ve been gagged.
“I could trace it down, maybe even photograph it in its surroundings”. Better still, come and meet me face to face and talk without the benefit of someone to edit out everything that you can’t answer! Are you the official stalker here? Do I need to put my family somewhere safe? You’ve already told me that you don’t care whether I live or die, just how do you silence people when you can’t face the facts they give you?
A narcissist is someone that can’t empathise and a sociopath is someone that takes their lack of empathy to the point that they don’t care how their actions hurt other people. Think of how you relate to muslims - do either of these terms fit you?
A Christian,
You waste people’s time - you have written reams and said little. Ask the thousands who have died in the last few years as a direct consequence of muslim intolerance and aggression as to how they should have related to muslims. When muslims are willing to accept others as equal I will have nothing to say. Your ramblings share certain characteristics with the normal muslim diatribes - your logic is usually incomplete or false and as far as I am concerned there is a high probability that you are a muslim parasite. If you are not a muslim then you are our worst enemy - a dhimmi incapable of standing up to muslim thuggery. That is precisely why I wrote that it might be interesting to track you down - to verify this suspicion. And what facts have you given me that I cannot face??? I am quite amused by the statement.
Kaw, I think you’ve won. My entire argument has been this:
1) The Koran contains many teachings that I as a Christian find cruel - both to muslims such as the women forced to wear Burkhas and to non-muslims
2) Because of this, the picture of God in the Koran is a cruel one. He is cruel to his slaves and makes them at times be cruel to others. His victims are Muslims as well as non-Muslims.
3) I believe that the victims of Allah need love. I believe it because that is central to Christianity - to think differently is to reject the teachings of Jesus. I therefore campaign strongly against Muslim violence as I do against any other violence, but I defend the rights of Muslim people to believe what they believe and practice those things that are not harmful. When I meet muslim people I care for them. My son follows in my path. Just last week a muslim girl in his class decided to leave her religion because of the way she saw him behave - with strength, justice and compassion. She will now have a hard road with her family but we will support her.
4) The things that are wrong with Islam need to be legislated against. We need laws that ban polygamy, wife bashing, paedophilia etc even though they may offend some Muslims.
5) By combining a strong stance for justice with an equally strong stance for acceptance of and care for the people, we provide the way out. It works, Christians have been doing it for a long long time.
The alternative of “Rational Ruthlessness” is so poorly thought through. If we ban people fleeing violence, if we expel people for their beliefs, if we encourage mob violence like Cronulla then those people like the girl in my son’s class who could be freed are now hardened by righteous anger. “I did nothing wrong, I’m just a kid! Why should I be punished?”
For making these points I have been told that I am a Muslim. Doesn’t that seem even a little bit ridiculous to you? No one has yet given me a rational argument in response, just faith-based dogma such as “muslims can’t change”.
I look at my West Papuan friends who have been persecuted by the Indonesian military for 40 years and have maintained a peaceful response despite horrific treatment. The latest strategy of the TNI (military) is to bring in the Laskar Jihad and conduct proxy warfare. The LJ march up and down the streets in their white suits calling out chants about killing the Christians, but since they came a few years ago there has not yet been a massacre. Why not? Because the TNI intend the Papuans to crack and form their own militia. As long as the Papuans maintain peaceful resistance, any attack from the LJ will read in the international press as “Jihad slaughters defenceless Christians” and the UN will have massive pressure to act. But if the Papuans pick up weapons and accept the challenge, the headlines will read “fighting between Christians & Muslims” and the world will yawn about another religious war.
It terrifies me that they might read this website. 40 years of hope gone.
But I have gotten to the point now that the arrogance and ignorance of some (in particular the Sheik) have made me so angry that I find it very difficult to write in the spirit of my God. I don’t want to insult you or repond in the same spirit as I have been treated here, but it becomes increasingly difficult as I see the Sheik carry on like a kid with his dad’s gun, wreaking havok in blissful ignorance or perhaps something worse. Even now he has censored my latest post on his article about Global Warming without providing a single fact to refute me. Changing the subject or reverting to name calling because he can’t answer me is wilfull ignorance. This is a bad person and he is deliberately deceiving people on important matters.
I’m sure that you will now accuse me of exactly the same thing because that’s what you do. When I said (in the Sheik’s thread on AGW) that comparable numbers of people are dying from the effects of Climate Change as there are from Jihad, the Sheik didn’t challenge my numbers because he couldn’t; instead he accused me of saying that Christians & Jews are not being persecuted in some Muslim countries. When I said that forced migration would increase the incidence of Jihad, he accused me of Jew-hatred. Because of your ridiculous obsession with proving me to be a Muslim, you’ve gone to the point of threats. You could just use the photo I have provided with my link on every single post, but you’d prefer to make out that you’re going to find out where I live.
A rational conversation here is clearly impossible; I just deeply regret that I don’t have the time and patience to continue to expose this shameful fraud. If you do ever want to talk properly, please visit http://www.bloodwoodtree.org. I wish you the best.
A Christian
This is a long mail because you seem to be concerned for your safely. You have perhaps misinterpreted some things, so for your benefit I shall try and
explain what you may not have fully understood. You were not told that you were a muslim - you were told that your writings contained certain similarities which indicate a high probability that you were not whom you claim to be. This conclusion could be false - it is a very inexact science particularly with limited material (in your case) to study. I was also not aware that we were involved in a competition. I said that it would be amusing to see if you were actually a muslim - and the best way to do that would be to find you - and to find someone you track them down - no threat was made to you what so ever. If I was to ever threaten you it would be done face to face and not through email. Learn to differentiate between what is written and whatever you choose to project - there is a significant difference. I stand by my original comment - much of what you have written and the way it is structured is suggestive of strong muslim influcnce. As regards the Sheik and his understanding of GW - well I agree with most of what you have written, and am slightly confused by the tone of his replies but I do NOT know what has passed between you both. At some point the GW argument became a personal confrontation as has this which is rather tiresome. I agree with your basic arguments but much of the rigorous argument is subtle to untrained ears as you understand and thus the popularists tend to be heard whilst the serious scientists are either ignored or deliberately misunderstood. However the simple facts are that global mean temperatures show a current trend to increase and that CO2 levels and mean surface temperature appear to be correlated. To make your point you could have noted that at the end of the last ice age CO2 levels were 300 ppm (I have to dig out the reference for these numbers). Given that weather system can be approximately described a series of non-linear coupled PDES with appropriate boundary conditions I find the raise of 0(100%) in CO2 of significant concern. As for number dying through climate change, it is difficult to ascertain exactly - because overpopulation, corrupt politics, war are also linked with GW in rather subtle ways that I do not understand except that one can argue convincingly that links exist. No one can dispute your claim - but what can be disputed are the numbers, What cannot be disputed. and this may be the Sheiks point though I cannot speak for him, are the numbers that are killed by radical muslims on a weekly basis. And there is NO comment from the “moderate muslim” umma condemning this, I agree with you that the Papua - NG cannot confront the muslim militia who are directly supported by Indonesia through force of arms. But I don’t believe that the UN is capable of achieving anything. I said in a much earlier email if you can win the battle through peace and through living an outstanding life then you have my support and best wishes. It appears that your children have positively influenced muslims to the point that they now see a better and more honest alternative - this can only be a good thing - and your support for them is a good thing. However, I do not believe that the war can be won in this way and this is our principle difference. I see a hard core of islamic fanatics that will have to be destroyed - and the quicker this is done then the smaller will be the damage that they can achieve. In this sense your faith is perhaps stronger than mine. So if you see a nasty email from me that is less than polite it is either because the person to whom I am responsding is clearly a muslim with a very limited outlook, or a muslim supporter who has clearly not though out the consequences of their argument. For example . sharia finance - the ultimate control of this mechanism comes from whatever interpretation of sharia law is considered valid - and as there in no overriding authority in the interpretation of islamic law what islamic finance actually means can be subject to change. For this reason I consider it a weapon, and since the islamic brotherhood of Egypt developed it my concerns are justified. Yet very few people have acknowledged this point. Finally, i have no obsession with proving you to be green, pink, or yellow. The content of your correspondence and its style simply suggested that you were not who you claimed to be - perhaps the analysis was right - probably it was wrong - and a photo comparison provides no data whatsoever without a lot of additional work which I cannot afford. You are not being threatened - as far as I am aware you and your family are quite safe. You are making a positive contribution in your way so keep up that good work - but understand that the true meaning of what you read cannot often be correctly interpreted within your own reference frame. A simple example is the difficultly of translating jokes between two languages where the culture of the language is substantially different. It usually cannot work - so if you find something I have written disturbing then ask what was intended - I have no problem discussing the finer points and I have no fear of being corrected if I have made a mistake because then I too have learned something. Rest assured, I am sure you are quite safe - enjoy your Sunday with your family. And say a prayer for two families in Germany and one in South Korea for their children who will not be coming home. -
sorry damned editor error - at end of last ice age CO2 level 300 ppm
sorry again: there seem to be a error in sent/received text again which i do not understand - so i will do this another way. At end of the last ice age CO2 levels were of order 170pp. Now they are of order 300 ppm (ppm = parts per million) Fit that into line 25 of second last email - apologies for wasting bandwidth.
Enoch Powell:
Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.
Rigging the debate
Kaw ,
There is no point in interacting with so called Christian in any way. Just ignore her.
Thanks kaw, it’s good to leave with the impression that someone here can think. It seems that you understand where I’m coming from but I won’t push you. I’m reminded of what Victor Kravchenko said when he joined Stalin: “I was a soldier in a highly disciplined army in which obedience to the centre was the first and almost sole virtue. To meet the wrong people, to listen to the wrong words, thereafter would be inadmissable.”
God bless mate.
“Climate Change” revisited:
Oh yes, the new term is now “Man Made Climate Change” not “Global Warming”. “Man Made Climate Change” allows the Goracle to hide behind a new euphemism and continue to claim the we are destroying the planet.
Knowing that current scientific research disproves the anthropogenic global warming theory, the U.N. ordered that no recent research be considered in the IPCC report. This is a scandal of which too few people are aware. As science, the U.N. report is a bad joke.
Carlin and Davidson go on to recite the scientific work that shows rather clearly that human activity is a minor factor, at most, in climate change–which has, of course, been occurring from the beginning of Earth’s history to the present. Their report is a useful summary of the evidence for those who are not familiar with it. More here…
Global warming zealots are a bit like Iran’s mullahs. They are fanatically devoted to a series of false propositions. Unable to win an open scientific debate, they consistently resort to bullying and brute force to suppress their opposition. Once again, we see the Obama administration taking the lead in this regard, putting political ideology above scientific truth and demanding that all others do likewise.
Media Ignore EPA Suppressing Skeptical Global Warming Report
The wingeing Christian:
“
”
“180 000 people are dying from the effects of Climate Change every year”- is an absurdity of Goraclish proportions.
People die from all kinds of things, from old age, from car accidents, from hunger and disease, from heat or cold and from exhaustion, but not from man-made climate change. Where is your proof, Philip? The fact that your on some government live-line that pays you for your ‘research’ is not proof. Neither is anything else you wrote. There was a lot of gibberish, but not facts.
“your ridiculous obsession with proving me to be a Muslim”- ?? You seem to be confusing me with someone else, Phil.
But anyway, lets visit your blog, Phil. After all, you have invited us, have you not?
What have we got here: “the end is neigh, the end is neigh: climate change conference in Copenhagen, melting icecaps in Greenland, acidity dissolves shells of various sea creatures…” We’re all gonna die, Phil. Global warming will get us, (if the nutroots and the mad Christians don’t get us first)
Next: Papuan refugees. Who pays for them, Phil? You?
“An Aboriginal friend told me …” Stolen generation anybody? Are you in the fairy tale business, Phil? Name 10 “stolen children” Phil. Name 10! (Absolute BS, just like your “Cronulla riots”) which don’t mention the Mohammedan attacks on innocent Australians, the cowardly behavior of the police who failed to do their job, and the non-prosecution of Muslim crime. Whereas an Aussie who walked down the street in the aftermath of Cronulla with a tree-branch got 6 months in the slammer.
Phil’s all for open borders, we are the world, we are the children! Open the floodgates!
Nobody is illegal! Not even “Illegal Asylum Seekers”- lets have ‘em all, right Phil? Yes, lets have ‘em all, let ‘em squat on your front lawn. Get the mattresses out, Phil. There’s always room for more, you can handle that!
More climate change: the Ice shelves are breaking! We all gonna die! climate change will kill us all…”
Everybody loves a Koala… how cute. how cuddly…
Keep your finger on the pulse, Phil. We need more like you.
We’re actually breeding people like you in our schools!
Holy warmenist Paul Krugman in the NY Times:
As I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.
For your enjoyment: I am now republishing comments from ‘Christian’ who is a nuisance poster and UmarA, a fanatical Jew hater.
Not that it adds anything to this blog, on the contrary, it distracts and annoys. Some of it, however, might be worth responding to, especially since the weird Christian claimed he “shot me down in flames” because I couldn’t disprove global worming.
How the ABC tickled Tim
Andrew Bolt – Tuesday, June 30, 09
Tim Flannery, undaunted by the failure of his predictions that global warming would cause Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide to now be out of water, went on Lateline last night to bang once more that doomsday drum that’s made him so rich.
And why wouldn’t he, when Lateline host Tony Jones is a fellow warming alarmist who is guaranteed not to ask him any awkward questions?
Gems from a “Christian:”
“I defend the rights of Muslim people to believe what they believe and practice those things that are not harmful. When I meet muslim people I care for them. My son follows in my path. Just last week a muslim girl in his class decided to leave her religion because of the way she saw him behave - with strength, justice and compassion. She will now have a hard road with her family but we will support her.”
“4) The things that are wrong with Islam need to be legislated against. We need laws that ban polygamy, wife bashing, paedophilia etc even though they may offend some Muslims.”
“As long as the Papuans maintain peaceful resistance, any attack from the LJ will read in the international press as “Jihad slaughters defenceless Christians” and the UN will have massive pressure to act. But if the Papuans pick up weapons and accept the challenge, the headlines will read “fighting between Christians & Muslims” and the world will yawn about another religious war.
It terrifies me that they might read this website. 40 years of hope gone.”
Lets see what Al-Ghazali actually wrote about jihad war, and the treatment of the vanquished non-Muslim dhimmi peoples (from the Wagjiz, written in 1101 A.D.):
…one must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year…one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them…If a person of the Ahl al-Kitab [People of The Book – Jews and Christians, typically] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked…One may cut down their trees…One must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide…they may steal as much food as they need…
Wan’t more? Here’s more>>
I know you want more!
CLIMATE CHANGE WORKER ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE
Go for it, mate!
Update: Hype update
Andrew Bolt – Wednesday, July 01, 09
Again, I ask: if the evidence for catastrophic man-made global warming is so clear, why the exaggerations, lies and absurd abuse?
That abuse grows even wilder as the alarmists’ case crumbles. Take Nobel laureate Paul Krugman:
And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.
← Previous Comments