Sheik yer’mami sez:
Husain is a complete and utter fraud. He has kitman and taqiyya written all over him. His sly disingenousness, his evasions, his half-truths and finger-pointing are nauseating, but for him it is his Islamic duty to do what he perceives as ‘defending his faith’- to prevent people from learning too much of the unpleasant, disturbing ideology called Islam that masquerades as a religion.
When Husain sez “damage is being done that may take generations to repair” then he simply worries about the damage done by the truth-tellers, by people like us, who are already resisting, defending ourselves and our culture against the sly Islamic jihad-conquest from within, which worked so well for the soldiers of Allah in the past. Because informed infidels don’t make easy targets for da’awa.
That’s what its all about, isn’t it, ‘Ed?’
Bukhari:V4B52N268 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘War is deceit.'”Â
No, Husain is not kosher.
* and we don’t care for halal
Please spare me from this ‘one of the great faiths of our world’ claptrap. Islam is a blood-cult, an ideology of hate with a global mission to conquer, to enslave, with a clear mandate to annihilate or forcibly convert us.
* All we have to do is wake people up to this ugly truth and we’ll be alright.
Ed Husain is the author of The Islamist, a book about how he entered and then left the jihadist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. He recently debated Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and has now written a piece in The Guardian, “Stop supporting Bin Laden,” about how Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq and I are –– unwittingly, of course — playing into the hands of Osama bin Laden himself.
* Read it, study it, print it out, please!
* Ed Husain is your classic (mental) case of a Muhammedan in denial, watch how he engages in deflection, of setting up strawmen to knock them over, dropping flares and setting traps, of Tu Coque and of kitman and taqiyya by the truckload.
* Sorry to burst your bubble: there are no ‘moderates’
Interlude: How to deal with terrorists the Chinese way
* Must watch. No bleeding hearts here. Action. Fast and effective.
It is proper to challenge Islam
By Jemima Khan
“having lived for 10 years in a Muslim country
and visited many others, there is a huge variety
of beliefs within Islam and a cultural diversity
amongst Muslims “-
Really? That’s all she has to offer? Jemima Khan, a former playgirl who married a Westernized cricket star who lived for 10 years as a privileged glittterati among the top 100 or 1000 of Pakistan?
She learned nothing.
Islam is the Koran and the hadith, and finally, last not least, Islam is what
Muslims do. Because any ‘devout’ Muslim who follows the Koran and the hadith wants you and me (the infidel, the Jew, Hindu or Mormon) dead, enslaved or forcibly converted. For Jamima, who was born a Jew, it is deplorable, shallow & shameful that she never looked into the Muhammedan scriptures.
Jamima should try again, perhaps as a second or third wife of one of the
Muhammedan clerics who teach their adherents how to beat women properly into submission.
Jamima is at best a moonbat, a spoilt rotten fruit of the West. Come back when you learned something baby.
I recently attended a debate entitled “Is Islam good for London?” Despite its billing as the most important issue facing Londoners today, the “for London” in the title proved superfluous. It was the intellectual equivalent of reality TV: excruciating to watch but impossible to walk away from. At that kind of very confrontational debate, people turn up to support their own team. It’s more about who is wrong than who is right. Rarely does anyone leave with a changed view.
The spectacle kicked off with an assertion by the journalist Rod Liddle that “the pernicious, bigoted, misogynistic, totalitarian, fascistic ideology of Islam must be rejected”.
There was a spirited defence of Islam by Ed Husain, reformed extremist and author of The Islamist. He argued that Islamism and Islam are distinct: Islamism is a political ideology, which proposes a profoundly conservative religious vision for state and society which in its attitudes to apostasy, women, homosexuality and free speech is generally anathema to Western liberal convictions (including, emphatically, his and, for the record, mine). The social conservatism and separatist mindset of Muslims in the West, he argued, must be challenged.
He was let down by his teammate Inayat Bunglawala (bungle by name…) of the Muslim Council of Britain, who went down in the first round to the braying of the audience.
* When will the bunglawalla ding dong drive a car filled with gas bottles into Heathrow airport?
Those arguing in favour of the Liddle point of view prefaced their arguments with the usual spiel about it being an attack on the ideology and not the people, but it all got horribly personal. When a female member of the audience asked a question about Palestine, a man behind me shouted “Nazi!” For the faint-hearted it was almost too bloody to watch.
It wasn’t just me who found the title, tone and content of the debate disturbing. The liberal rabbi, Pete Tobias, described it as a “damaging and hurtful exercise”, sinisterly reminiscent of the campaign a century ago to alert the population to “the Problem of the Alien” – namely the Eastern Jews fleeing persecution who had found refuge in the capital.
My view is that it was symptomatic of a much wider and deeper hostility to Islam and, contrary to the claims of the panellists, to Muslims too.
Martin Amis recently said it was the ideology of Islam and not Muslims he had a problem with, but added: “They are gaining on us demographically at a huge rate. A quarter of humanity now and by 2025 they’ll be a third. We’re just going to be outnumbered.” It’s clear when he talks of the dangers of being outnumbered and outbred, that Amis is not talking about the ideology or even militant Islamists, but about ordinary Muslims.
Terrorism is simply not bad enough: The enormous cost involved with monitoring, the inconvenience of the security requirements, the physical insecurity because of the constant threat of terrorist attacks, hijackings, car-bus-train bombings and the ever increasing numbers of hijabs, burkhas, niqabs, jilbabs on our streets are only the beginning: Houari BoumÃ©dienne, Algeria’s undisputed ruler until his death in 1978, said it clearly In 1974:
Boumedienne said in a U.N. speech: “One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.”
To this very day the planned, systematic Muhammedan immigration, infiltration and invasion of infidel countries, the Dar-al-harb, (lands of the infidels) continues unchecked.
We keep treating the enemy like a friend. Why don’t we listen to them? Why don’t our politicians, our elected leaders start listening to us?
* Jamima didn’t tell us whether she is a Jew or a Muslimah. Is she a ‘revert’ or a convert? Or possibly a re-revert? Goodness, gracious:Â could she be an apostate?
Here’s a comment from one who used to work in Saudi Arabia:
I lived and worked in Saudi Arabia for a couple of years. So, I have first hand experience of the Muslim mentality. There is no way their habit of thought is going to change. Not in a million years. The only way to deal with these guys is to insist on getting exactly the same as they ask for. That means that when they want to build a mosque in any British city, we demand the right to build a church in one of their cities in a Muslim country.
And when they insist that we say ‘peace be upon him’ when the name of their prophet is mentioned, we insist that they say ‘peace be upon him’ when they mention the name, Jesus. And so on.
At the basis of all fundamentalist attitudes is arrogance of unbelievable proportions; we’re right, you’re wrong.
The biggest mistake anyone can make is to nod thoughtfully when they dish out their apocalyptic nonsense and imply that we should consider their position as having the right to be heard.