Trump, not Islam, seems to be the problem….

As Barack Obama and his useful idiots in his administration, Congress and the media attempt to immigrate hundreds of thousands of Islamists into the united States, the law needs to be brought to bear and the law is not on their side. Islamists, like all totalitarians, are prohibited by law (yes, American law) from immigrating to the united States.

In 1952, Islam, along with Communism was effectively banned by law.

Outrage on Trump Misplaced – Already Illegal for Muslim Fascists, Communists and other Totalitarians to Immigrate..
Has the American Dream a better ambassador than Syed Farook? The father of suspected San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan
The New Revolution's photo.

UNBELIEVABLE! In reaction to Donald Trump’s proposed temporary ban on Muslim immigration, senile Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont has introduced an amendment making it easier for Muslim terrorists to get into America

Michigan followers of the false prophet of islam deflect attention onto … Trump

As Trump Stirs Islamophobia, Michigan Muslims Worry

For months before the Nov. 13 terror attacks in Paris, anti-Islam sentiment had been simmering in Dearborn, whose high population of Arab-American Muslims makes the city of nearly 97,000 a nexus in the escalating wave of Islamophobia …More on the escalating wave of fear of evil, terror-casting islam at Patch thanks to Mullah, pbuh

Islam Needs No Reformation: Grand Mufti Slaps Down Ex-Aussie PM Abbott

That’s because Islam is “perfect”, Muhammad said so, and that settles it.

Islam condemns “all forms of violence” along with the claims made by terrorist group Islamic State so is therefore in no need of a reformation–BREITBART.COM
Muslims don’t need Western cultural supremacists to tell them what Islam needs
But the West seems to need Islamo-supremacists to teach them about ethics and morals, right?
 It seems that Tony Abbott has taken a page out of Donald Trump’s campaign booklet. Last night, in a Sky News interview with Paul Murray, Abbott managed to further alienate an already ailing Muslim community and reinforce white-supremacists everywhere in one fell swoop. …
Islamo-agitprop Reem Sweid deflecting attention to white-supremacists (apparently not followers of the false prophet or its terror-casting ‘god’) at Sydney Morning HeraldFull post below the fold

Tony Abbott calls for ‘revolution inside Islam’

Muslims do not need a Western cultural supremacist like Tony Abbott to tell them what Islam needs.

Stereotypical litany of bullshit from a Mohammedan agitprop:

The former Prime Minister tells Sky News host Paul Murray how he believes Western countries should respond to the Islamic State.

It seems that Tony Abbott has taken a page out of Donald Trump’s campaign booklet. Last night, in a Sky News interview with Paul Murray, Abbott managed to further alienate an already ailing Muslim community and reinforce white-supremacists everywhere in one fell swoop.

“Alienating Muslims…” How original!

As a self-proclaimed expert on cultural issues, Abbott has used his personal experience as a Catholic, white male to champion the “freedom and tolerance” in “Western” culture and demanded that the “live and let live” Muslims recognise that “all cultures are not equal” and push for a revolutionary “Islamic reformation” from within.

“Self-Proclaimed”, is there anything Mohammedan that is not “self-proclaimed by the profit of Islam?

"Abbott has used his personal experience as a Catholic, white male to champion the 'freedom and tolerance' in 'Western' culture."“Abbott has used his personal experience as a Catholic, white male to champion the ‘freedom and tolerance’ in ‘Western’ culture.” Photo: Nic Walker

“Catholic, white male”, is that something that should be criminalised?

Abbott’s first mistake is conflating human rights with “Western values”. Human rights are universal and exist today because of an accumulation of philosophy and activism across civilisations. They no more belong to the West than they do to the Iranians for the work of Cyrus the Great in 539 B.C. in freeing the slaves and declaring racial equality and religious freedom in the first ever Human Rights Charter – the Cyrus Cylinder.

Let that sink in for a moment. The Mohammedans have rejected the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and replaced it with the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights which is a sick joke. All rights, according to CDHR are under the shari’a, which means infidels haven’t got any.

Abbott has managed to broad-brush all Muslims as potential extremists by rooting the challenge of Islamic extremism as a “problem within Islam” and defining it as a culture that thinks you can “kill in the name of God”.

That’s a fact. Muselmaniacs “broad-brush” all infidels, all the time. It is time that we throw the ball back in their court.

As someone who once trained to be a priest,  Abbott should know that it is not difficult to find a verse in the Bible that permits killing in the name of God. The unfortunate truth is that all religions are comprised of people who can be driven by greed or power to commit some of the most heinous acts. For example, victims are still dealing with the ramifications of rampant sexual abuse of children and subsequent cover-ups by members of the Catholic Church.

Bible = descriptive. Quran = prescriptive. This Mohammedan relies on absolutely ignorant kafirs to sell his spin.

Finally, he failed to recognise that there is already a thriving movement for an Islamic renewal within Muslim communities around the world. This push for renewal doesn’t stem from a desire to adopt Western values but rather from Islam’s own strong tradition of freedom, tolerance, pluralism, democratic institutions and enlightenment.

Abbott didn’t fail at all. Islam failed us. There is no ” thriving movement for an Islamic renewal within Muslim communities around the world”, except going back the the roots of Muhammad’s fanaticism. Once the West understands this, its the end of Islam.

Some examples of this are how Islam has an inbuilt system of social welfare (zakat), or how it specifically endorses freedom of religion in the Koran (“there is no compulsion in religion”). Another example is how Islam protects women’s rights, agency, and inheritance.

OMG, don’t get me started. 

If Abbott were interested in examining the movement that he professes to support he would find that progressive Islamic scholars (such as Amina Wudud, Reza Aslan and Adis Duderija) use the Koran  as their main source in supporting the Islamic renewal, not Western civilisation. The main thesis of their argument for reformation is not to “emulate the West” but rather to address the transgressions from the true religion of peace.

Amina Wudud, Reza Aslan and Adis Duderija have next to no standing as Islamic scholars or leaders and seek to pull the Islamic wool over the eyes and ears of Western audiences.

As a member of the progressive Islamic movement, I recognise that Muslims have a problem with the spread of extremist ideologies such as Wahabbism and Salfism (offshoots of Sunni Islam that advocate for a strict literal interpretation of texts rather than contextual interpretation).

Wahabbism and Salfism come straight out of Mainstream slam.

But I do not see these ideologies as a reflection of the values of Islam that I, and many other Muslims, grew up with. For example, as a child there were very few women in my home city of Damascus  who wore a hijab – today it is rare to see a woman who doesn’t. The ruins of Palmyra stood undisturbed by Muslims for centuries before  Islamic State came to town. Extremism within Islam is a modern phenomenon and recognising that will combat the idea that Islam is the problem.

Obviously, Reem Sweid knows next to nothing about the religion he so vehemently defends.

What Muslims need is not “a restoration of cultural self-confidence in those who are supporters of Western cultural civilisation” but rather the space to allow Muslim progressives to speak for themselves and not be associated with the likes of Tony Abbott and other Western cultural supremacists.

Abbott said the West needs “a restoration of cultural self-confidence in those who are supporters of Western cultural civilisation”, not Mohammends. They can go and pound sand, as far as I’m concerned.

The push for reform must be an independent self-driven movement from within Muslim communities. Building a safe space for Muslims to be self-critical and reflective about how their religion is being practiced is a difficult undertaking at the best of times. Australians, both non-Muslim and Muslim need supporters who will help revive the peaceful pluralistic traditions of Islam, not demean it and give credence to the ideology of the extremists.

“Safe space” gibberish doesn’t work on me.  No Muslim knows how to be self-critical and reflective about Islam, they all know it is above criticism and keep telling us to shut up, or else. There have never been “peaceful pluralistic traditions of Islam” and there will never be any, because Islam doesn’t tolerate the other. Period.

Reem Sweid is the director of Muslims for Progressive Values, Australia.

Read more:
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

4 thoughts on “Trump, not Islam, seems to be the problem….”

  1. The tenets of Islam are immutable. Therefore, any notion of reforming Islam, whilst a comforting speculation, is a foolish fantasy. Tony Abbott is right to speak out. Our church leaders should be doing this as a duty of care. However the power of educating others by speaking out about the evil supremacist ideology of Islam is crippled by lack of knowledge. The inherent evil of the Quran, and a slapdown indictment for the taqiyya of the grand mufti, is shown by this : Quran (5:33) – “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”. The Bible’s counter to this is shown by: Ephesians 5:11-12 “Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. It is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret”.

  2. Abbott got toppled and replaced by an appeasing self centered Obama clone. In the world we have today we need strong forthright leaders like Abbott and Trump, not mealy mouthed apologists like Turnbull and Obama.

  3. When will people see the elephant in the room and call it out for what it is and stop playing the we are the problem as we don’t understand them card? The problem is ISLAM first, second and third, not the peoples of the western world. Islam does not assimilate or associates IT DOMINATES, they are not refugees or asylum seekers THEY ARE INVADERS, they do not want to enjoy their way of life THEY WANT TO DESTROY OURS! They have no respect for us THEY WANT TO KILL US! They do not behave like normal human beings THEY WILL RAPE OUR WIVES AND DAUGHTERS and then enslave them.
    Its all in the Koran, and it is not open for interpretation.

  4. Because he, too, sees not islam or even muslims, but only “islamists” (and of course, Donald Trump) as the real problem, I replied to Daniel Pipes’ latest Submission to Islam rant, here:

    There is no such thing as an “islamist” – their own Qur’an calls them “muslims.”

    So let’s just see what it officially says a “muslim” is and does, and is not and does not do:

    Muhammad, as “Al-Insan al-kamil,” is set up by 33.21 and 68.4 as the role model for all Muslims to emulate. He said that he was “raised for Jihad and not for tillage”. He said that his provision was placed under the shade of his spear; look it up in Fath al-Bari if you don’t know what that means. He said that he was “made victorious with terror”. He commanded his followers, speaking for Allah, to “strike terror” and “terrify thereby”. He said that Allah would cover the Muslims with a blanket of disgrace if they abandoned Jihad in favor of trade, commerce and agriculture.

    The role model for all Muslims to emulate burned the date trees of one Jewish settlement to terrorize them. He terrorized the Jews of Medina by having Kab Ashraf assassinated. He terrorized one Arab tribe into submission by having Asma bint Marwan assassinated. He sent extortion letters to regional rulers threatening to kill them and enslave their children if they did not submit. That is what Islam is; what Muslims do.

    The few who will read 8.67, 109.2 and Sahih Bukhari 4.52.164 will know that Allah is not God.

    Islam has a standard: Qur’an & Sunnah. Its what Moe said and did according to the oral traditions of his companions. 2.85 prohibits dividing the Qur’an, its all or nothing. 2.216 ordains Jihad for Muslims. 8.39 commands perpetual war against pagans until Allah has a global monopoly. 8.57 & 8.60 command terrorism. 8.67 requires “great slaughter” as Moe’s price of admission to Allah’s celestial bordello. 9.120 promises Brownie Points for any “step” taken to “injure or enrage” disbelievers. 9.111& 49.15 define believers as those who fight in Allah’s cause. 33.21 sets up Moe as a role model for Muslims to emulate. Read the TOC of “The Life Of Muhammad” to see what he did. One attack every six weeks for the last decade of his life.

    A Muslim who does not support Jihad including terror as a battle tactic, is a hypocrite, 4.89, not a believer as described in 8.1-5, 9.111& 49.15.

    3.110 makes Muslims out to be the “best of peoples for the people”. Sahih Bukhari 6.60.80 explains that they are the best as they drag us to Islam with chains on our necks.

    Is Muhammad representative of Muslims? Got a clue what he did? Got a clue what he said about terrorism? Got a clue what Allah said about it?

    If they sincerely denounce terror, they are hypocrites or apostates, not Muslims. I direct your attention to “Reliance Of The Traveller” o8.0–8.7 which specifies the death penalty for any of a list of 20 attitudes and actions including denial of any part of the Qur’an. In this case 8.12, 57 & 60; 9.111, 120; 33.26-27 & 59.2.

    Islam is never going to tolerate us and we are never going to tolerate the dictum that we must be killed for not being Muslims.


    Most basically: Since islam requires its muslim members to adhere to criminal principles which are in direct conflict with the US Constitution, and Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution requires the President elect to take the Oath or Affirmation to: “… preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” the only sane and logical way to keep that oath, is to REQUIRE the crime-gang of islam be banned!

    For instance:

    Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or abridging the free exercise thereof.

    BUT Islam demands that it be the only recognized religion, that all others be suppressed.

    That contravenes the Constitution.

    The first amendment also provides congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech and press. Islam demands the death penalty for reviling Allah, Moe or Islam.

    Islam contravenes the Constitution.

    Art. 6 proscribes religious test for office. Islamic law requires that all officers be Muslim, declaring that infidels have no right to authority even over infidels.

    Islam contravenes the Constitution.

    Islam pretends to be the law of universal application, to be imposed upon the entire world by force. 8.39, 9.29 & 9.33 are clues for the clueless. See also Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387.

    The Constitution is not a suicide pact. It does not require us to harbor enemy combatants and fifth columns.

    Islam is permanent war. In 1778 Barbary Pirates attacked our shipping. Adams & Jefferson asked why and were told it was written in their laws that all who had not submitted to Islam were fair prey. Look up the Barbary Wars at Wikipedia and read the full quote.

    The hadith which substantiates that quote is long and convoluted, but when you get to the paydirt, you will recognize it easily.

    Islam is an enemy at war against us, no more protected by the Constitution than Nazism. It can not be tolerated.



    Islam was banned from the USA in 1952, but Obama doesn’t want you to know that nor does he respect or uphold US law.

    The Immigration and Nationality Act passed June 27, 1952 revised the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality for the United States. That act, which became Public Law 414, established both the law and the intent of Congress regarding the immigration of Aliens to the US and remains in effect today. Among the many issues it covers, one in particular, found in Chapter 2 Section 212, is the prohibition of entry to the US if the Alien belongs to an organization seeking to overthrow the government of the United States by “force, violence, or other unconstitutional means.”

    This, by its very definition, rules out Islamic immigration to the United States, but this law is being ignored by the White House. Islamic immigration to the US would be prohibited under this law because the Koran, Sharia Law and the Hadith all require complete submission to Islam, which is antithetical to the US government, the Constitution, and to the Republic.

    All Muslims who attest that the Koran is their life’s guiding principal subscribe to submission to Islam and its form of government.

    Now the politically correct crowd would say that Islamists cannot be prohibited from entering the US because Islam is a religion.

    Whether it is a religion is immaterial because the law states that Aliens who are affiliated with any “organization” that advocates the overthrow of our government are prohibited.



    U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens

    (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

    “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Comments are closed.