Jihad and the wall of silence

Another three unrepresentive Muslims charged

Muslim immigration into secular and multi-faith western democracies is proving to be very dangerous and expensive:

Belgium:

Belgian prosecutors have charged three men with terror offences following overnight raids that took place amid heightened security in Belgium and France due to the Euro 2016 soccer tournament.

Three months after Islamist bombers killed 32 people in Brussels, police searched dozens of houses across the country and arrested 12 people the night before Belgium’s Euro 2016 game against Ireland on Saturday.

Nine of them were released after questioning but three Belgian nationals identified as 27-year-old Samir C., 40-year-old Moustapha B., and 29-year-old Jawad B., were charged with “having attempted to commit a terrorist murder and for participation in the activities of a terrorist group”, the federal prosecutor’s office said in a statement.

Some media reports said the suspects had planned attacks against fans watching the Euro 2016 games in Brussels, and had possibly been targeting Saturday afternoon’s Belgium vs Ireland match.

In other news:

Austrian Police Arrest Three Terror Suspects In Asylum Homes

Austria

Three migrants, thought to be members of the Al-Nusra Front and a Shia militia, were arrested by Austrian police at asylum homes in Tirol.—BREITBART.COM

Germany:

Another Muslim Teen Knew of Stabbing Plot – Kept Quiet

A ~~German~~ Muslim teenage girl who seriously injured a police officer in a stabbing inspired by Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isil) told a British friend of the planned attack in advance, it has emerged.

The 15-year-old, named only as Safia S under German privacy laws, is in prison awaiting trial for the February attack, in which she stabbed a police officer in the neck in Hannover station.

“I’m going to surprise the infidels, if you know what I mean,” she reportedly wrote to a British friend in an internet chat ahead of the attack.

A Month of Islam in Germany: May 2016

Sharia Police, Erdogan Burgers, More Mass Rapes

by Soeren Kern / Gatestone Institute

Continue reading Jihad and the wall of silence

In Islam, there are no “lone wolves”

“You don’t defeat terrorism by taking away our guns. You defeat terrorism by using our guns,” – Ted Cruz.

Why the ‘Lone-Wolf’ Terrorist is a Myth

Paul Sperry writes in the NYPost:

President Obama says don’t worry, the Orlando terrorist was just another “lone actor” operating in isolation, unconnected to any larger group of supporters. In fact, these so-called “lone wolves” are running in packs, and suggesting otherwise gives the public a false sense of security.

Yet Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson echoed Obama, saying Omar Mateen was “self-radicalized” without any religious, ideological or operational support from friends, family or others in the Muslim community.

“What we do know at this point is it appears this was a case of self-radicalization,” Johnson said. “He does not appear to have been part of any group.”

A more accurate picture is that Mateen, an Afghan-American, was part of a disturbingly large Muslim family of sympathizers, supporters and even co-conspirators.

For starters, his wife could face criminal charges in the attack on the gay Orlando nightclub, the deadliest act of terrorism in the US since 9/11. Noor Zahi Salman, who wed Mateen in 2011, reportedly told the FBI she knew about her husband’s planned attack and even drove him to the site of the massacre as part of a scouting operation. She also is said to have helped him case the Disney Springs shopping complex. What’s more, Salman allegedly was with Mateen when he bought ammo and a holster used in the attack.

Prosecutors have convened a grand jury to present evidence against Salman, a Palestinian immigrant, who ultimately could be indicted as an accessory to the murders of 49 people and the attempted murders of 53 others. Possible other charges include failing to report a terrorist attack and lying to federal agents.

It appears the seeds of Mateen’s hatred were planted at home.

His Afghan immigrant father, who founded a nonprofit group to support the Taliban, preached gays should be punished. In a video Seddique Mir Mateen posted on the Web, he expresses gratitude toward the Afghan Taliban, who stone homosexuals to death, calling them “our warrior brothers.”

Continue reading In Islam, there are no “lone wolves”

Muhammad’s imaginary Night Journey on a winged donkey

Reading the Qur’an during Ramadan 15: Juz Subhana Alladhi

by Robert Spencer

Muhammad’s famous Night Journey (Isra and Miraj) is the basis of the Islamic claim to Jerusalem as an Islamic holy city. The only thing the Qur’an has to say about it is this the first verse of sura 17, which says that Allah took Muhammad from “the Sacred Mosque” in Mecca “to the farthest [al-aqsa] Mosque.” There was no mosque in Jerusalem at this time (if the traditional chronology regarding the Qur’an is to be believed), so the “farthest” mosque probably wasn’t really the one that now bears that name in Jerusalem, but Islamic tradition is firm that this mosque is in Jerusalem.

Muhammad’s vision of this journey was as dramatic as his initial encounter with Gabriel. According to Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad described the vision to one of the Muslims as beginning “while I was lying in Al-Hatim or Al-Hijr,” that is, an area in Mecca opposite the Ka’bah, identified by Islamic tradition as the burial place of Hagar and Ishmael, when “Gabriel came and stirred me with his foot.” Soon after that “someone came to me and cut my body open from here to here” — and he gestured from his throat to his pubic area. The one who had come to him, Muhammad continued, “then took out my heart. Then a golden tray full of Belief was brought to me and my heart was washed and was filled (with Belief) and then returned to its original place. Then a white animal which was smaller than a mule and bigger than a donkey was brought to me.”

This was the Buraq, which Muhammad further described as “an animal white and long, larger than a donkey but smaller than a mule, who would place his hoof a distance equal to the range of vision.” It was, he said, “half mule, half donkey, with wings on its sides with which it propelled its feet.”

“When I came up to mount him,” Muhammad reported according to Ibn Ishaq, “he shied. Gabriel placed his hand on its mane and said, ‘Are you not ashamed, a Buraq, to behave in this way? By God, none more honorable before God than Muhammad has ever ridden you before.’ The animal was so ashamed that he broke out into a sweat and stood still so that I could mount him.”

Continue reading Muhammad’s imaginary Night Journey on a winged donkey

“Our” ABC: from too few to worry about to too many to resist

Savva, Tingle, Kenny: submitting to the hate-preachers

Andrew Bolt

Unbelievable. From denial to appeasement.

First, we warn that Islam preaches hate. We’re told by the ABC establishment this is false.

Then, we show that Islamic preachers do preach hate. We’re told by the ABC establishment that they are just unrepresentative Muslims.

Now, we show that the president of the Australian National Imam’s Council, Sheikh Shady Al-Suleiman, in on-line sermons has vilified Jews, called on God to help “destroy the enemies of Islam”, declared the punishment for adulterers “is stoning to death”, damned Christmas parties as “worship of Satan” and accused gays of “spreading all these diseases” through “evil actions that bring evil outcomes to our society”.

So now the ABC/media Left switches from denial and excuses to appeasement – if not surrender.

Witness this astonishing exchange on the ABC’s Insiders this morning, discussing Sheikh Shady’s attendance as an honored guest at the Prime Minister’s end-of-Ramadan meal:

Nikki Savva: Labor has to deal with the same kind of people that Malcolm Turnbull has to deal with if we are to show, you know, that we have links into the Muslim community. And while this imam is offensive and his views are unacceptable, nevertheless both sides have had contact.

Laura Tingle: He’s got an official position.

Nikki Savva: An official position so he can’t be avoided or isolated….

Mark Kenny: Apparently this guy is regarded by the Government and AFP (Australian Federal Police) and others as important in their deradicalisation dialogue strategy with the Islamic community. And they still regard him as that…. I don’t think this Shady Sheikh would have been the only person with odious views about homosexuals at this thing, and that’s one of the other reasons I think that the parties, the Opposition needs to be a little bit measured in the way it sees this…

Barrie Cassidy: It’s not the only religion with these sorts of views.

That is a despicable low blow, even for this blathering dolt. (SY)

From too few to worry about to too many to resist. Blink of an eye.

UPDATE

Five weeks ago:

Malcolm Turnbull had quietly had a Greens candidate, Lin Hatfield Dodds, made one of the deputy secretaries of his Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, in charge of his social policy.

Last week:

When asked by Macquarie Radio if he regretted inviting Sheikh Alsuleiman to dinner, Mr Turnbull said: “I do.” …

Mr Turnbull said he had spoken with the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, which had compiled the guest list for Thursday’s event.

Waleed Aly once more excuses Islam for an Islamist slaughter

Andrew Bolt

I have detailed how Waleed Aly repeatedly omits or denies the role of Islam in Islamist terrorism.

For that impiety I have been savaged by the state broadcaster, the ABC.

ABC presenter Raphael Epstein misrepresented my argument to accuse me of licensing racism.

Most astonishing was the attack on me from the ABC’s religion editor, former Uniting Church minister Scott Stephens, who damned me as “mad”, “lunatic”, “maniacal” and even “idolatrous” for criticising Islam and Aly, illustrated in the piece wearing Christ’s crown of thorns. The then ABC head praised this litany of abuse as ”scholarly”.

That intellectually dishonest and dangerous evasion continues even after the Orlando massacre, with Aly once more aided by disciple Stephens and your taxpayer-funded ABC.

Michael Smith explains:

Waleed Aly and Scott Stephens present a taxpayer funded show on ABC Radio National… Last week The Minefield set out to answer this lofty question: “What is a ‘moral’ response to Orlando?”

Firstly a synopsis of what that model moral response from Aly and his mate did not include. Naming the shooter, naming his motivation, naming Islam, acknowledging the victims. A moral response has nothing to do with Islam because according to the celebrity Muslim Aly the terror attack itself had nothing to do with Islam.

Aly’s moral response to Orlando? Get rid of freedom, not Islam.

“Freedom (is one of those narratives that) doesn’t work any more” he said…

Continue reading “Our” ABC: from too few to worry about to too many to resist

Sam Harris discusses Islam, Orlando and the reaction from Trump, Clinton and Obama

Omar Mateen Posted to Facebook During Massacre

The terrorist wanted there to be no mistaking his intention. It also seems rather common for Muslims to hate homosexuals and yet engage in homosexual activity themselves. Fox News: In the hours after he blasted his way into an Orlando gay nightclub, and with his victims lying dead or wounded around …Read More…

Why Orlando Mass Murder Was Predictable »

by Peter McLoughlin

(June 2016) For decades, the Left (including the Leftist media) have been working to protect Islamo-Nazism from criticism. This has meant that the percentage of Muslims in Western countries has doubled and doubled again. And because the Left and the media protect the Islamo-Nazis …Read More…

Finally: A Realistic Plan for Fighting the Jihad and Protecting Americans…Courtesy of Donald Trump

Robert Spencer writes in Frontpage: We’ve gotten so used to politically correct obfuscation about Islam being a religion of peace that preaches tolerance and non-violence that Donald Trump’s words in his address Monday were startling: “Many of the principles of radical Islam are incompatible with …Read More…

Turncoat’s Reset Button Explodes

Turnbull minister praised Sheikh Shady as “important resetting point”

Andrew Bolt

Our politicians cover up for Islam.

Check, for instance, how the Turnbull Government first told us Sheik Shady Al-Suleiman was a moderate preacher who represented an “important resetting point”, but now claims he’s just some lone extremist who should not “define the views of all 500,000 Muslims”.

Sheikh Shady was last December promoted by Turnbull’s then Assistant Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, as a moderate we should listen to:

(Concetta Fierravanti-Wells is an utterly corrupt shill for Islam. She is stuffed with falsehood and petrodollars. She also stabbed Tony Abbott in the back).

.
Simplistic calls for “revolution”, “change” or “reform” [of Islam] fail to take into account these complexities, especially the lack of hierarchy and authority. A more realistic and achievable approach lies in ensuring imans preach a more modern and moderate interpretation of the Koran.

While some may feel a public flogging of the Grand Mufti, Ibrahim Abu Mohamed, may have served their own political ends, he does not represent or speak for all Muslims in Australia. He is elected by the Australian National Imams Council, which brings together about 200 largely Sunni imams. The election of Shady Alsuleiman, our first Australian-born imam as ANIC’s president is an important resetting point.

Sheikh Shady is an “important resetting point”?

In fact, his sermons, as recorded in his on-line videos, vilify Jews, call on God to help “destroy the enemies of Islam”, declare the punishment for adulterers “is stoning to death”, damn Christmas parties as “worship of Satan” and accuse gays of “spreading all these diseases” through “evil actions that bring evil outcomes to our society”.

And now that this has been reported, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull how tells us Sheik Shady is just some lone and unrepresentative voice:

It is also wrong to seek to define the views of all 500,000 Muslims because of the opinions expressed by one person, by one cleric.

In fact, Shady is the elected president of the Australian National Imams Council. I suspect he knows Islam and our Muslim community better than does Turnbull.

It is idiotic to claim these views are only held by sheikh Shady. These views reflect mainstream Islam, basic Islam 101. This is what Islam is. What part of that is it you don’t understand?

How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington

Meanwhile, An Islamic Fifth Column Builds Inside America

Paul Sperry writes in IBD:

In berating GOP presidential hopeful Ben Carson for suggesting a loyalty test for Muslims seeking high office, CNN host Jake Tapper maintained that he doesn’t know a single observant Muslim-American who wants to Islamize America.

“I just don’t know any Muslim-Americans — and I know plenty — who feel that way, even if they are observant Muslims,” he scowled.

Tapper doesn’t get out much. If he did, chances are he’d run into some of the 51% of Muslims living in the U.S. who just this June told Polling Co. they preferred having “the choice of being governed according to Shariah,” or Islamic law. Or the 60% of Muslim-Americans under 30 who told Pew Research they’re more loyal to Islam than America.

Maybe they’re all heretics, so let’s see what the enlightened Muslims think.

If Tapper did a little independent research he’d quickly find that America’s most respected Islamic leaders and scholars also want theocracy, not democracy, and even advocate trading the Constitution for the Quran.

These aren’t fringe players. These are the top officials representing the Muslim establishment in America today.

Hopefully none of them ever runs for president, because here’s what he’d have to say about the U.S. system of government:

• Muzammil Siddiqi, chairman of both the Fiqh Council of North America, which dispenses Islamic rulings, and the North American Islamic Trust, which owns most of the mosques in the U.S.: “As Muslims, we should participate in the system to safeguard our interests and try to bring gradual change, (but) we must not forget that Allah’s rules have to be established in all lands, and all our efforts should lead to that direction.”

• Omar Ahmad, co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the top Muslim lobby group in Washington: “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Quran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”

• CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper: “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.”

• Imam Siraj Wahhaj, director of the Muslim Alliance in North America: “In time, this so-called democracy will crumble, and there will be nothing. And the only thing that will remain will be Islam.”

• Imam Zaid Shakir, co-founder of Zaytuna College in Berkeley, Calif.: “If we put a nationwide infrastructure in place and marshaled our resources, we’d take over this country in a very short time. . . . What a great victory it will be for Islam to have this country in the fold and ranks of the Muslims.”

These Islamic luminaries, who arguably spend more time with Muslims than Tapper, say the American Muslim community would rather live under a theocracy.

“Every Muslim who is honest would say, I would like to see America become a Muslim country,” Shakir said.

Why? Because Islam preaches that Allah’s laws are superior to man-made laws and therefore requires the faithful to not only convert others, but also establish Islamic rule over others.

In this, Islam is unique.

It’s a key departure from Christianity, for one, which instructs followers to respect secular leaders — rendering “unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” — while living godly lives within secular societies.

So for devout Muslims, the Quran is more than just a holy book. It’s a blueprint for government.

While Tapper’s ignorance is breathtaking, it’s par for the course for the inside-the-Beltway crowd.

The Washington punditry continues to harbor dangerously naive assumptions about Islam, which only emboldens Islamic supremacists growing exponentially within our borders.

• Sperry, formerly IBD Washington bureau chief, is author of “Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington.”

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all Americans should lose their gun-rights over one Muslim killer?

“You don’t defeat terrorism by taking away our guns. You defeat terrorism by using our guns,” – Ted Cruz.

Along comes slick Willie:

In an interview with Bloomberg TV, the former president was asked to respond to Donald Trump’s claim that fewer people would have died at the club if they had firearms.

“Did you see how dark it was?” Clinton said. “It’s likely that more people would have been killed.”–from The Hill

Muslim who said 9/11 “changed the world for good” is on Homeland Security Advisory Council

(It looks more and more like Mr. Trump’s allegations of treason against President Obama are well founded. And Trump isn’t the only one)

How by any stretch of anyone’s imagination can Laila Alawa be seen as someone who cares in the slightest degree about “homeland security”? She is quite obviously on the other side, and if we had a sane political and media culture, her presence on the DHS Advisory Council would be a major scandal.

Laila believes that only “idiots” consider America to be the greatest country in the world, and that speech she deems Islamophobic should be illegal.

“Syrian Immigrant Who Said 9/11 ‘Changed The World For Good’ Is A Homeland Security Adviser,” by Peter Hasson, Daily Caller, June 13, 2016

Obama appointing this woman to a national security position is proof that either our president is completely inept when it comes to carrying out his duty to protect our nation, or totally dedicated to annihilating our way of life.

Then again, maybe it’s both.–(Pamela Geller)

Obama’s Homeland Security Advisor is Syrian immigrant who CHEERS 9/11, it ‘CHANGED THE WORLD FOR GOOD…

Our commander-in-chief has appointed none other than Laila Alawa, a Syrian immigrant who praised 9/11 and has repeatedly slammed America on her social media accounts, for a post on the Department of Homeland Security Advisory Council (Vlad Tepes)

Obama flashback: don’t tell me words don’t matter

When a Petulant President Presumes to Give Lessons in Language

by Hugh Fitzgerald

And let me make a final point. For a while now, the main contribution of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have made in the fight against ISIL is to criticize the administration and me for not using the phrase “radical Islam.” That’s the key, they tell us. We cannot beat ISIL unless we call them radical Islamists.

What exactly would using this label would accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to try to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this?

The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction.

— Barack Obama, Speech about the Fight Against ISIL and the Orlando Attack, June 14, 2016

Don’t tell me words don’t matter.

— Barack Obama, “Don’t Tell Me Words Don’t Matter” speech, February 16, 2008

Continue reading Obama flashback: don’t tell me words don’t matter

No. We must not.

Why Must I?

Posted on June 17, 2016 by Baron Bodissey

We recently posted a piece by the German opinion writer Anabel Schunke. Below is another essay by the same author from Roland Tichy’s blog. Many thanks to Nash Montana for the translation:

I don’t have to ANYTHING

by Anabel Schunke

If the state terminates the social contract by not keeping with its duties towards me, and isn’t even capable of protecting me anymore, then I can withdraw my obedience. And I am hereby doing just that.

“Syrians could bring in up to 500,000 family members” the FAZ headline read today. After newest calculations of the Ministry for Migration and Refugees, BAMF, Germany has to expect with hundred of thousands more refugees because of family reunification. Thus the BAMF analysis contradicts every prognosis that had been made in recent months, speaking of higher numbers than this. It’s questionable whether the BAMF calculated number is realistic. And I don’t have to believe anything just because it’s official.

Much more interesting than the number itself, however, Is the daily rhetoric laid bare. Germany MUST. And yes, even months after the asylum crisis I am still not tired of asking: Why exactly MUST Germany? Why does it seem that hundred thousands of people who illegally set foot into Germany have more rights than me and every other German? Why does it seem that in this crisis we only have duties, but never a say in it? Why has nobody yet asked me if I even want that “must” and if I even have to view that “must” as a must?

Strictly speaking, I did not want Angela Merkel, with her selfies and her open borders, to invite everyone into Germany. Why should I now want these people to bring in all of their families? And again: Why do we “have to”, and why do the others not have to anything?

For months I’ve heard nothing else but that we must, even though in Article 16a it says nothing requiring us to accept and grant asylum to people who have traveled through secure third countries. Apart from the fact that our asylum actually only pertains to politically and religiously persecuted people. At this juncture the Geneva refugee convention comes into play. If we don’t have to based on our Constitution, then we have to because of the Geneva refugee convention. But even considering that, it appears that only we have to accept an infinite and uncontrolled amount of refugees, while other countries have long ago set a maximum limit for themselves.

The truth is that there is no legal basis for my “must”. And nevertheless I must, and I have been disenfranchised by my own government. Just like all the others who also were not asked. And I have to pay for it all. With my taxes. Well, I probably will have to pay with entirely different things as well. For instance, with restrictions on our liberal Western values because of the influx of millions of Muslims. And with the transformation of our culture, which I actually found to be great just the way it was. And I pay with my rights and my safety as a woman, which is something that many women during the course of this year have so bitterly had to experience already. And in the end, even with the security and stability of an entire country, in which I felt great and perfectly comfortable until a few months ago.

80% of the people who immigrated in the Spring of 2016 do not possess the necessary identification documentation. But I, on the other hand, will be hunted down like a rabid dog should I fail to pay a traffic ticket on time. A minimum of 500,000 unregistered people are moving about completely undisturbed in Germany. I don’t know who they are, where they come from, and which one of them might be a terrorist planning an attack. The fact is, that there are is a significantly higher number of terrorists among these refugees than what we were told a few months ago. But the politicians that I once voted for do not care for my safety. The Leviathan has ceased to exist. (“Der Leviathan ist längst nicht mehr existent.”)

And this is exactly where the escape lies for this “must”. If the state terminates the social contract by not keeping faith with its duties towards me, and is not even capable of protecting me anymore, then I can withdraw my obedience. And I am hereby doing just that.

I don’t have to just watch how my country is morphing into something that I, from the bottom of my liberal conviction, deeply reject. I don’t have to unconditionally tolerate and respect a foreign culture that has no regard for my culture and that poses a danger to freedom and tolerance as a whole. I don’t have to make up for the deficit of millions of people who illegally came here and who, if it were up to me, wouldn’t be here in the first place. Especially not when nobody can explain to me under which legal basis this is all justified.

Instead one MUST finally begin to ask me what I want.

Just like a majority of Germans, I am all for helping those that are the weakest. That we protect women and children from war and persecution. I am for solidarity and I don’t have a problem with giving. But not unconditionally and infinitely. And especially not to those that do not abide by the rules that we have established for ourselves and that apply to everybody, if a state has to function. Asylum is one thing, immigration is another. Asylum can and should be granted according to given rules. But when it comes to immigration, we have to negotiate and we have to determine the rules by which we want it to work. As a nation, government, and society.

As long as this is not happening, I feel disenfranchised. And as long as I feel disenfranchised, there is no social contract and therefore, de facto, there is no foundation, which is why I have to do something. And still, if it were up to the political caste, I should just take it and pay for the damage. But that’s not how this works. I am 27. I have to live here for quite a while with the consequences of these politics, if I don’t emigrate.