UK: MORONS DISCUSS ISLAMONAZI (NON)FASHION ON TV, SHARIA/ISLAMIC SUPREMACY NOT MENTIONED ONCE……..

Never trust the mediocre media to handle serious issues, you’ll always be left uninformed and disappointed.

Screw the entire debate about wearing islamonazi gear, entirely irrelevant when the country is being flooded with people who will eventually overturn newly enacted laws restricting their garments.

Also, I would advise people debating Islamonazis in public to remind the audience about what’s really in question, Islamic supremacy by adherents to an ideology that has 1.6 (their often quoted figures) members, which has at it’s core belief the ideal of manifest destiny.

These clothes imposed upon women/indoctrinated into wearing them are signs of that supremacy, the sharia, which is against all non-muslims, who are to be subjugated (the reason behind jihad) then given three choices, convert, submit as a dhimmi or die. Islamogarb is an outward sign that Islam has arrived, we are here to compete in th epiblic square and eventually take it over, there is no co-existence with us, but eventual surrender and subjugation, no matter how long that takes.

NOTE: Lauren Booth is an islamonazi Jew hater, inviting her onto any program was the first mistake if the intention was not to do a hostile interview with her.

‘Why do you think you should dress this way?’ This Morning burkini debate gets personal as James Whale grills Cherie Blair’s Muslim convert sister Lauren over wearing a hijab

Lauren and DJ James Whale, centre, both agreed that the burkini, modelled right, was not offensive and women should not be told what they should wear on the beach

Lauren and DJ James Whale, centre, both agreed that the burkini, modelled right, was not offensive and women should not be told what they should wear on the beach

  • Lauren Booth converted to Islam in 2010
  • Sister of Cherie Blair joined debate on France’s burkini ban
  • Appeared on This Morning wearing a bright pink hijab 
  • Said it was every woman’s personal choice what to wear
  • James Whale said he was ‘fascinated’ by her choice of religious clothing 

Lauren Booth appeared on today’s This Morning to speak out against France’s controversial ban of burkini on its beaches and explain why she has chosen to embrace wearing religious clothing.

The sister of former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s wife Cherie, who converted to Islam in 2010 following the breakdown of her first marriage, said wearing a burkini or burka is a ‘personal choice’ and women shouldn’t all be forced to dress the same.

Wearing a bright pink headscarf on the ITV show, Lauren, 49, told presenters James Martin and Anita Rani: ‘We don’t have to feel the same and dress the same to get along. There is beauty in diversity.’

Read more:

UK: NO MORE COMMUNAL PRAYERS FOR MUSLIMS IN JAIL, IF SPREADING ISLAMIC ANTI-BRITISH VALUES……..

Because post-hijra Islam corrupts…….

quran quran

That would mean every single one of them……….

H/T: 

Muslim prisoners to be removed from communal prayers for spreading anti-British values

  • Joe Watts Political Editor

Prison governors will be told to remove Muslims from communal prayer in jails if they are deemed to be spreading ‘anti-British’ values.

The proposals will also see Muslim chaplains who offer guidance to a growing number of Islamic prisoners undergoing “tightened vetting” before being allowed near inmates.

The new measures aimed at clamping down on the spread of extremism come as the number of Muslims in British prisons has soared over the last ten years.

It was also confirmed that governors will seek to isolate extremists acting as “self-styled emirs” to prevent them radicalising others.

The counter-extremism scheme comes after Anjem Choudary, one of Britain’s most prominent Islamist clerics, was convicted of crimes that could see him face years in jail.

New Justice Secretary Liz Truss said the measures were needed in order to stop the “spread of this poisonous ideology behind bars”, but critics questioned whether they were appropriate.

Official figures show there are now more than 12,600 Muslims in prison in England and Wales, while the figure was just 8,200 a decade earlier.

More here.

ROBERT SPENCER DEBATES AGAINST ”ISLAM A RELIGION OF PEACE” AS A DE-FACTO ARTICLE OF CATHOLIC FAITH…….

That’s how far the Catholic Church has sunk, that members now have to debate the incoherent mutterings of a marxist pontiff (on Islam) that depart from hundreds of years of stated policy.

APTOPIX Italy Pope Epiphany

NOTE: Msgr.Swetland’s attempted ”gotcha” strategy falls flat, there is no imperative from on high to admit the ridiculous notion that islam is peaceful. Pure bunk. The weasel is easily debunked and all he’s reduced to is repeating claims already debunked by Spencer. Kick this guy out of the church.

Swetland v. Spencer: Is Islam a “Religion of Peace” – a hot debate

The other day Catholic radio show host Drew Mariani had a (too short) debate about the claim that Islam is a “Religion of Peace” between Robert Spencer (an Eastern Catholic who has written extensively on Islam and who directs Jihad Watch) and Msgr. Stuart Swetland.  You can hear this archived HERE.  Listen and take note their different tones as they make their points.

Swetland argues that Catholics must accept that the magisterium requires Catholics to accept that Islam is a “Religion of Peace”.  Spencer argues that the sacred texts of Islam state that Islam is not a Religion of Peace.

After the radio discussion, Swetland issued a longish statement (he says that Spencer is a dissenter from the magisterium).  Spencer responded with his own statement.  (Links also below)

Then, over at Crisis (which I admire each day as a great resource) we see a response to Msgr. Swetland by William Kilpatrick.

Must Catholics Believe that Islam Is Peaceful?

The Apostles’ Creed (updated version):

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, and the peaceful nature of Islam. Amen.

More here.

HOWARD KAINZ: ISLAM HAS NO GOLDEN RULE, VIOLATES LAST SEVEN OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS…….

Islam expert Professor Bill Warner has spoken on this subject before, here is another well written piece on the subject.

Islam and the Decalogue

Persian painting of Muhammad’s vision (artist unknown), c. 1320

I first noticed something unusual about Islam during the 1980s when I was doing research for my book, Ethics in Context. I devoted one section of the book to the “Golden Rule.” The Golden Rule, in its negative or positive formulations, is incorporated not only in Christianity (Matt. 7:12), where Jesus declares it is a summary of “the law and the prophets,” but also in other major religions. For example, in Judaism, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor”; in Hinduism, “Let no man do to another that which would be repugnant to himself”’; in Buddhism, “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful”; in Confucianism, “What you do not want done to yourself, do not do unto others.”

I took this as evidence of the relative universality of rational ethical principles in the world. But in Islam, I could find nothing of the sort, rather just the opposite – a reverse Golden Rule, so to speak: “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. Be merciful to one another, but ruthless to the unbelievers” (Qur’an 48:29); “Never take unbelievers for friends” (3:28). Furthermore, the commands in the Qur’an to slay the unbelievers wherever they find them (2:191), not befriend them (3:28), fight them and show them harshness (9:123), and smite their heads (47:4) – accentuate distance from the Golden Rule.

So I decided at that time just to omit any reference to Islam in that chapter. As I have discovered in further researches, however, the ethical/religious problems within Islam are even more serious. Just as Islam teaches the reverse of the Golden Rule, it teaches the reverse of the last seven of the Ten Commandments, which have to do with morality:

  • 4 th Commandment, Honoring Father and Mother: Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam states that retaliation is generally required for murder, but not subject to retaliation is “a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring.” Honor killings can go in the other direction, too. Boys captured by ISIS report that they were ordered to kill their parents, according to injunctions in the Qur’an – Suras 9:23, 58:22, 60:4, which mandate complete hatred of, and disassociation from unbelievers, even if they are kindred or parents.
  • 5th Commandment, no killing: Muhammad is considered by Muslims to be the“perfect man”, and offered numerous examples of murder for devout Muslims to follow – beginning with the murder of poets who ridiculed him in Medina and Mecca, and ending with beheading of hundreds of “unbelievers” in his various raids and battles. Osama bin Laden, in his 1996 “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places,” justified his Fatwa to kill Americans by quoting Quranic verses 3:145, 47:4-6, 2:154, 9:14, 8:72, and 9:5 (the “verse of the sword”). Terrorism is specifically supported in verses 8:12, and 3:151, and a hadith of Bukhari 52:256. And conversion from Islam to another religion is punishable by execution, according to Bukhari 9.84.57, “[Muhammad ordered] ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him’.”

More here. H/T: 

MAX BOOT AT WSJ: EUROPE NEEDN’T WORRY, JUST HANG IN THERE TILL ISLAMIST TERRORISM EVENTUALLY BURNS ITSELF OUT…….

All of what he says ( historically) is true, but none of the prior mentioned had a mandate to murder from a deity.

mo tunic 29.12.2011

History does not suggest when this current wave of terrorism will end. It does suggest that it will end some day, and that it can be ameliorated, if not entirely stopped.

 

The Terrorist Past Has a Message for the Terrorist Present

History suggests that Europe’s current wave of terror can be ameliorated, if not entirely stopped.

Since July 18, Germany has seen at least three smaller-scale attacks: A Pakistani refugee injured five people with an ax on a train; an Iranian-German teenager shot nine people dead in Munich; a Syrian refugee tried to set off a bomb at a concert in Ansbach, killing himself. Belgium, meanwhile, was struck by suicide bombers on March 22 who killed 32 people.

It is certainly understandable if fear and panic now grip the Continent. But it’s important to remember that this is hardly the first wave of terrorism that Europe has seen—and so far not the worst.

The first wave was the work of anarchists who struck across Europe and the Americas from the 1880s to the 1920s. In the worst of these attacks, a horse-drawn wagon filled with explosives killed 38 on Wall Street in New York in 1920. The next-worst attack occurred when an anarchist flung two bombs into a crowded opera house in Barcelona in 1893, killing 22 people. Between 1892 and 1894, Paris saw 11 bombings, which killed nine people.

But the anarchists’ true calling card was assassinating heads of state. They murdered the president of France, the prime minister of Spain, the empress of Austria-Hungary, the king of Italy—and President William McKinley. In addition, a band of nihilists killed Tsar Alexander II of Russia. No terrorist group before or since has assassinated so many leaders.

More here .

RICHARD DAWKINS SAYS TO HELL WITH THE ISLAMIC CULTURE…….

clapping orson

“And they (liberals) applaud that but if you say something about a woman being forced to wear a beekeeper suit in the hot sun all day…”

Dawkins then took over saying: “But that’s ‘their culture’ and you have to accept it. It’s the one exception. Liberal about everything but this one exception, ‘it’s their culture’.

“Well, to hell with their culture.”

Dawkins went on to say Islam had a “free pass”  because of the “terror of being thought racist” if the religion is criticised.

‘To hell with their culture’ – Richard Dawkins in extraordinary blast at Muslims

TOP academic and atheist Richard Dawkins has attacked western society’s relaxed attitude to radical Islam in an extraordinary outburst.

By JOHN WORTHING
DawkinsGETTY
Dawkins has been criticised for the comment aimed at Muslims

The British scientist was appearing on a live TV chat show in the United States when he blasted “to hell with their culture” when referring to some practices in Islam, such as women being made to wear burkhas.

Dawkins was appearing on the Bill Maher’s HBO show and the pair were debating regressive liberals and, in particular, universities banning those with extreme views from giving lectures.

The conversation turned to Islam when Dawkins criticised those afraid to confront the religion on some of its extreme practices, saying the religion was being given a “free pass”.

The 74-year-old said: “There’s this notion Islam and Muslims are this protected species.

“That if we talk about them at all or criticise at all, it’s somehow hurting or humiliating Muslims. It’s a ridiculous idea.”

Host Maher then added liberals should protect those who are being repressed regardless of who it offends.

He went on to say this includes women forced to wear religious clothing, which led to Dawkins extraordinary comment.

Maher said: “We’re on the side of the women’s movement and poor and minorities and whatever. Gay people, the disabled, the abused, whatever Caitlyn (Jenner) is up to. We’re all for it.

More here. H/T: Tommy Robinson

NICE TRUCK JIHADI VIOLATED ISLAMIC RULES EXCEPT IN THE END……

He shouted allah akbar before being shot….

Doesn’t matter how infidel the muslim, according to Islam, waging jihad and dying in the action delivers his soul to allah. The 9/11 terrorist islamonazis drank booze and whored around before their last act of jihad.

It’s why those who deal out capital punishment to homosexuals and other offenders of Islamic law believe they’re being ”compassionate”, the ending of one’s own life in blood absolves the offender of his sins. The media will hype the ”non-Islamic” nature of this bastard to show that this wasn’t an act of jihad….when the facts speak other wise.

EXCLUSIVE – ‘He drank alcohol, ate pork and took drugs. He was NOT a Muslim – he was a s***’: Truck terrorist’s cousin reveals he is an ‘unlikely jihadist’ who beat his wife and NEVER went to the mosque

  • Truck terrorist who murdered 84 people in a horrific drive along the Nice seafront drank alcohol, ate pork and took drugs – all banned by Islam
  • A cousin of his estranged wife said ‘he was not a Muslim, he was a s***’
  • Revealed he didn’t go to the mosque and didn’t pray or observe Ramadan 
  • The couple had separated after reports of domestic abuse two years ago
  • Detectives raided the family home in Nice and took his wife into protective custody

Truck terrorist Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel was an ‘unlikely jihadist’ who flouted every rule of Islam, his cousin told MailOnline today.

The 31-year-old – who wreaked terror on the Nice seafront as he turned an evening celebrating Bastille Day into a night of terror in which he murdered 84 innocent people – drank alcohol, ate pork and took drugs.

He never prayed or attended a mosque, and hit his wife – with whom he had three children aged five, three and 18 months – and was in the process of getting a divorce.

Monster: Truck terrorist Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel who murdered 84 on Bastille Day in Nice, was described by a cousin as a 's***' and a 'nasty piece of work' who never observed the rules of Islam

Monster: Truck terrorist Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel who murdered 84 on Bastille Day in Nice, was described by a cousin as a ‘s***’ and a ‘nasty piece of work’ who never observed the rules of Islam

Read more:

BANGLADESHI FEMINIST AUTHOR SAYS STOP SAYING ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE…….!

Not news here, but it’s a welcome call hopefully heard by the rest of the world…..

All Dhaka terrorists were from rich families, studied in elite schools. Pl do not say poverty & illiteracy make people Islamic terrorists

Stop saying Islam is a religion of peace: Taslima Nasreen

July 3, 2016
Stop saying Islam is a religion of peace: Taslima Nasreen
View photos Stop saying Islam is a religion of peace: Taslima Nasreen

After reports suggested that all terrorists involved in the recent attack at Dhaka restaurant, in which 20 people were killed, were highly educated and belonged to rich families, Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasreen rubbished the arguments that poverty makes somebody a terrorist.

In a series of tweets, Taslima quoted Saleem Samad that Bangladesh has been a major contributor to global terror and said it’s time people should stop saying Islam is a religion of peace.

‘Bangladesh has been a major contributor to global terror. Bangladeshi men have joined terror outfits in 36 countries.’ — Saleem Samad

More here.

DANIEL GREENFIELD: GUNS AND HOMOPHOBIA DON’T KILL PEOPLE, MUSLIM TERRORISTS DO……

Sharia and Islamic texts drives them on to kill and main.

egyptian tards

If Leftists want to reign in ”hate speech”, start with the koran.

GUNS AND HOMOPHOBIA DON’T KILL PEOPLE, MUSLIM TERRORISTS DO

Obama has shaken the hands of Muslim leaders who’ve killed more gay people than Omar Mateen.

Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

Gun violence did not kill 49 people in Orlando. Guns, no matter whether you call them “assault rifles” or “weapons of war”, do not independently kill anyone. No gun, by any name, walks into a gay bar and shoots people. No more than box cutters slash the throats of stewardesses independently or passenger planes fly themselves into the World Trade Center.

When a Muslim terrorist shoots up a gay bar, it’s not gun violence. It’s Islamic terrorism.

The media insists that a ban on Muslim migration is unconstitutional, but a ban on a right protected by the Bill of Rights is. The Bill of Rights does not provide a right for foreigners to migrate to America. It does protect the right of Americans to defend themselves from Muslim terrorism with firearms.

Blaming our Bill of Rights for Muslim terrorism is an attack on our rights and freedoms. Blaming Muslims for Muslim terrorism is just reality. And acknowledging that reality will protect our rights and freedoms far better than the widespread violations of our rights and freedoms caused by Muslim migration that are embodied in such institutions as the NSA and the TSA.

Blaming guns for Orlando is as fundamentally foolish as blaming passenger jets for 9/11.

We can ban guns, but the largest Muslim terrorist mass murder of Americans in history was carried out with box cutters. Muslim terrorists have killed Americans with pressure cooker bombs, with cars and with box cutters. Were those acts of “box cutter violence” or “pressure cooker violence”?

Or were they Muslim terrorism?

More here.

MAAJID NAWAZ ACTUALLY HAS A GREAT POINT ON LEFTIST/ISLAMO APOLOGISTS ON ”GAY” OMAR MATEEN……

It’s a solidly valid point, you can’t claim he wasn’t pious enough to be a jihadi because he was a homosexual, drank alcohol etc., while you claim Islam is inherently peaceful (gag, wheeze, cough) and therefor hasn’t anything to do with the acts of these jihadis.

My main points of disagreement with Nawaz, Irshad Manji, as well as with MoZJ (Zuhdi Jasser) and others like them, is the notion that Islam can be both enlightened and reformed. With the benefit of hindsight, Islam knows where any such enlightenment and reform will lead, and will reject each and every attempt made…..ending in blood.

It’s pure fantasy.

FANTASY ISLAM 4 U

15 YEARS ON AFTER 9/11 AND THE INTEL COMMUNITY, LAW ENFORCEMENT ARE STILL IGNORANT OF JIHAD AS A THREAT DOCTRINE…….

Unbelievable………

egyptian tards

A couple of weeks ago in Helsinki, in a building associated with the Finnish parliament, I sat in on a seminar with Dr. Gil-ad Ariely, CKO (Chief Knowledge Officer) and senior researcher at the Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT) of Lauder School of Government Diplomacy and Strategy, at The Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya.

Christian Democrat paper at the event wrote the following, here’s an excerpt:

“The fight against terrorism is a continuing learning competition. When the terrorist organization carried out actions, it will also analyze professionally what it can learn, explained the Israeli terrorism researcher Dr Gil-Ad Ariely yesterday at the Parliamentary Civil Info event.
According to Ariely, analysis and guidance for the conduct of terrorist acts and for terrorist organizations to quickly adapt their behavior, is spread via the Internet.
– If a single mode of operation can be prevented, others find gaps in security. It is no longer shoe bombs being used, having moved to underwear bombs or bombs that can also be placed inside a rectum.

[…]

Now the terrorists’ strategy is to stimulate the lonely wolves to attack with axes, knives, or other means which are simple handy methods.
– The attacker is not necessarily a terrorist, but he can be a petty criminal or suicidal husband or persons who feel rejected who just wants to get rid of their problems and to die in a “heroic” way, Ariely explained.

His one hour presentation also included a Q&A in which I posited the following question:

How crucial is it for law enforcement, the intelligence community, the military and politicians in general, to first have a good understanding of Jihad as threat doctrine, in order to use/implement the strategies you laid out for us today? To understand what motivates these terrorists, where do they draw their source of motivation when choosing, then attacking their targets?

gil -ad arielyDr.Ariely replied that it wasn’t crucial, that everyone already knows that jihad means ”holy war”. He then went on in his response to speak about “operational knowledge in critical environments, crisis management and preparedness, and security studies” that he already spent the last hr. speaking to us about.

It was a superficial response to a serious and important question. It was like someone responding to a question about the meaning of representational government with ”everyone already knows that democracy means someone drops a ballot into a box”.

This was from a man, an Israeli who is considered the top in his field, and yet, understanding jihad as a threat doctrine was not high on his list of priorities, in fact, it wasn’t on his list at all.

Now read the following  two quotes at Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch piece where he was interviewed at the Detroit News on last weekend’s jihad attack on the gay bar in Orlando where 49 people were slaughtered and a larger number of people wounded.

Robert Spencer in the Detroit News: Orlando reveals our willful ignorance about jihad

But the DHS official was just reflecting government policy. The East Orlando Post reported Sunday that James Copenhaver, whom it described as a “veteran investigator and former Orlando law enforcement officer,” said: “I have been in this business for 30 years, and … never in all my years of training, and being involved in several investigative units, to include the FBI Task Force, would we have ever guessed a LGBT club be a target of an terrorist attack.”

Why would they never have guessed? Because the FBI and other law enforcement agencies don’t study the motivating ideology behind jihad terror attacks. They do not know or care that the prophet of Islam, Muhammad says: “If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.” (Abu Dawud 38:4447)

More here @ Jihad Watch

Bruce Bawer, a homosexual ex-pat American living in Norway who wrote the book: ”While Europe Slept, How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within’‘ had witnessed first hand this dramatic shift in Europe from being an open and free society:

As an American living in Europe since 1998, Bruce Bawer has seen this problem up close. Across the continent—in Amsterdam, Oslo, Copenhagen, Paris, Berlin, Madrid, and Stockholm—he encountered large, rapidly expanding Muslim enclaves in which women were oppressed and abused, homosexuals persecuted and killed, “infidels” threatened and vilified, Jews demonized and attacked, barbaric traditions (such as honor killing and forced marriage) widely practiced, and freedom of speech and religion firmly repudiated.

There is no excuse for people who are in the know on so many fronts, not to know about the motivating factors involved in Islamic jihad attacks. It’s a wilful ignorance, or a rejection of reality, or simply a caving into the intimidation from those pushing the political correct mindset.

NOTE: Listen to Stephen Coughlin on the Bill Bennett show discussing exactly that, Jihad as a threat doctrine.

Also listen to Andrew Mccarthy, he knows what the threat doctrine is all about, and how important it is to know about it and understand it:

SWEDISH POLITICIANS EQUATE THEIR GOVERNMENTAL RULE WITH SHARIA…….

Allah doesn’t believe in inalienable rights, freedom of choice nor the ”Golden Rule”.

Allah? Imaginary!

It’s why I not only oppose Mohamed’s imaginary friend, but also Mohamed’s death cult as well.

SD party leader Jimmie Åkesson:”The multicultural societal elites may see this future as a colorful, interesting change for a Sweden and a Europe one usually denies has ever been ‘Swedish’ or ‘European’. As a Sweden Democrat, I see this as our greatest foreign threat since World War II, and I promise to do everything in my power to reverse this trend when we go to the polls next year.”

 

UK: MUSLIM IN CHARGES OF BBC RELIGION ADMITS ISLAMIC STATE DRIVEN BY ISLAM…….

It’s quite simple really, they’re promoting post-hijra Islam, and Islam is Islam, there is no moderate or radical, it’s just Islam.

Post-Hijra Islam

It’s uncomfortable for many Muslims who are not regular mosque goers and for the bed wetting Leftists and their psuedo conservative lackey colleagues, but it’s the truth. The more people come to terms with this truth, the better.

ISIS jihadis ARE driven by Islam and the world needs to accept that no matter how ‘uncomfortable’ the facts, says the Muslim man in charge of BBC Religion 

  • Aaqil Ahmed defended BBC decision to refer to ‘so-called Islamic State’
  • Told discussion it is untrue that ‘ISIS has nothing to do with Islam’
  • Says although ‘uncomfortable’ members of the group ‘are Muslims’ 
  • Critics including Prime Minister have called on BBC to stop using ‘Islamic State’ when referring to the terror group
  • See more Islamic State news updates at www.dailymail.co.uk/isis

Aaqil Ahmed (pictured), The BBC’s head of religion, has said although it is ‘uncomfortable’ to accept, the ideology behind ISIS is based on Islamic doctrine

The BBC‘s head of religion has said although it is ‘uncomfortable’ to accept, the ideology behind ISIS is based on Islamic doctrine.

Aaqil Ahmed, the first Muslim to hold the post, said it was untrue to suggest that ISIS had nothing to do with Islam, despite the fact that the majority of Muslims do not agree with the extremist group.

He was speaking at an event at Huddersfield University, when he was asked to explain the BBC’s controversial policy on referring to the group as ‘so-called Islamic State’.

Prime Minister David Cameron has been among those who have called for the corporation not to use the phrase when referring to the terror group operating in Iraq and Syria, saying Muslims would ‘recoil’ at the phrase being used to justify the ‘perversion of a great religion’.

Mr Ahmed was asked at the event organised by Lapido, the centre for religious literacy in journalism, to defend the term by barrister Neil Addison on the grounds that he wouldn’t have said ‘so-called Huddersfield University’.

According to a report by Lapido, he responded by saying: ‘I hear so many people say ISIS has nothing to do with Islam – of course it has.

‘They are not preaching Judaism. It might be wrong but what they are saying is an ideology based on some form of Islamic doctrine. They are Muslims.

‘That is a fact and we have to get our head around some very uncomfortable things. That is where the difficulty comes in for many journalists because the vast majority of Muslims won’t agree with them [ISIS].’

Clarifying his comments, he told The Times that he had not been referring explicitly to the name of the group, but that ‘it [was] a reflection of the complexity of how you describe them and the religious belief structure.’

Read more:

RAYMOND IBRAHIM: RADICAL VS. MODERATE ISLAM, A MUSLIM VIEW……

I was present in Helsinki when the then Sec-Gen of the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, fielded a question about ”Islamism”.

” “Well there are many other things to speak of..I don’t know what you mean by eh…this person asked me, “What is the alternative to Islamism?” I don’t know anything called Islamism, I know Islam, in fact I don’t know what Islamism is.”

There is no moderate, radical or secular version, there is just Islam, with all its warts and dismembered body parts.

Islamic researchers are agreed that what the West and its followers call “moderate Islam” and “moderate Muslims” is simply a slur against Islam and Muslims, a distortion of Islam, a rift among Muslims, a spark to ignite war among them.  They also see that the division of Islam into “moderate Islam” and “radical Islam” has no basis in Islam—neither in its doctrines and rulings, nor in its understandings or reality.

‘RADICAL’ VS. ‘MODERATE’ ISLAM: A MUSLIM VIEW

Why “radical” is deemed good and “moderate” bad.

Raymond Ibrahim

Originally published by the Gatestone Institute.

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

After his recent electoral victory, it emerged that Sadiq Khan, London’s first Muslim mayor, had described moderate Muslim groups as “Uncle Toms”—a notorious racial slur used against blacks perceived to be subservient to whites, or, in this context, Muslims who embrace “moderate Islam” as a way of being subservient to the West.

One of Iran’s highest clerics apparently shares the same convictions.  After asserting that “revolutionary Islam is the same as pure Muhammadan Islam,” Ayatollah Tabatabaeinejad recently declared:

Some say our Islam is not revolutionary Islam, but we must say to them that non-revolutionary Islam is the same as American Islam. Islam commands us to be firm against the enemies and be kind and compassionate toward each other and not be afraid of anything….

According to AB News Agency, “Ayatollah Tabatabaeinejad stated that revolutionary Islam is this same Islam. It is the Islam that is within us that can create changes. The warriors realized that Islam is not just prayers and fasting, but rather they stood against the enemies in support of Islam.”

How many Muslims share these convictions, one from a Sunni living (and now governing) in London, the other from a Shia living and governing in the Middle East?

An Arabic language article offers perspective.  Titled (in translation) “The Truth about the Moderate Muslim as Seen by the West and its Muslim Followers,” it is authored by Dr. Ahmed Ibrahim Khadr in 2011.

More here.

DANIEL GREENFIELD ON DAVID PETRAEUS’ STUPID RANT: ”ONLY ISLAM CAN SAVE ISLAM”…….

Another useless meme by those who have their heads in the sand and up their rears……

Ostrich-with-head-in-sand-and up its butt

Daniel nails it as always….

When you’re in a hole, stop digging. Muslim populations are a hole. Immigration is the shovel. Dig deep enough and you’re six feet under.

Only Islam Can Save Us From Islam

In the Washington Post, Petraeus complained about the “inflammatory political discourse that has become far too common both at home and abroad against Muslims and Islam”. The former general warned that restricting Muslim immigration would “undermine our ability to defeat Islamist extremists by alienating and undermining the allies whose help we most need to win this fight: namely, Muslims.”

At Rutgers, Obama claimed that restricting Muslim immigration “would alienate the very communities at home and abroad who are our most important partners in the fight against violent extremism.”

If we alienate Muslims, who is going to help us fight Muslim terrorism?

You can see why Obama doesn’t mention Islamic terrorism in any way, shape or form. Once you drop the “I” word, then the argument is that you need Islam to fight Islam. And Muslims to fight Muslims.

This is bad enough in the Muslim world where we are told that we have to ally with the “moderate” Muslim governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to fight the Muslim terrorists whom they sponsor.

Petraeus has troublingly close ties to the Saudis. He defended their oil dumping program, praised the role of Islamic law in fighting Islamic terrorism and endorsed their Syria plans. While defending the Saudis as allies, he blamed Israel for America’s problems with the Muslim world. The narrative he was using there was the traditional Saudi one in which Israel, not Islam, is the source of the friction.

He defended Pakistan as an ally and claimed to believe the Pakistani excuses that they did not know Osama bin Laden was living right in their military center and that they really wanted to fight the Taliban.

Obama’s “partners” against “violent extremism” have included Muslim Brotherhood terror supporters at home and abroad. He backed Al Qaeda’s LIFG in Libya, Iran’s Shiite terror militias in Iraq, Al Qaeda allies in Syria and those are just a few of the worst examples of his partners against extremism.

Petraeus and Obama view terrorists and state sponsors of terror as important allies. Their policies have led to multiple terrorist attacks against Americans. And they still insist that we need Islamic terrorists as allies to protect us from Islamic terrorists. We need moderate theocrats to protect us from extremist theocrats. We need the Saudis and Pakistanis to save us from the terrorists whom they arm and fund.

But it’s Muslim immigration where their argument really shines.

The United States faces a terror threat because a certain percentage of the Muslim population will kill Americans. Every increase in the Muslim population also increases the number of potential terrorists. Muslim immigration increases the terrorism risk to Americans every single year.

These are undeniable facts.

When you’re in a hole, stop digging. Muslim populations are a hole. Immigration is the shovel. Dig deep enough and you’re six feet under.

Even if the mainstream narrative about a moderate majority and extremist minority were true, how could the cost of Islamic terrorism justify the expansion of even moderate Muslim communities?

More here.

DUSTED OFF AND REPOSTED: MARK DURIE SAYS ISLAM’S TEXT IS ”SUGAR COATED” FOR FOREIGN EARS……

In other words, Islam is much much more harsh than you already know it.

koran koran koran koran

 Arabic writing was far from settled at the claimed time the koran was revealed with possible confusion over consonants and vowels resulting in many possible ‘readings.’   Yet claims are made that it is ‘clear’ or mubeen (eg Koran 5:15, 12:1; 15:1; 26:2; 27:1; 28:2; 43:2; 44:2)

The text is more horrifying and more deadly in the original classical Arabic than in English ‘translations’.

But all these problems are smoothed over and we are fed a sugary version of the ‘meaning’ of the text as the aim is to attract people to Islam and blind us to its real aims. 

Islam’s text is sugar coated in translation:

Dr Mark Durie

Non-Muslims or exMuslims who know Islam’s text in the Arabic and particularly those who know classical Arabic (few people) will tell you that the text is ‘worse’ meaning more horrifying and more deadly in the original classical Arabic than we are led to believe in English ‘translations.’   Islamic terminology carries with it concepts, cultural practices and a worldview belonging to an ancient Arab society.  The words translated into English or modern European languages fail to convey the full meaning that would be understood in an Arabic/Muslim society.

Only the original classical Arabic koran is the true text which cannot be changed and anything else is merely an interpretation and can be ‘modified.’  Dr Mark Durie a linguist and specialist in Islam explains some of the problems with our correct understanding of Islamic text which is often a translation of the ‘meaning’ as explained by the commentaries rather than a direct translation.   He notes that the real meaning can be ‘lost in translation’ with possible disastrous results as we fail to comprehend the real message in Islamic text.

Dr Durie notes — Reading the Quran presents many challenges.  One is that the Arabic of the Quran is often just hard to understand.  It contains many opaque words and expressions, and the mode of expression is often highly elliptical, leaving out material which the reader must infer.

Translations are often ‘translations of meaning’  eg ‘The Noble Koran:  English translations of the meanings and commentary’  — Endowment for allah’s sake from the custodian of the two holy mosques King Abdullah ibn’Abd al-‘Aziz al Sa’ud.

Does the supposedly divine origin of the koran  render it untranslatable?    Or are there problems?

Ibn Warraq (1995) notes the use of  at least 275 ‘foreign’ words ie not Arabic while the koran is supposed to be in perfect Arabic –eg  Hebrew words and concepts plus a great many Aramaic and Syriac words and ideas, also Ethiopic, Persian, and Greek.   The word koran comes from the Syriac  (Warraq 1995  p 108) .

There are variant versions of the koran  so the claim of one pure unaltered version is false.  Immense errors are noted in the style, the broken or missing sequence of events, the poor connection of ideas, sentences where the beginning and end don’t fit grammatically, and phrases and words which are repeated.

“Seemingly unrelated verses often sit side by side, for example, while duplicate material, exact phrases, or even entire verses may be situated in entirely different contexts’(Reuven Firestone, Islamics professor)

Stories from others have been  plagiarised and distorted and are better read and understood from their original, non-Muslim source.  Verses seem to have been added while others are missing and many inconsistencies show that considerable revision has occurred.

More here. H/T: ServandoS.