This is why more people are taking a more hardened line against Islam, the apologists have nothing to offer other than vain, wishful thinking.

Published on Oct 18, 2015
Zeba Khan and Maajid Nawaz debate against Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Douglas Murray to try and prove that Islam is a religion of peace. Spoiler alert: they fail miserably, and that”s not just my bias, that’s how the audience actually felt. The only thing Zeba and Maajid proved was that they wish and hope that Islam will become a religion of peace.

H/T: Gaia


Excellent. We need more undercover exposés like this.

Israeli documentary on Islam in Europe Part 1 

This is part 1 of a new Israeli documentary made right after the Paris attack on the 13th about Islam in Europe and its ambitions for the world. This is the same group that made the excellent Israeli documentary 4 years ago about muslim enclaves within Europe.

Upload Vlad





Research: Islam is the world’s most violent religion

Research: Islam is the world’s most violent religion

Research: Islam is the world’s most violent religion

By: Nicolai Sennels, psychologist

Together with a number of research assistants, the Danish linguist Tina Magaard spent three years examining the texts of the 10 largest religions. The purpose was to investigate whether any of the religions incite violence.

The conclusion was clear: “The texts of Islam is clearly distinct from the other religions texts as it to a higher degree call for violence and aggression against followers of other faiths. There are also direct incitement to terror. … Moreover, in the Qur’an hundreds of invitations to fight against people of other faiths.”

The verses are in black and white and without mitigating context. One of the verses that deal with non-Muslims is: “So when you meet those who disbelieve, strike their necks until you have inflicted slaughter upon them.” (Qur’an, 47: 4).

Violent in practice
Islam is not only the world’s most violent religion in writing. A huge study, based on in-depth interviews with 45,000 subjects confirms that it is also the world’s most violent religion in practice.

The study shows that Islam is the only religion in the world where people become more violent, the stronger they believe in their religion.

More here.


I think so.

lord ahmed jihad for food

I disagree in principle with the equating of diaspora Jews who are demanded to apologize for actions taken by the Israeli government, with that of Muslims being expected to apologize for the terrorist actions being done in the name of Islam.

The former does not represent the political government of the Jewish state, the latter however adheres to, and to some degree, even promotes the ideology which these 7th century throwbacks are acting upon. The duality of the koran makes it ‘their issue’ by default, even if they’re not willing to admit to it.

NOTE: People of course can make up their own minds about this, I don’t always have to agree with people that I greatly respect. That said, I do however agree with a lot of what is written here, what you don’t agree with, or have problems with provides some healthy thought provoking exercises.

This however leads us into a labyrinth, because many lay and religious Muslim leaders and organizations in a multitude of countries explicitly incite to murder. How can they condemn the very acts they promote? How can they condemn killings which they interpret as active adherence to Koranic requirements?

When can one request Muslims – and Jews — to publicly condemn crimes?

Manfred Gerstenfeld
Dr.Manfred GerstenfeldThe recent mass murders by Muslims in Paris raise again the question whether other Muslims are morally obliged to publicly condemn these murders. This issue is directly related to regular demands on Jews in the Diaspora to publicly condemn Israeli actions.

One of the best-known such demands was by the Swedish Social Democrat and part-time anti-Semite Ilmar Reepalu, when he was mayor of Malmö. That town, partly due to his mode of governance, has become perceived by many as the European capital of anti-Semitism.1 2

Why was Reepalu’s demand anti-Semitic? The Jews in Malmö are Swedish, not Israeli, citizens. Why should they distance themselves from acts in a country where they cannot vote, and thus have no say in its policies? What one could reasonably ask of Swedish Jews, or better yet, of representatives of the Jewish communities in that country is that they should condemn crimes committed in Sweden perpetrated by Jews in the name of Judaism. One should expect that in such cases both the rabbis and the lay leaders of Jewish communities there would come out against the crimes. In truth, the issue is for the most part theoretical. Jewish lawbreakers in Sweden usually do not usually claim to do so in the name of Judaism.

What has been said here about Swedish Jews may serve as a guideline of what public statements can reasonably be expected of Muslims after the mass murders in Paris. One has no right whatsoever to insist that individual Muslims or even Muslim organizations abroad express their opinion publicly on the murders. However, as with Sweden’s Jews, lay and religious Muslim leaders in France should be expected to condemn publicly such acts carried out by Muslims in the name of Islam.

This however leads us into a labyrinth, because many lay and religious Muslim leaders and organizations in a multitude of countries explicitly incite to murder. How can they condemn the very acts they promote? How can they condemn killings which they interpret as active adherence to Koranic requirements?

Let us look at where the French imams stand on this issue. Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Associate Dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles published an article on November 15 in which he described a meeting between a SWC delegation and French President François Hollande, which took place a year and a half ago. Cooper wrote that the SWC dean Rabbi Marvin Hier asked the President: “‘How many imams are there in France, and how many have condemned terrorist attacks’? ‘Six thousand imams…and about 10 have publicly spoken out…’ These days the number has been reduced to one: Imam Chalgoumi of Drancy. The others have been cowered into silence…”3 Unsurprisingly perhaps, this imam requires ongoing police protection.

Continue Reading →


He mentions “radical” Islam four times, but launches into exactly what Islam is all about. I can forgive the use of the term “radical”, Islam is Islam, but he forcefully drives home the point on what to do about Islamic state and the rest of the jihadis. His take on mohamed is excellent.

H/T: Vlad


How refreshing…..

Published on Nov 18, 2015
In the November 16 episodes of his show on Al-Khaera Wal-Nas TV, Egyptian journalist Ibrahim Issa discussed the reactions of the Egyptian media and politicians to the Paris terror attacks. Issa criticized the common claim that ISIS “has nothing to do with Islam” as well as the conspiracy theories that attribute terror attacks to Western intelligence agencies. “How can this be a conspiracy when the Congress sends 1.3 billion dollars to Egypt every year?” he asked.


Polite golf clap.

geert-wilders (1)

Wilders: Islam is a hostile Ideology not fitting Western Civilization

In an interview with the daily De Telegraaf Geert Wilders, leader of the Freedom Party (PVV) says that Islam is a hostile ideology, which does not fit Western civilization. He added that almost all terrorists are Muslims and all immigration from Muslim countries should be stopped. Wilders wants to close the Dutch borders and leave the Schengen agreement



And the dumbest of the dumb keep on blithering otherwise…….

“…Islam is a delivery system that fires multiple warheads. And it is happening before our very eyes and with the willing complicity of our preceptorial betters, aka the political class, the intellectual clerisy, the corrupt academy and the media camarilla. It should be recognized, too, that these constituencies are given free rein by the widespread ignorance, complacency or timorousness of those they purport to serve.”

Islamism: An Invented Concept


Indeed, the culture that has sustained us for centuries is being breached, infested, eroded and is ultimately on the verge of being brought down by a primitive horde of invaders who represent its antithesis. They still have a long way to go to approximate the performance of the 18th century Emperor of Morocco Moulay Ismail who, as Lyall Watson recounts in Dark Nature, killed an estimated 30,000 people with his own hands and enjoyed the services of 500 wives. Such exploits may be normally unattainable, fodder for the Guinness Book of Records, but that is no source of consolation.

Regarding the effort by most liberals and some conservatives to lay the blame for Muslim violence on something called “Islamism” rather than Islam, it just won’t wash. The aforementioned Facebooker recently published an op-ed in the National Post in which, pro forma, he flogged the usual stable of spavined horses: distinguishing “Islamism” from Islam; slamming the former Conservative government for the eminently sane proposal to screen the tsunami of Muslims entering Canada; and dating the eruption of “Islamist” violence and Jew-hatred to the 20th century, thus revealing an ignorance of canonical Islam and Islamic history as vast as the desert from which it emerged.

Not content with resting on his juniper bush, he proceeds to argue on behalf of “the world’s democratic, liberal, reformist and otherwise moderate Muslim majority”—which from what I have seen over the last decade must live on some other planet in the distant reaches of the galaxy, perhaps the same planet the author lives on. But the real kicker is his assertion that the “Islamist” vanguard “sets its mission as doing what Muhammad did,” following the words and example of the universally revered founder of the religion. Perhaps this is just another of his characteristic misformulations, but it destroys his thesis rather dramatically. The conclusion to be drawn here is that pro-Muslim advocacy in whatever form is inherently fatuous and incoherent.

“Islamism” is an invented concept, like “Islamophobia” (a synonym for a fictitious “hate crime”). It is meant to make Islam palatable, in the same way “Islamophobia” is meant to marginalize and discredit those who know it is not. The term “Islamism” resembles in an obverse way the sort of homiletic pieties one notes on “brainy quote” plaques affixed above urinals in public rest stops, something meant to make us feel good about something else. We may be relieving ourselves, with or without difficulty, but we learn that nature is beautiful and friendship is a blessing.

“Islamism” is merely a word minted to obscure the truth of Islam as a theo-political ideology camouflaging its claim to world domination under the cloak of religious observances and domestic cultural practices, that is, the jihad of the spirit as cover for the jihad of eternal warfare. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali states—and she should know—“Islam is not a religion of peace. It’s a political theory of conquest that seeks domination by any means it can.” Public affairs consultant J. Robert Smith concurs: “The religion of bloody conquest will keep doing what it was built to do by Mohammed centuries before.” Muslim scholars like the respected Tawfik Hamid, who in his recent Inside Jihad labors to rescue Islam from the jihadist “distortion of the Quran,” are beating a dead camel. Hamid’s core assumption in his effort to “refute the violent edicts of Sharia” is conceptually illegitimate, for it rests on the intrinsic salience or presumed sufficiency of mere interpretation, as if the edicts in question were not what they plainly are but are in need of interpretation, or re-interpretation, as if Kill the Infidel consistently repeated in one form or another were not the explicit, non-interpretable command that it is.

More here


Totally irrelevant and a complete waste of time.

There’s only pre- and post-hijra Islam, with the latter superseding the former.

not in my name

I suggest that any interested party wanting to come to terms with the actual reality of Islam and Muslims in general, read these two pieces, one by Prof. Mordechai Kedar, the other by Prof.Bill Warner.

There is no “radical Islam” and there is also no “moderate Islam”

There is also just one Sharia that includes everything, from the radical cutting off of a thief’s hands to the unquestionably moderate admonition to care for the poor and indigent.

That being the case, there is no “moderate Islam” and no “radical Islam”, just one Islam that incorporates both terms, ranging from extreme radicalism to extreme moderation. In practice, we see people with different cultures, some of them extremists and some moderates, all finding verses, ideas, precedents and laws that support their views on life and society in the same Qu’ran, Hadith, Sura and Sharia. The radical Muslim chooses to quote sources that support his extremist approach, while the moderate Muslim finds sources to buttress his moderate approach.


Statistical Islam Part 5 of 9 – Abrogation and Dualism Dec. 3, 2010

Case 4: Abrogation and Dualism

Not only are there two Korans, Meccan and Medinan, that are different in tone and subject matter, but also the Koran has many verses that contradict each other.

Koran 2:219 says that Muslims should be tolerant and forgiving to People of the Book.
Koran 9:29 says to attack the People of the Book until they pay the jizyah, the dhimmi tax, submit to Sharia law and be humbled.

Which verse shows the true nature of Islam?

NOTE: Drop a line in the comments on your thoughts.


This is what I’ve been saying for years, it’s the inconvenient truth that stops all conversations on “reforming Islam”, or “Islam needs an enlightenment of its own”:

“With the benefit of hindsight, Muslims know where any enlightenment will lead, and will therefore …..reject it.”

islam rejects enlightenment

h/t:  Retweeted 


Thanks to Brian of London (h/t) for this, this is excellent.

Brian: And here, for your entertainment and enlightenment, are a bunch of Lords and Ladies entirely dodging the question. If you regularly attend Alcoholics Anonymous, here’s a safe drinking game for you: take a sip each time one of the respondents mentions the vitally important subject of “abrogation” as Lord Pearson asked.

One of the founders of the British party UKIP, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, took the issue of the Islamic doctrine of abrogation before the House of Lords;

Asked by Lord Pearson of Rannoch

House of Lords Lord Pearson

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, as part of their counter-extremism strategy, they will encourage a national debate about the nature of Islam, including whether the Muslim tenet of abrogation remains valid today.


My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that fairly helpful reply. Some noble Lords may not be aware that abrogation means that, where there is contradiction in the Koran, its later and more violent verses outweigh its admirably peaceful early texts. Is the noble Lord aware that, together with some Koranic scholars, I have written a short summary of Islam, which I will send him, and that we are asking the Guardian newspaper to hold an

What ensued was a classic example of know-nothings and islamo-apologists using every known boilerplate excuse and rhetorical trick in the book, in order not to address the simple question at hand, posed by the esteemed Lord.

“Does the Islamic doctrine of abrogation remain valid  today?”

Read the transcript at Israellycool.

NOTE: To understand what the doctrine of abrogation is all about, once more Stephen Coughlin at the CSP conference on the Muslim Brotherhood. To understand the koran, and to get the full drift of the islamic doctrine of abrogation, you have to read it in chronological order, not from how it’s traditionally compiled, from shortest to longest works.


With the benefit of hindsight, the muslims will not embark on same route of the Jews and Christians which lead to their modern societies of democratic pluralism.


Hizb ut-Tahrir spokesman, Uthman Badar, said Islam was not up for negotiation.

“Islam is not up for negotiation or reform. Islam is what it is.”

‘Islam is not up for negotiation or reform. Islam is what it is’

Date November 2, 2015 – 1:32AM

Wassim Doureihi called for unity on issues that affect the Muslim community.Wassim Doureihi called for unity on issues that affect the Muslim community. Photo: Daniel Munoz

“There needs to be unity on issues that affect us as a whole, particularly when the target is Islam itself,” prominent Hizb ut-Tahrir member, Wassim Doureihi, said.

“There needs to be unity on issues that affect us as a whole, particularly when the target is Islam itself,” prominent Hizb ut-Tahrir member, Wassim Doureihi, said.

Read more:

From Norway:


Islam just isn’t kosher.

Not surprising that hard core Leftists (this one of the racist ultra-nationalist variety) would gravitate to Islam. Totalitarians think alike.

islamonazis in syria with koran and fascist salute 30.9.2013

“Judaism and Islam as Opposites,” a 1942 essay by Nazi convert to Islam, Johannes ‘Omar Amin’ von Leers, (d. 1965)

Readers are referred to my previous blog for additional background, on Johannes “Omar Amin” von Leers. There is a reference in Leers’ 1942 essay, translated below, to Muhammad Sabri’s “Islam, Judentum, und Bolschewismus.” This 1938 work by Sabri included the 1937 “fatwa” on the Jews by Leers’ mentor, and eventual Muslim namesake, Hajj Amin el-Husseini, which I have analyzed at length (published here; and as a free pdf here).


Johannes von Leers, “Judentum und Islam als Gegensatze,” Die Judenfrage in Politik, Recht, and Wirtschaft 6, no. 24 (December 24, 1942): 275–78; translated by Steven Rendall. Reproduced from my The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, 2008, pp. 619-625.


It is of some interest to read Jewish historians from time to time, not because we can find truth in them, but in order to gain insight into the psychology of Jews. Here we are concerned with one such case that is highly unique—whenever the Jews happen to discuss Muhammad and Islam, they are exceptionally hostile, indeed hateful. For example, Simon Dubnow, in his General History of the Jewish People (Berlin, 3: 282 ff.) [1] describes Muhammad, but does not fail to note that he was not able to read, and then adds the following:

Thus in the mind of this half-Bedouin there ripened the idea of monotheism, which in him became a fiery passion that drove him to engage in a “holy war” in which any means was permissible. For Muhammad, the knowledge of God was in no way connected with the sublime ethical consciousness that makes the ethical monotheism of the biblical prophets and the one-sided evangelical doctrine of “not of this world” so attractive. The life of Muhammad reveals neither an enchanting personality nor an embodiment of the highest ethical principles capable, even more than the abstract idea, of captivating pious souls. The life of the “Emissary of Allah” and the Qur’an itself are full of examples of how the founder of a religion should not speak and behave. Behind the mask of a prophet we find only too often the eye of a half-savage; the Prophet’s inspiration is overshadowed by the crude passion of the Bedouin who ruthlessly murders in war and does not hesitate to carry off the wives or daughters of the men he murders in order to add them to his harem. All these character traits of Muhammad are particularly clear in his behavior with regard to Jews in Arabia.

This is not historical writing, but rather a campaign of hatred and libel. [2] First of all, Muhammad was neither a Bedouin nor a half-Bedouin; instead, he was a member of the old family of urban nobility in Mecca, the Quraysh, so the Jewish critic Dubnow obviously has not read the Qur’an, since he makes such an egregious error. But one thing this passage surely betrays—the Jews’ mortal hatred, fourteen hundred years later, for the man who gave birth to the most recent and, in many respects, the most successful of the world religions. The clash between Muhammad and Jewry is not well known, but is actually very interesting. Even before Emperor Titus’s destruction of Jerusalem (70 CE) there were already a few Jews in Arabia, and after the destruction of Jerusalem large groups emigrated to Arabia, settled in Arabian cities, and there carried on active agitation on behalf of Judaism. The three tribes, Banu Qaynuqa, Banu Nadir, and Banu Qurayza, took up residence especially in the city of Yathrib, while other Jews settled in Khaybar, Fadak, Taima, and Wadi-el-Kura—cities that were in fact fully under their control. There were also Jewish groups in southern Arabia, as far south as Aden. The Jews consciously pursued their mission; if many Jewish tribes had the same particularist spirit, the same tribal feuds, and the same customs of blood revenge as the Arabs, this was frequently not because the Jews were becoming Arabized, but on the contrary because in these Jewish tribes there were many converted Arabs. However, the headquarters of the area taken over by the Jews was Yathrib, from which emanated Jewish agitation; there, the three previously mentioned Jewish tribes had intervened in the conflicts between the two largest Arab tribes, the Aws and the Khazraj (sometimes referred to collectively as Banu Qayla), [3] which they incited against each other and in this way took control over the city. This penetration was achieved by means of economic activity, settlement, and trade, but above all by the Jews’ spiritual influence. To be sure, Christian influences from Byzantium and Abyssinia were also involved, but of the foreign religious creeds Judaism was the most widespread, active, and successful.

The Jews later sought to prove how much Islam had borrowed from Judaism. It is characteristic of Judaism’s vanity that it always sees itself as the origin of all new knowledge. In reality some external respects in which Islam and Judaism agree were borrowed not from Judaism but rather from ancient Oriental folk customs.

More here at Bostom’s


It’s like I’ve been saying all along. The jihad is not just against the Jews of Israel, it’s against all of us who stand in the way of the political theory of Islamic conquest.



You can’t co-exist with people who want to kill you

Daniel Greenfield

You can’t co-exist with people whose most fundamental belief is that they must either kill you or enslave you. It’snever going to work. That’s a difficult lesson for American liberals to learn.

Richard Lakin, a 76-year-old former of principal of Glastonbury’s Hopewell School, died of gunshot and stab wounds after a Muslim terror attack on a bus in the Jewish city of Jerusalem.

An American-Israeli man who was critically wounded in a Jerusalem terrorist attack two weeks ago died Tuesday morning.

Richard Lakin, 76, is the third victim of the attack, in which two Arab terrorists boarded a bus traveling between the capital’s Jewish neighborhood of Armon Hanatziv and neighborhood of Arab Jabel Mukaber, and opened fire on the passengers. Once they were out of ammunition, the terrorists began stabbing passengers.

Haviv Haim, 78, and Alon Govberg, 51, were killed instantly, while Lakin, who sustained a gunshot wound to the head and a stab wound to the chest, was rushed to Hadassah Ein Kerem Hospital in Jerusalem in critical condition. Ten other passengers sustained moderate-to-light injuries in the attack.

More here. h/t: Finland stands with Israel


Islamohucksters (apologist propagandists) like Reza Aslan and MoZJ peddle the nonsense that Islam can be reformed as well as “the rest of the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world are just getting it all wrong, especially in the heartland of Islam, Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran.

NOTE: For doughheads looking for any avenue out of the 1400 year long Islamic conquest of the world, the two just mentioned are the placebo that they’ve been waiting for.


Welcome to the game of hiding what’s in the Koran.

Dr. Stephen M. Kirby

Fantasy Islam: A game in which an audience of non-Muslims wish with all their hearts that Islam was a “Religion of Peace,” and a Muslim strives to fulfill that wish by presenting a personal version of Islam that has little foundation in Islamic Doctrine.

As I have mentioned before, “Fantasy Islam” is a popular game among many non-Muslims and so-called “moderate” or “reformist” Muslims.  Reza Aslan appears to be such a Muslim.

Reza Aslan was born in Iran.  In 1979, at the age of seven, he and his family fled the Iranian Revolution and came to the United States.  At the age of 15 he converted to evangelical Christianity, but later returned to Islam.  His website states that he is “an internationally acclaimed writer and scholar of religions.”  He is currently a Professor of Creative Writing at the University of California, Riverside.

In 2005 Aslan wrote a book titled No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam. The updated edition came out in 2011.  This article addresses that updated edition.

It should be noted that in his book Aslan listed The Life of Muhammad and the multi-volume work The History of al-Tabari, as among the books he “consulted.”  These are classical works by Muslim scholars and major sources for information about Muhammad and Islam.  Aslan even specifically mentions them as among those that have “catalogued” the story of Islam (p. xxiv).  Unfortunately, although Aslan claims that he “consulted” them, we will see that he apparently overlooked conflicting information in these works in favor of playing Fantasy Islam.

More here.


He’s a black turbaned ayatollah, meaning he says he’s descended from mohamed.

Like i’ve said for a long while, if mohamed was around today, he’d be palling with the 7th century throwbacks of the islamic state.


Offensive Jihad: the insurmountable obstacle between Muslims and non-Muslims.

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

During a recent televised interview with Grand Ayatollah Ahmad al-Baghdadi, the leading Shia cleric of Iraq made clear why Islam and the rest of the world can never peacefully coexist.

First he spent some time discussing “defensive jihad,” saying that all capable Muslims are obligated to fight for the “liberation” of “occupied” territory, for instance, Israel (see here for a list of European countries also deemed “occupied” in the eyes of Islam).

He then explained “offensive jihad,” Islam’s primary bloodline, which forged what we now call the “Muslim world” over the centuries.

According to the ayatollah, when they can—when circumstance permits it, when they are strong enough—Muslims are obligated to go on the offensive and conquer non-Muslims (a fact to be kept in mind as millions of Muslim “refugees” flood the West).

The Muslim cleric repeatedly yelled at the secularized host who kept interrupting him and protesting that Islam cannot teach such intolerance.  At one point, he burst out: “I am the scholar of Islam [al-faqih].  You are just a journalist.  Listen to me!”

Expounded Al-Baghdadi:

If they are people of the book [Jews and Christians] we demand of them the jizya—and if they refuse, then we fight them.  That is if he is Christian. He has three choices: either convert to Islam, or, if he refuses and wishes to remain Christian, then pay the jizya [and live according to dhimmi rules].

But if they still refuse—then we fight them, and we abduct their women, and destroy their churches—this is Islam!… Come on, learn what Islam is, are you even a Muslim?!

As for the polytheists [Hindus, Buddhists, etc.] we allow them to choose between Islam and war!  This is not the opinion of Ahmad al-Husseini al-Baghdadi, but the opinion of all five schools of jurisprudence [four Sunni and one Shia].

More here.


This Arab journalist has been bandied about in the social media over the last 24 or so hrs, for her anger on what her fellow co-religionists have been doing, murder and mayhem in J’lem and around the country. While I do commend her for her un-islamic views on the need to stop the bloodshed, she’s however completely ignorant of her co-religionists reliance on classic islamic texts that motivate and validate their murder lust of Jews.

She (Lucy Aharish) rejects Islam 101 and that is to be applauded, but her ignoramus statements of:

“What god are we talking about? That allows for children to go out and murder innocent people?” 

….are typical of people who do not follow the basic tenants of Islam (which is to be applauded, the not following aspect of it, that is), who are genuinely appalled by what people are doing, and have for some reason refused/or ignorant of in connecting the dots to islam 101 (basic mohammedan islam)