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.

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


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:


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.


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.


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.


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.




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:


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.”



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

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:


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.


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.


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.


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.


Professor Gad Saad interviews psychologist Nicolai Sennels on Islamic mentality

Professor Gad Saad interviews psychologist Nicolai Sennels on Islamic mentality

Watch the video interview here (there’s no embed).

“We explore the unique mindsets of Muslim criminals in Denmark, an exploration of the violence prescribed in Islamic texts, immigration policies, and Islamic reform, among other topics.

Correction:At the 46 minute, 44 seconds mark, I misspoke.Mushriqun refers to idolaters and polytheists whereasMunafiqun refers to hypocrites.

Note: Apologies for some technical difficulties that arose during the taping and for some echo (in terms of the audio quality).  I have edited a few seconds out that were dead air time; otherwise the clip is whole.

Nicolai’s Twitter account: @NicolaiSennels”


H/T: Nicolai Sennels


Of course Islam is a scourge on mankind, it’s as plain as the nose our our faces…….

Lebanese bishop

Carreira mainly sees a threat to Western countries, and that is above all Islam. “I would say that Islam is the worst plague that  humanity has seen in the past 2000 years.”. Islam is “completely unable” to develop, respect for human dignity.
For Muslims it is therefore “impossible to respect human rights and the Western tradition”.

Jesuit Manuel Carreia: “Islam, the Worst Plague the Human Race Has Ever Seen”


(Madrid) the famous astrophysicist and Jesuit, Father Manuel Carreira, has said “Islam, the worst plague that the human race has ever seen.”<

In an interview Carreira had indirectly responded  to a discussion on West Germany and said that one could not plausibly claim that “Islam is compatible with the rights of a European nation”.

Astrophysicist and Jesuit

The Spaniard Manuel Maria Carreira Verez SJ became famous mainly as an astrophysicist, but also as a philosopher and theologian. Since 1974 he is a member of the Vatican Specula, was an employee at numerous NASA projects in the United States and taught more than 30 years at various universities, including the John Carroll University in the US and the Pontifical University of Comillas in Spain.

In an interview with El Español he addressed some current issues, including the migration crisis, the relationship between the West and Islam, and the relationship between the state and Church.

The State must preserve Christian heritage, he does not want to jeopardize its existence

“The state need not impose any specific religious behavior,” but it has to be taken into account, that the Western countries are based on Christian ethics, because this has formed these States and made them what they are and what is necessary to defend.

“The Catholicity is a central key element in the development of the state”, which applies to all of Western Europe. Therefore, the European countries could not accept the abolition of Christianity without putting their very existence at risk.

There is growing secularization, and this was “up to a certain point, even desirable, because religion must not be a political element.” But the state has the task and duty to protect its Christian heritage as part of the common good.

Islam is “completely unable” to respect human dignity and human rights

Carreira mainly sees a threat to Western countries, and that is above all Islam. “I would say that Islam is the worst plague that  humanity has seen in the past 2000 years.”. Islam is “completely unable” to develop, respect for human dignity.

For Muslims it is therefore “impossible to respect human rights and the Western tradition”.

A Muslim in Europe “denies either this respect, then is an internal threat to Europe, or he accepts European thought, which means he is an unbeliever and is dead according to Islamic understanding.” Either way, “there is no positive contribution by Islam to a modern society that is respectful of the fundamental rights of every human being,” said Carreira.

Idea of the multicultural state “an intellectual blunder”

H/T  & via


Freedom scarf my eye, it’s political/religious oppression.

It’s a sharia symbol to tell the neighbourhood that you’ve arrived, and takeover is just a matter of time.

On the surface, a wide garment, scarf, or hijab looks like a piece of cloth. But, in fact, the dominating power of this piece of cloth is extraordinary. The idea is that once I can control your body, and once I can confine your body, I basically own you.


The widespread misconception about Islamic covering among leftists in the West.

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh

I spent most of my life in the Islamic Republic of Iran and Syria until a few years ago. Now, living in the West, I am stunned with all misconceptions and misleading information about Islam. It seems to me that this stems from a large propaganda campaign coming from various platforms ranging from the dominant liberal media to Western Muslim scholars who have never lived in an Islamic country, but only read books published in the West. Liberals are brainwashed to view the West as the victimizers and the Muslims as the victims.

While covering all the misconceptions would require hundreds of books, I am going to only address the truth about the hijab in this article and the fallacies that are taught to ordinary people in the West about veiling, Muslim women, and the idea of victimhood.

(I have covered other truths and aspects of Islam in my memoir, Allah: A God Who Hates Women.)

Two of my own sisters have gone through the phases of wearing the hijab. I believe that the repression and domination of women in the Muslim world begins with the dress code — wearing a scarf, or hijab; wearing wide garments, chador; and hiding the body. In other words, the religion of Islam provides the language for men to dominate women by Sharia law, which takes possession of a women’s body from the moment a girl is born.

On the surface, a wide garment, scarf, or hijab looks like a piece of cloth. But, in fact, the dominating power of this piece of cloth is extraordinary. The idea is that once I can control your body, and once I can confine your body, I basically own you.

I believe and personally witnessed that wearing a scarf and wearing a wide garment, do not have anything to do with divine religious rules, as some ignorant imams or Muslims attempt to promote. Hijab is the first crucial step to possess a woman and make her follower of Islam.

I argue that the process of enforcing the hijab on women and making it feel natural to them is carried out through several institutional and psychological steps.

The First Phase: Indoctrination

The first phase is indoctrinating the idea of hiding one’s hair and body in the mind of a woman. The process of indoctrination begins from the moment a baby girl is born.

One concrete example is my sisters. They were forced to wear the hijab at the age of 8 in the schools of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Syria. So even before girls reach the age that they can make decisions, before they know right from wrong, they are indoctrinated to hide their body.  From age 3 or 4, they are repeatedly told about the “nice” things that will happen to them when they wear their hijab, and how they will be a good girl and be treated as a mature girl when they hide their body.

More here.


The comparison between the mohammedan creed and national socialism ( and traditional socialist thinking as well) is a credible one. It will anger many, and perhaps amuse some, but the facts are there.

ein mo and ad

National Socialism is the ideology of peace

Since this (post) was removed a moment ago for being “inappropriate”, I put it back in a slightly revised version. If this is removed, I would like to see the point where I am posing inappropriate content to anyone. The text is plain facts of history and picked from the Koran and Mein Kampf.

Before I was wondering how that Islam is a religion of peace, because the whole Qur’an is full of hate speech, racism, sexism and incitement to war and call for the killing of infidels. I heard the imam supporting the religion of Islam to be of peace, because when the whole world is subjected to Islam, and all adhere to Sharia law, there will be world peace.

In this same logic, National Socialism is the ideology of peace and the Nazis are holy, peaceful apostles who spread the message of peace.

National Socialism and Islam are very much similar to each other and both of their history, teachings, and disseminations are very much alike. In this post I compare Hitler, the leader of National Socialism, the holy book of Mein Kampf, as well as the leader of Islam, Muhammad, and his holy book the Koran.

Both of them are on an equal footing, dictators, who came to power through violence and seized power.

Both have a dictator’s holy book, the Koran and Mein Kampf.

Both think they are on God’s errand. The views of God are different in each other yes, but the ideas are substantially the same.

Both feel that they are privileged, and their violence is justified.

In Islam, people are divided into broadly two categories, believers and non-believers.

In Mein Kampf people are classified into three different groups, the founders of culture, the bearers of culture, the destroyers of culture, Eg. Aryans developed, Asians bore it, and the Jews destroyed it.

In these books of the conquering of the world and the killing of people is based on a slightly different perspectives: Islam wants to kill infidels, just because they are infidels.

8:39. “And fight them until there is no longer the worship of idols, but God alone”

In Mein Kampf Hitler again sees the survival of the Aryan race of vital importance that there is enough land on which to live. During the thousands of years of the Reich, this would mean the subordination of the whole world.

More here in Finnish. H/T: Kumitonttu

NOTE: It’s not bigotry and intolerance to point out bigotry and intolerance and pure tyranny.



WE HAVE BEEN WARNING ABOUT THIS FOR YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now we see the reason for the weak-in-the-knees by our elected officials, after decades of championing this disaster, they now see that their number is up. We’re now told to play nice to Muslims by the very people who said we were hyping the danger that they pose. Morons!

Europe ‘to have more Muslims than Christians’: Belgian minister warns Brussels attacks hearing that the continent should not ‘make an enemy of Islam’

Muslims will ‘very soon’ outnumber practising Christians in Europe, a Belgian minister claimed yesterday

Muslims will ‘very soon’ outnumber practising Christians in Europe, a Belgian minister claimed yesterday

  • Koen Geens said the continent ‘does not realise this, but this is the reality’ 
  • Remarks follow Jan Jambon’s claims in the wake of Brussels bombings ‘a section of the Muslim community danced when attack took place’
  • Mr Jambon was accused of stoking tensions with Belgium’s Muslims 

Muslims will ‘very soon’ outnumber practising Christians in Europe, a Belgian minister claimed yesterday.

Koen Geens, the justice minister, told the European Parliament the continent ‘does not realise this, but this is the reality’.

At a hearing by MEPs into the Brussels attacks, the Belgian deputy prime minister Jan Jambon added that ‘the worst thing we can do is to make an enemy of Islam’.

The remarks follow claims by Mr Jambon in the wake of the suicide bombings that ‘a significant section of the Muslim community danced when attacks took place’.

Speaking before the Parliament’s justice and home affairs committee yesterday, Mr Koens said the EU needed to realise a shift in population was taking place.

‘In Europe, very shortly we’re soon going to have more practising Muslims than practising Christians,’ he said.

‘That is not because there are too many Muslims, it is because Christian are generally less practising.

‘Europe does not realise this, but this is the reality.’

More here.


What a bunch of bull crap…….

Christians and Jews, Hindus and Buddhists all over the world are being persecuted for their faith and ethnicity by Muslims (relying on classical Islamic texts for validation) and do not behave like Muslims. Hindus, Buddhists, Jews and Christians in the US/West are not creating terror cells to carry out attacks on Muslims anywhere that they can find them because, Muslims elsewhere, are murdering their co-religionists. Only Muslims are doing that because the koran and other Islamic texts sanction it.

NOTE: The problem is Islam itself, in particular, Post-Hijra Islam, the Medina period that abrogates the Meccan period. Full stop. Do not be taken in by these propaganda spin-meisters.

‘Swedes must realize only soft power can defeat radicalism’

'Swedes must realize only soft power can defeat radicalism'

File photo: Mstyslav Chernov/Wikimedia

Published: 20 Apr 2016 07:39 GMT+02:00

The pen is mightier than the sword, the old saying goes. The challenge presented by radical Islamic extremism to the civilized world is one that cannot be defeated solely by military means; it is the nature of such radicalism to metastasize and grow when it is physically attacked.

This is because extremism of this sort is based on the belief that Islam is besieged and persecuted by armies of infidels and it is the duty of “true” Muslims to kill in its defense. The fact that the shocking attacks in Brussels last month came just days after the arrest of one of the planners of the recent Paris attacks demonstrates this martyr effect.

Swedes shouldn’t overlook the significance that one of the suspects in the attacks became radicalized in Malmö. Why were ideas grounded in hate and violence more attractive than the tolerance and understanding typically associated with Swedish values?

One source of strength and strategic advantage among these radicals is in their belief that terrorism is sanctioned by God. This is the great “mirage” of extremism and no amount of military hardware can defeat it.

Rather, extremism must die in the battlefield of ideas.

More here.