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


You can rest assured that the taqiyya spewing imam Ibn Bayyah was not relating any of this to his ignoramus Finnish “friends” while visiting Helsinki today, in fact, it was quite the opposite

sheik bin ballah kicked out

There is only Islam. There is but the “pre” and “post” hijra text of Islam, (which you’ll discover by reading the koran chronologically) with the latter superseding the former according to the doctrine of abrogation.

An Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood supporter

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

The two expressions were coined by those who think that the real Islam is the moderate one and that the radicals hijacked it.

Published: Thursday, November 12, 2015 10:47 AM

Dr. Mordechai Kedar is a senior lecturer in the Department of Arabic at…

Beginning more or less with 9/11, the expression “radical Islam” became the accepted way for the media, politicians and public to define the religious and ideological foundations of Islam-based violence when referring to what the world calls “terror.” This expression was meant to be contrasted with “moderate Islam” which presents Muslims as ordinary people who wish to live in peace with all of mankind – Christians, Jews, Buddhists, unbelievers and the rest of us. The world created the image of two Islams, one radical and impossible to live with, and one moderate and “just like us.”

This differentiation between “radical” and “moderate” Islam is what gave rise to the claim that Islam had been “hijacked” by the radicals, implying that the real and original Islam is the moderate, not the false, radical one.

This is what allows today’s Europe to relate positively to the wave of mostly-Muslim illegal immigrants washing up on its shores – they represent “moderate Islam” and all they want is to live in peace and harmony with their European neighbors.

Permit me to raise some doubts concerning the psychological mindset that claims the existence of two types of Islam. In order to do this, let us clarify an important point: Islam is a text-based framework of ideas and behaviors, covering religion, culture, strictures, politics, law and economics. It is an all-embracing way of life. The most basic text is the Qu’ran, followed by the Hadith (oral law) and the Sura – biography – of Muhammad. The Sharia, Muslim law, is a system of binding laws and injunctions that Muslims are obliged to obey.

There are no two Islams, no moderate one and no radical one, there is just one Qu’ran that includes everything: verses on Jihad and all out war against unbelievers along with verses that speak of recognizing the “other” and living beside him.

There are no two types of hadith, one radical and the other moderate; there is just one body of hadith that includes everything, both violent and moderate ideas.

Muhammad does not have a moderate biography and a radical one; there is only one life story of the prophet of Islam and it has stories that express a radical, violent approach and others presenting a moderate one.

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.

Continue Reading →


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 


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)


And Cameron’s failure is to call it “Islamism”, when it’s just Islam.

The only reason these feckless politicians are having a problem in naming the actual threat, is that it’s followed by 1.6 billion muslims. If it was a new found cult of a few thousand or even a hundred thousand, carrying out the exact same type of brutal murder & mayhem, subjugation of non-believers, enslavement and brutal punishments for perceived violations of its code, then the response by the West (and the rest of the world9 would be drastically different.

NOTE: We need to shift focus away from the actual number of Muslims, to the threat this ideology poses to mankind. We can’t afford to knee-jerk this issue anymore.

Cameron Calls Out Obama for Failure to Name Islamism

UK Prime Minister David Cameron (Photo: Screenshot from video)

UK Prime Minister David Cameron (Photo: Screenshot from video)

U.S. President Barack Obama has drawn fire in the UN from UK Prime Minister David Cameron this week over Obama’s refusal to name the Islamist ideology specifically as the root cause of violent extremism.

Obama cautioned a gathering of international leaders not to profile Muslims specifically on the grounds that “violent extremism is not unique to any one faith.”

“Barack, you said it and you’re right — every religion has its extremists,” Cameron countered. “But we have to be frank that the biggest problem we have today is the Islamist extremist violence that has given birth to ISIL, to al-Shabab, to al-Nusra, al Qaeda and so many other groups.”

“The boy who straps a bomb to his chest and blows up an Iraqi town, the guy that stands in the desert with a knife, having just beheaded a British hostage or whoever, they don’t get there from a standing start” Cameron went on to say.

More here. H/T: Buck


The fraud that is islam.


Held up to the same scientific scrutiny as other faiths have been, and the koran falls apart like a house of cards in a sand storm.

“If the [carbon] dates apply to the parchment and the ink, and the dates across the entire range apply, then the Koran — or at least portions of it — pre-dates Muhammad, and moves back the years that an Arabic literary culture is in place well into the 500s.

“This gives more ground to what have been peripheral views of the Koran’s genesis, like that Muhammad and his early followers used a text that was already in existence and shaped it to fit their own political and theological agenda, rather than Muhammad receiving a revelation from heaven.


Fragments of an early Koran found in a Birmingham library may rewrite Islamic history after carbon dating revealed they could be older than Mohammed.

Scientists at the University of Oxford had already revealed that the parchment was among the oldest known Koranic texts in the world, but now several historians say it could be so old that it pre-dates the Muslim prophet, thus contradicting traditional accounts of his life and radically altering “the edifice of Islamic tradition.”

The dating reveals the text to have been written between AD568 and 645, while the dates of Mohammed’s life are traditionally given as AD570 to 632. This means that at the very latest it was written before the first formal texts were supposed to have been collated, and at the earliest it was written before or shortly after Mohammed was born.

Some academics now say that the impact of the text could be comparable to finding a copy of the Gospels dating back to before the time of Christ.

Historian Tom Holland told the Sunday Times that evidence was now mounting that traditional accounts of Islam’s origins are wrong.

“It destabilises, to put it mildly, the idea that we can know anything with certainty about how the Koran emerged — and that in turn has implications for the historicity of Muhammad and the Companions [his followers],” he said.

Other very old Korans also seem to confirm that written texts were circulating before Mohammed’s death.

Needless to say, Muslim academics have disputed the claims. Mustafa Shah of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) said: “If anything, the manuscript has consolidated traditional accounts of the Koran’s origins.”

Meanwhile, Shady Hekmat Nasser from the University of Cambridge said: “We already know from our sources that the Koran was a closed text very early on in Islam, and these discoveries only attest to the accuracy of these sources.”

Dr Keith Small, a Koranic manuscript consultant at Oxford’s Bodleian Library, admits the carbon dating applies to the parchment, not the ink, while the calligraphy is characteristic of a later style.

Nevertheless, he believes the dates are probably correct and could raise serious questions for Islam.

More here.

NOTE: Muslims so enraged over the news they’re burning korans faster than the local suq can sell them!


The measures meted out against the perceived violators of islamic norms usually hit the weakest of society, women, minorities and the infirmed.

This is Islam 101, this is sharia law, and wherever sharia law is declared the de facto law of the land, in some form or another, gross violations of human civil rights occur. Street vigilantism takes over when the state is not enforcing the entirety of the sharia, with the state either turning a blind eye to the atrocities, or handing out watered down sentences.

NOTE: Remember folks, these women face an inhuman existence if victimized by family members (or highly regarded friends of the family) who rape them. They are the ones who bear the supposed shame of ”enticing” the male to rape them and on the receiving end of whatever that society has in store for them.

From Gates:

Czechs Protest the Stoning of Women Under Islam

Popular sentiment against further Muslim immigration into the Czech Republic is increasing. The latest manifestation of resistance is a series of exhibits in the public parks of Prague, featuring veiled female effigies representing women who have been stoned to death under Islam.

Our Czech correspondent Margita, who sent the tip about the article, includes this note:

It appears that the Czechs continue to be ‘original’ in their fight against Islam. When talking to my friends they all seem to be pretty suspicious about the ‘religion of peace’…

The following report was published at ČeskéNoviny.cz. It’s refreshing to read that the police in Prague “have not come across any breach of the law” on the part of those who created the exhibits. What a far cry from the oppressive situation in Sweden or the UK!

Statues of Stoned Women Are in Prague in Protest Against Islam

Prague — The followers of the We Do Not Want Islam in the Czech Republic and the Bloc Against Islam groups this morning installed the torsos of the women stoned to death in order to warn of the danger of Islam, Prague police spokesman Tomas Hulan has told journalists.

The effigies covered by white cloths tainted with colour as blood and surrounded by stones have appeared in a number of places in Prague, Hulan said.

The police are dealing with the affair, but they have not come across any breach of the law, he added.

The installations include the captions such as “Pregnant after Rape” or “She was unfaithful” pointing out the alleged reasons for being stoned to death.

Continue reading


The big difference being, Muslims in Spain where usurping conquerors, and Jews, being at one time, welcomed immigrants, who’s offspring have lived there for centuries only to be kicked out after Muslim rule was overturned.

NOTE: A lying tard is still a lying tard, even when boiled in sesame seed oil.


The Spanish government is  offering citizenship to the descendants of formerly exiled Spanish Jews. No longer will such Jews actually have to travel to Spain; they need only “hire a Spanish notary and pass tests on the Spanish language and history.”

With Spain’s Jews offered a right to return, now Muslims are also demanding the same. Indeed, Morisco-Moroccan journalist, Ahmed Bensalh, has argued that the departure of Muslims who left for Muslim North Africa, and who now number up to five million, amounts to “flagrant segregation and unquestionable discrimination.”

Other Muslim journalists are demanding that Spain treat Muslims just as they are now willing to treat Jews. Jamal Bin Ammar al-Ahmar has written directly to the Spanish Monarch demanding an apology and a “full legal and historical investigation of the war crimes that were perpetrated on the Muslim population of Andalusia by the French, English, European, and papal crusaders.”

Outrageous, clever, typical. The Muslims had occupied Spain as invaders. They were expelled to end their occupation. Jose Ribeiro e Castro, one of the Portuguese lawmakers “who drafted Portugal’s law of return for Sephardic Jews, puts it this way: ‘Persecution of Jews was just that, while what happened with the Arabs was part of a conflict. There is no basis for comparison.’”

More here.


Thank you for that clarification.


“Islam was never for a day the religion of peace, Islam is the religion of war”


“Islam was never for a day the religion of peace, Islam is the religion of war” said Caliph Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi during his recorded speech breaking a prolonged period of silence. He released a 35-minute audio message to his followers in which he urged Muslims around the world to travel to Iraq and Syria and join up with the Islamic State. What the media ignored is that the bulk of Al-Baghdadi’s speech focused mostly on convincing Muslims to end Al-Saud (the Rulers of Saudi Arabia). Al-Baghdadi’s speech was regarding Armageddon:

Our Prophet (peace be upon him) has informed us of the Malāhim (Armageddon). He gave us good tidings and promised us that we would be victorious in these battles. He is the truthful and trustworthy, peace be upon him. And here we are today seeing the signs of those Malāhim and we feel the winds of victory within them.

He referred to the end of Al-Saud in the context of the apocalypse calling them “Āl Salūl”, the derogatory name used for Al-Saud. He was accusing the Saudi rulers of descending from Abdullah Ibn Abi Salūl, an enemy of Prophet Muhammad.

In Islam it was suggested to Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, that Abdullah Ibn Abi Salūl should be killed because of the divisive and subversive role he played against Islam as he led a faction that Muslims consider “the hypocrites” or ‘the Judas of their time’ and held a deep seated enmity to the Prophet of Islam.

Read more:


Sooner (hopefully) or later, the majority of people will truly come to understand what Islam is all about, and loathe it.

Published on May 12, 2015
In an Al-Aqsa Mosque address, posted on the Internet on May 1, Sheik ‘Issam Amira said that polytheist enemies should be given three options: “They must convert to Islam, or pay the jizya poll tax, or else, you should seek the help of Allah and fight them.” “You should fight them even if they do not fight you,” Amira stressed.


No comment.

Women must give husbands sex ‘even on camels’, Islamic scholar says


Monday April 27, 2015

Perak Mufti Tan Sri Harussani Zakaria said that men can always have sexual intercourse with their spouses even if the latter do not agree, saying that a Muslim woman has “no right” to reject her husband’s demand. — Picture by Choo Choy May

Perak Mufti Tan Sri Harussani Zakaria said that men can always have sexual intercourse with their spouses even if the latter do not agree, saying that a Muslim woman has “no right” to reject her husband’s demand. — Picture by Choo Choy MayKUALA LUMPUR, April 27 — While insisting that the concept of marital rape does not exist in Islam, religious scholars say it is sinful for a Muslim man to force his wife to have sex when she is ill or menstruating.

Perak Mufti Tan Sri Harussani Zakaria said that men can always have sexual intercourse with their spouses even if the latter do not agree, saying that a Muslim woman has “no right” to reject her husband’s demand.

“Even the Prophet says even when they’re riding on the back of the camel, when the husband asks her, she must give.

“So there’s no such thing as rape in marriage. This is made by European people, why should we follow?” he told Malay Mail Online when contacted yesterday as he cited the hadith or reported teachings of Prophet Muhammad.

Harussani claimed that Europe itself did not regard women highly before creating the concept of marital rape after the 18th century when Europeans came into contact with the Muslims and were attempting to improve Islamic laws.

– See more at:


Ben-Dror Yemeni came to Helsinki this past year (2014) and was grossly disrespected by this jackass, the supposed moderator of the seminar sponsored by the Finnish UPI, Hannu Juusola.

hannu juusola1

ben-dror yemini

And some of the refugees actually become much more radical after finding sanctuary among communities in Europe. The new Jihad recruits will come from among them. It’s already happened; and there’s more to come. They will join that same Jihad and that same path of death and destruction that will spark more waves of refugees escaping to Europe – and on it goes. And it’s only getting worse.

The Jihad to come in Europe

African refugees seized by Italian coastguards (Photo: EPA)

African refugees seized by Italian coastguards (Photo: EPA)

Op-ed: Some of the refugees who fled to Europe have become far more radical after finding sanctuary there, and the new Jihad recruits will come from among them; meanwhile, a political genocide of Israel is underway in educated circles.

Published: 04.25.15, 23:43 / Israel Opinion

A ship carrying 104 refugees on their way from Libya to the shores of Italy was in distress and appeared to be sinking. One of the passengers began praying for his life. Some of the Muslims demanded that he pray to Allah – and Allah alone. But he was a Christian.

The Muslims flew into a rage; and with cries of “Allahu Akbar,” they threw 12 Christians overboard. Cold-blooded murder. The remaining Christians formed a human chain and managed to put an end to the madness. An Italian rescue vessel arrived in time to prevent the refugee ship from sinking.

Fifteen of the passengers were arrested and will be charged with murder. Apparently, one doesn’t have to be a member of Islamic State to be just like Islamic State. And the current wave of refugees is carrying such Muslim extremists into Europe too.

Geo-strategist Professor Arnon Soffer has claimed from time to time in recent years that the big tsunami is only a matter of time. Millions from Asia and Africa will try to make their way to the wealthy countries. The big flood has yet to begin, but something is afoot.

Over the past 10 days or so, four ships have capsized, including one carrying 400 refugees and then another with around 950 migrants on board. Most of the passengers drowned. Two smaller ships were added to the list in recent days. Some 1,500 people have drowned in a week. The Mediterranean Sea is becoming a huge graveyard. Approximately 3,200 drowned in 2014. A total of 22,000 since 2000.

Those are the numbers we know of. They could be a lot higher. It’s clear by now that the number of fatalities this year will be higher than ever. The risk of death is not a deterrent. Last week, in just a single week, around 10,000 refugees landed on the shores of Italy. In 2014, the number hit 200,000. The figures this year will be much higher.

The migration began before the onset of the blood fest in the Muslim expanse. But the situation is becoming increasingly complicated. Islamic State is taking control of parts of Libya, along its Mediterranean coastline too. This week, the organization released a video of the slaughter of Ethiopian Christians by its people in Libya. Islamic State activists are perpetrating massacres on the beaches, and Islamic State activists are on the ships too.

And some of the refugees actually become much more radical after finding sanctuary among communities in Europe. The new Jihad recruits will come from among them. It’s already happened; and there’s more to come. They will join that same Jihad and that same path of death and destruction that will spark more waves of refugees escaping to Europe – and on it goes. And it’s only getting worse.

More here. H/T: Finland stands with Israel


I agree with her on this point, but her call for a ‘reformation’ of Islam is pure nonsense, it can never happen. Mohamed himself would have to be deprived of his mantle of being the supposed ‘chief example for human behavior’, and with jihad and death for apostasy (the key crucial components for the expansion of Islam) being expunged as well. It’s just not going to happen.


Activist and author Ayaan Hirsi Ali responded to her critics by saying “there are two different tactics of silencing individuals like me who want to start the conversation about what in Islam needs to change,” hit lists and smear campaigns on Tuesday’s broadcast of “The Kelly File” on the Fox News Channel.

“There are two different tactics of silencing individuals like me who want to start the conversation about what in Islam needs to change, and one tactic is of course the tactic that Al Qaeda uses, putting people like me on a hit list. And it’s very clear, but then, there’s a different group, Asra Nomani calls them ‘the honor brigade,’ and they engage in smear tactics, in character assassination” she stated.

 More here.



fear in islam

“I’m talking about a beast (Brahimi) who thinks with his nether regions. Imagine it’s your daughter being raped by her husband and he forces her to have intercourse against her will. Would you stay silent under such circumstances? Would you talk with him calmly or would you scream? “

Top Muslim Cleric: Don’t Need Wife’s Consent for Sex

Wed, April 15, 2015

A man may have sex with his wife without her consent, according to a new fatwa from Deputy Head of the Dawa Salafists Yasser Barahimi.

The senior Egyptian-based cleric made the ruling in response to a question posted on the Dawa Salafi website I Am The Salafi.

The questioner wanted to know “why is the woman always obliged to adhere to her husband’s requests at any time and under any circumstances? Doesn’t sharia take into account a woman’s mental state as a human being, regarding her desire to have sexual intercourse?”

Responding, Barahami said this does not “insult or devalue” the woman. She needs to fulfil her Sharia obligations. Her mood must not get in the way of her spouse’s desires.

“He too has needs and it’s possible that if his needs won’t be fulfilled he will be damaged,” he said. “Love is not an issue here.”

If a woman displays her love it contributes to a happy marriage and the longevity of the relationship, he added.

The fatwa was roundly condemned by Reda Eldanbouki, the lawyer who led the first female genital mutilation (FGM) trial in Egypt.


More here.


The Finnish Breweries Association still flummoxed why their website was being targeted.

It probably has something to do with Islam being anti-alcohol one would think.

NOTE: The site is back online.

H/T Gladiator

Alcohol lobbyist’s website hacked

The Finnish breweries’ association’s website has been hacked to publish messages in support of the Islamist extremist group ISIS. The organisation’s web page was changed to host Islamist messages in the early hours of Sunday morning.

Kuvakaappaus Panimoliiton nettisivuilta.A screenshot of the hacked Breweries’ association website.

The website of the Finnish breweries’ association was hacked on Saturday night, and for a time showed messages in support of the extremist Islamist group ISIS. The message, in the name of a group calling itself ‘ISIS hackers’, said that ISIS will ‘restore dignity for all Muslims’.

The association’s Managing Director Elina Ussa was hard pressed to find a reason for the Islamist hackers’ targeting her organisation. She said that there was nothing she could do about the hacking until Monday, when she’d be in touch with the administrators of the site.

Later on Sunday the site began returning an error message rather than the ISIS-lauding text. The matter was first reported by Ilta-Sanomat.


But first, about Islamofauxbia.

“Islamophobia”: “A word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons.” –Andrew Cummins.

Published on Apr 9, 2015
Two large public opinion polls have found that the majority of people don’t think Islam is compatible with Western society. The large polls done in 2013 and 2014 are important. And they were done before the attacks in Ottawa and the rise of ISIS. What does this mean? Is there a way for Islam and the West to coexist? Ezra Levant thinks so, but Muslims must denounce jihad.

NOTE: One point of disagreement with Levant. It’s not that Islam is reconcilable with Canadian values, but only those Muslims who reject the valid, factual, mainstream reading of horrific Islam texts. Their rejection does nothing in the way of repudiating/invalidating those texts, they remain valid for whatever Muslim taking them seriously, therein lies the dilemma.


I can’t stand Jon Leibowitz, he’s an ignoramus blowhard who is at pains to defend Islam, because in his view, Christianity is as bad (or even worse) than Islam. He hates the enlightenment even though he would say he defends it, not knowing about, or perhaps even rejecting, the very individualism that the reformation cum enlightenment embodied.

Islam rejects individuality and questioning of authority or even doubt itself, let alone the very separation of earthly and temporal powers. Like I’ve been saying time and again, Islam is unlike any other religion, it is a complete society with rules for every aspect of human living, between believers and with the non-believer as well. Blow hard Leibowitz is an ignoramus boob who would (and his legion of writers) keep you in the dark about all this.

NOTE: Islam 101’ers and the myriad of average believers, have the benefit of hindsight in knowing exactly what and where the Christian reformation/enlightenment led, to the very free and open, modern and liberal societies that we have today, in which all beliefs and ideologies and philosophies have to compete with each other. They will in fact reject it.

Islam is not here for an equal footing, not for long that is, it’s for dominance, something that these dunderheads are either all too afraid to think about, or choose to live in ignorance. Trying to mainstream Islamic orthodoxy to reform itself, removing death for apostasy and ending jihad as pillar of the faith, is like believing Hamas will renounce itself in recognizing the Jewish state. It’s just not going to happen.


World-renowned author and staunch critic of Islam Ayaan Hirsi Ali appeared on the The Daily Show this week, where host Jon Stewart attempted to challenge her assertion that Islam is different from the world’s three major Abrahamic religions–Judaism, Christianity, and Islam–as Hirsi Ali asserts in her latest book, Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now.

“I think people single out Islam as though there is something inherently wrong with it that wasn’t wrong with other religions,” Stewart said. He then went on to question why Hirsi Ali believes Islam is “different” from other religions considering “Christianity went through almost the exact same process,” as he referenced Martin Luther’s Christian Reformation–which began in 1517 when he penned the “95 Theses,” the document that attacked the Catholic Church for its corrupt practice of selling salvation to exonerate people of their sins and thus ushered in the Protestant denomination of Christianity.

More here.

NOTE II: Why anyone would pay to watch this goof is beyond me.


And the big lie continues.

Not only are we at war with Islam, we are engaged in a world wide war with Islam. It’s not the Islamic State perverting Islam, in fact, it’s the people who are saying that they are who are perverting Islam.

“And we are not at war with ­Islam,” the president said. “We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.”

Obama refuses to acknowledge ‘Muslim terrorists’ at summit

WASHINGTON — They’re burning and beheading victims in the name of Islam, but President Obama delivered a major speech Wednesday on combating violent extremism — while refusing to use the words “Muslim terrorists.”

“No religion is responsible for terrorism — people are responsible for violence and terrorism,” Obama told a crowd that included Muslim community leaders at the White House.

Following months of unrelenting atrocities by ISIS killers who released videos of themselves beheading US journalists and, most recently, 21 Coptic Christians, and burning a man alive, the president kowtowed to the audience by proclaiming that “Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding.”

“Generations of Muslim immigrants came here and went to work as farmers and merchants and factory workers, helped to lay railroads and build up America,” he said.

“The first Islamic center in New York City was founded in the 1890s. America’s first mosque — this was an interesting fact — was in North Dakota.”

And just days after Pope Francis condemned ISIS’s barbaric murders of 21 Egyptians “simply for the fact that they were Christians,” Obama insisted al Qaeda and their ilk “are not religious leaders. They’re terrorists.”

More here.