At the start of this decade, a minor story occurred that set the scene for the years that have followed. In 2010, a Saudi lawyer named Faisal Yamani wrote to the Danish newspapers that had published cartoons of Islam’s prophet, Mohammed. Claiming to act on behalf of 95,000 descendants of Mohammed, the Saudi lawyer said that the cartoons were defamatory and that legal proceedings would thereby begin.
However, everything about the supposed legal claim reeked. How had Mr Yamani located all these descendants? How had he come up with exactly 95,000 of them? And how could you claim that a statement about somebody who died 1,400 years ago was “defamatory”? Legally, one cannot “defame” the dead.
Everything about the claim was laughable Yet it had its desired effect. At least one Danish paper — Politiken — swiftly issued an apology for republishing the cartoons. So Mr Yamani got what he wanted. He had (one might suggest) conjured up a set of alleged victims and cobbled together an alleged offence, but no matter, because he also got a European newspaper to fold in no seconds flat. It was an interesting probe of the European system of justice — and a good example of submission. And a fine scene-setting precedent for the decade that has followed.
Now, eight years later, an even greater act of submission has come along. This one not imposed from some dodgy Saudi lawyer, but from the highest court in Europe.
At the end of last month, the European Court of Human Rights issued its ruling in a long-running case involving an Austrian woman named Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff. Way back in 2009, in Vienna, Sabaditsch-Wolff (who has lived in several Muslim countries) gave two seminars entitled, “Basic Information on Islam.” During these talks, in the words of the ECHR:
via The EU’s Dangerous New Confidence Game
Wishful thinking, like cowardice, is pandemic these days, but both could be dangerous.
“The first thing that caught my attention was how non-violent it was. I have to part ways with Robert Spencer here. There are a few violent passages, but it’s usually in a war context so its not a big deal. Surah 9 has a couple troubling passages but apart from that there isn’t much. ”
Let’s look at the record:
“And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out; persecution is worse than slaughter. But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then, if they fight you, kill them — such is the recompense of unbelievers, but if they give over, surely Allah is all-forgiving, all-compassionate. Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s; then if they give over, there shall be no enmity save for evildoers.” (Qur’an 2:191-193)
“We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve for what they have associated with Allah of which He had not sent down authority. And their refuge will be the Fire, and wretched is the residence of the wrongdoers.” (Qur’an 3:151)
via When a Christian reads the Quran for the first time — with blinkers on
Jihad Watch writer Hugh Fitzgerald has gotten under Robert Azzi’s skin.
Hugh Fitzgerald, a writer for the online magazine Jihad Watch, has hounded Azzi in print, wondering in one piece why Azzi would equate Islamic fundamentalism with Christian fundamentalism.
“Hounded,” i.e., pointed out Azzi’s inconsistencies and dishonesty.
“Where are the tens of thousands of victims of Christian Fundamentalism all over the world?” Fitzgerald asks in a recent column. “Just as important, where are the Biblical texts that command Christians to wage war on all non-Christians, to ‘kill them wherever you find them,’ to ‘smite at their necks,’ to ‘strike terror in their hearts?’ ”
Azzi scoffs at the mere mention of Fitzgerald. First off, he doesn’t even believe the man is real. He’s checked online and says he can’t find him.
via Islamic apologist Robert Azzi: “Nowhere in the Quran is there legitimacy for killing, period”
On July 24, 2018, Britain’s Home Secretary, conservative MP Sajid Javid, issued orders for research into the ethnic origins of the country’s many sexual grooming gangs that had involved large numbers of loosely-termed “Asian men”, who, over many years, had taken vulnerable young white British girls to use or pass on for sexual purposes. Most of the men have, Javid has stated been of Pakistani extraction, which makes the Home Secretary’s intervention significant. Javid’s father came, as did many other Pakistani immigrants, from Punjab, and with only £1 to his name. He became a bus driver, then a clothing store owner. Yet his five sons have all become fully integrated Britons, with successful careers in business, politics and the public sector. They are all models of second-generation immigrant achievement, miles away from the men in the gangs. Reporting on the Javid family, The Times wrote:
“Javid’s appointment as the first non-white person — and the first with a Muslim background — to hold one of Britain’s great offices of state is the culmination of a six-decade family journey.”
Given the great potential for controversy over identifying ethnicity as a factor in serious crimes, Javid showed courage in taking this move only months after his appointment in April to lead the Home Office. Criticism came quickly from the Labour Party. “Jeremy Corbyn denied there was any ‘problem’ with Pakistani men and abuse, saying: ‘The problem is the crime that’s committed against women from any community.” His combined political and ethnic experience will have shown Javid, based on previous Home Office bans and academic reports, that any such investigation might be used by the far right to attack Pakistanis and Muslims.
via Britain’s Grooming Gangs: Part 1
The propaganda arm of Teresa May’s shabby little police state chirps “Islamophobia” on cue. But isn’t it true that someone women who wear the niqab or hijab do not do so freely? What about Aqsa Parvez? Her Muslim father choked her to death with her hijab after she refused to wear it. What about Amina Muse Ali, a Christian woman in Somalia whom Muslims murdered because she wasn’t wearing a hijab? Or the 40 women who were murdered in Iraq in 2007 for not wearing the hijab; or Alya Al-Safar, whose Muslim cousin threatened to kill her and harm her family because she stopped wearing the hijab in Britain; or Amira Osman Hamid, who faced whipping in Sudan for refusing to wear the hijab; or the Egyptian girl, also named Amira, who committed suicide after being brutalized by her family for refusing to wear the hijab; or the Muslim and non-Muslim teachers at the Islamic College of South Australia who were told they had to wear the hijab or be fired; or the women in Chechnya whom police shot with paintballs because they weren’t wearing hijab; or the women in Chechnya who were threatened by men with automatic rifles for not wearing hijab; or the elementary school teachers in Tunisia who were threatened with death for not wearing hijab; or the Syrian schoolgirls who were forbidden to go to school unless they wore hijab; or the women in Gaza whom Hamas has forced to wear hijab; or the women in Iran who protested against the regime, even before the recent uprisings, by daring to take off their hijabs; or the women in London whom Muslim thugs threatened to murder if they didn’t wear hijab; or the anonymous young Muslim woman who doffed her hijab outside her home and started living a double life in fear of her parents; or the fifteen girls in Saudi Arabia who were killed when the religious police wouldn’t let them leave their burning school building because they had taken off their hijabs in their all-female environment; or the girl in Italy whose mother shaved her head for not wearing hijab; or all the other women and girls who have been killed or threatened, or who live in fear for daring not to wear the hijab.
Courageous women in the Islamic Republic of Iran have been taking off their hijabs as a sign of resistance to the oppressive Sharia regime under which they live, and at least 29 women have been arrested for doing so. Who is standing in solidarity with them? No one. Apparently it would be “Islamophobic” to do so.
via Israeli “Freedom is basic” ad featuring model taking off niqab ripped as “Islamophobic,” is withdrawn
Recently I’ve been called a “notorious Islamophobe” and an “anti-Muslim propagandist” in the Left-wing media, and while these charges aren’t new, I thought it worth noting today that they are based as much on ignorance as they are on malice. My message to my critics is this: if you knew what I know, you would agree with me.
Most people assume that the Qur’an, like the holy books of other religions, is full of lofty, high-minded teachings about the necessity to be benevolent, magnanimous, forgiving, and so on. They can’t imagine a holy book that exhorts believers to hatred and contempt of unbelievers, and that enjoins violence against them. But I’ve read the Qur’an multiple times and studied it for years, and can’t deny what I’ve found there.
Most people also assume that Muhammad, as the founder of one of the “world’s great religions,” was a Gandhiesque figure: genial, benign, wise, insightful, kind. That he was a warlord who called for the assassination of his enemies, held sex slaves, consummated a marriage with a child, and taught his followers that they would receive divine rewards for murder and plunder is simply unbelievable to some. But I’ve studied the earliest Islamic sources about Muhammad, and the evidence is unmistakable.
via Robert Spencer: A message to my critics