“…To win over Good Islam, we censor cartoons of Mohammed and criticism of the Koran, open our borders, Islamize our institutions and then wait to see if we’re on the good side of Good Islam. We adapt our societies and legal systems to Islamic norms and hope that it’s enough to let us join the Good Islam Coalition. If we go on at this rate, the experts will tell us that the only way to defeat Islamic terrorism is for us to become Muslims. Only then will we become members in good standing of Good Islam.
There is no Good Islam and no Bad Islam, as Muslim leaders occasionally trouble to tell us. The distinction that our leaders make between Good Islam and Bad Islam is not theological, but pragmatic. They dub whatever is shooting at us right now Bad Islam and assume that everything else must be Good Islam. That is the fallacy which they used to arrive at their Tiny Minority of Extremists formula.
There is no Tiny Minority of Extremists. Behind the various tiny minorities of extremists are countries and billionaires, global organizations and Islamic banks. Outsourcing our counterterrorism strategy to the countries and ideologies behind the terrorists we’re fighting isn’t a plan, it’s a death wish.
Islamic terrorism is just what we call Islam when it’s killing us.
The Jihad isn’t coming from some phantom website. It’s coming from our Muslim allies. It’s coming from Pakistan, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. It’s coming from the Muslim Brotherhood and its front groups. It’s coming from the moderate Muslim leaders that our leaders pose with at anti-extremism conferences. And it’s coming from the mosques and homes of the Muslims living in America. There is no Good Islam. There is no Bad Islam. There is just Islam.”
by MARY CHASTAIN
….But mass confusion is caused when all the women are covered from head to toe.
“I went once with my wife to one of the old souqs [open-air marketplace] to do some shopping, and after a short while I lost her among the crowd,” said Sabah Nadiem, a resident of Mosul, Iraq. “The problem was that all the women were wearing veils and it was hard to know who was my wife. I was utterly scared to make a mistake and go for the wrong woman. It would be a disaster to fall into Hisbah hands. I could not even use my mobile as the network was down.”
The Islamic State has published numerous manuals concerning the “proper” behavior for women in their caliphate. In December, the group released a manual for fellow jihadists on how to beat, rape, and fail to impregnate their female slaves. Another manual, titled Women of the Islamic State: Manifesto and Case Study, specifically details to women how to behave.
“It is always preferable for a woman to remain hidden and veiled, to maintain society from behind this veil,” it said.
Marriage rules are the most disturbing part of the manifesto.
“It is considered legitimate for a girl to be married at the age of nine,” it claims. “Most pure girls will be married by 16 or 17, while they are still young and active. Young men will not be more than 20 years old in those glorious generations.”
An all-female Islamic State brigade is known to also enforce Sharia law within the caliphate. In December, they used a bear trap known as a “biter” on women’s breasts who defied the protocols of the terrorist group. The torture device was used on one woman who was arrested in public for breastfeeding with a transparent niqab. After the jihadists took over Mosul, Iraq, they demanded all shopowners place a veil on mannequins, even the males, since “the human form is not depicted in statues or artwork.”
by Mark Steyn
…And then, a generation or so back, the Cameronian elites in Britain and on the Continent committed themselves to a process of mass, transformative immigration on a scale unknown to any society in human history outside of conquest. “Multiculturalism” is a Trojan horse Europe gave itself in an act of moral vanity, and waiting inside was Islam.
Mr Cameron now insists that the lesson of yesterday’s attack is that “we must never allow” what he dignifies as his “values” to be “damaged” by such “acts of violence”. His counterpart in Copenhagen, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, the tasty Danish pastry he and Obama spent Mandela’s funeral doing selfies with, professed herself mystified by the slaughter:
We don’t know the motive for the attacks but we know that there are forces that want to harm Denmark, that want to crush our freedom of expression, our belief in liberty.
Hmm. “Forces that want to harm Denmark”, huh? Any chance of pinning it down a little? It’s not much of a “freedom of expression” or a “belief in liberty” that can’t even talk honestly about its enemies, is it?
I would like to ask Mr Cameron and Miss Thorning-Schmidt what’s their happy ending here? What’s their roadmap for fewer “acts of violence” in the years ahead? Or are they riding on a wing and a prayer that they can manage the situation and hold it down to what cynical British civil servants used to call during the Irish “Troubles” “an acceptable level of violence”? In Pakistan and Nigeria, the citizenry are expected to live with the reality that every so often Boko Haram will kick open the door of the schoolhouse and kidnap your daughters for sex-slavery or the Taliban will gun down your kids and behead their teacher in front of the class. And it’s all entirely “random”, as President Obama would say, so you just have to put up with it once in a while, and it’s tough if it’s your kid, but that’s just the way it is. If we’re being honest here, isn’t that all Mr Cameron and Miss Thorning-Schmidt are offering their citizens? Spasms of violence as a routine feature of life, but don’t worry, we’ll do our best to contain it – and you can help mitigate it by not going to “controversial” art events, or synagogues, or gay bars, or…
I said above that waiting inside multiculturalism’s Trojan horse was Islam. Not “Islamism”, or “radical Islam”, or “extremist Islam”, or “violent extremism” or “extremist radicalism” or “radicalist violentism” or anything else: just Islam. As I wrote yesterday:
This is usually the point at which we’re expected to do the not-all-Muslims-want-to-shoot-you-dead shtick. And that’s true. But Islam itself has no feeling whatsoever for the spirit of free speech.
The more Islamic a society gets, the less free speech it has – the less intellectual inquiry, artistic achievement, contrarian spirit. Most western Muslims are not willing themselves to open fire on synagogues or Lars Vilks, but they help maintain the shriveled definition of acceptable expression that helps license the fanatics of Copenhagen and Paris. Muslims in Europe, North America and Australia will pay lip service to “free speech”, and then promptly re-define it as excluding speech that “blasphemes” or “insults” their faith – which is to say them. Which is to say the great vulgar, brawling, free-for-all of free societies does not apply to them. So, when, say, France’s Muslim population reaches 20 per cent, you will need to have the support of three-quarters of the remaining 80 per cent to maintain even a bare popular majority in favor of free speech.
Is that likely? Or will there be more and more non-Muslims like the wretched quisling Welsh bishop, the Right Reverend Gregory Cameron, frantically arguing that if you hadn’t been so “offensive” you wouldn’t have caught their eye? Islam and free speech are, as His Miserable Grace implicitly recognizes, incompatible. And ultimately, therefore, you have to choose between liberty and mass Muslim immigration.
The reaction of David Cameron and Helle Thorning-Schmidt suggests they have made their choice. I think, somewhere deep down, they know it’s a recipe for slow societal suicide. And I wonder if, even deeper down, they also know that it won’t be that slow.
By RACHEL MOLSCHKY
Valentine’s Day is nearly upon us once again, but it is no bed of roses for Muslims who wish to celebrate. The holiday is viewed as a sinful Western invention which goes against the “morality” of Islam.
In Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, the “religious police” do their best to keep the public in line and will make arrests when necessary. Last year, for example, five men were arrested and sentenced to 32 years in prison and 4500 lashes for holding a Valentine’s Day party with women who were not related to them. (One would hope they would not be related!) The party involved drinking and- gasp!- dancing.
The strict Saudi culture which separates men and women was highlighted in an article on Asian Image last month which detailed the account of a British national who temporarily moved to Saudi Arabia for work. The man is apparently Muslim according to the context of the article- (“For my family, Saudi Arabia is the ultimate. It is the height of piety. They couldn’t have been happier that I had gotten a job out there. They were so proud.”)
Yet Saudi Arabia was not at all what he expected. Instead of a “deeply religious” atmosphere, the man got the shock of his life when repeatedly propositioned by gay men.
“Almost immediately I was made to feel uncomfortable. Every evening I was approached by various men. It was always men in their 50s.
“They would ask me if I wanted to go swimming with them, or if I wanted to go up to their room for a chat.
“I admit I was so naïve. I actually thought they wanted a ‘chat.’”
According to the man’s colleague, this was completely normal, a by-product of keeping women off-limits to men.
“My colleague was really direct. He told me, ‘You can be gay pretty openly here. It’s the weirdest paradox. If you are seen with a woman, it’s blatantly contravening the law. But no one blinks twice if you are having dinner with a man, or going into a hotel with a man.”
Sodomy may be punishable by death in Muhammad’s birthplace, but these men do not consider themselves to be gay, according to the article, and “in their minds, they are fulfilling a natural human need,” the man explained.
“It’s like prison culture, in that they have no choice but to have sex with other men. It’s just a physical act; it’s not about being ‘gay.’”
Something is seriously wrong with a society that is so sexually deprived, men are forced to engage in homosexual activity, even when not naturally inclined to go in that direction. Contact with women is so forbidden that the country is “like prison” and the highly “religious” restrictions are inadvertently producing a behavior viewed so sinful in Islam that it is punishable by death.
The constant harassment from these sexually frustrated men was too much for the British national who was set to stay in Saudi Arabia for one year but left after only six weeks.
This Islamic condemnation of Valentine’s Day and gender separation are meant to keep people moral and ensure that they behave, but the real result does not match the intention. Last year I wrote about the hypocrisy in condemning Valentine’s Day and calling Western society immoral while more Muslim sex grooming cases are uncovered, along with the Muslim obsession with internet porn, despicable treatment of women in Islam (like the average of 5000 honor killings each year) and other sinful sexual behavior like pedophilia…
…So Allah “is angry with the Jews”, the Christians “are astray”, and we’re all immoral. Yet Fox News reported in 2010, that Pakistan was the world leader in online searches for pornographic material, while it bans websites that are considered offensive or blasphemous.
“Pakistan is top dog in searches per-person for ‘horse sex’ since 2004, ‘donkey sex’ since 2007, ‘rape pictures’ between 2004 and 2009, ‘rape sex’ since 2004, ‘child sex’ between 2004 and 2007 and since 2009, ‘animal sex’ since 2004 and ‘dog sex’ since 2005, according to Google Trends and Google Insights, features of Google that generate data based on popular search terms.
“The country also is tops — or has been No. 1 — in searches for ‘sex,’ ‘camel sex,’ ‘rape video,’ ‘child sex video’ and some other searches that can’t be printed here.”
Pakistan is not alone. Of the top 10 countries searching for pornographic sites, six were Muslim. Egypt was number two, joined by Iran, Morocco, the ultra-conservative Saudi Arabia and Turkey. And Arabic is the 2nd most common language that is used to search for “gay sex.” It’s the number one language for searches involving “sexy.”More statistics here.
Keeping things in perspective, while Muslims scream out of one side of their mouths about Valentine’s Day being taboo and immoral (and even pornographic), their tongues are hanging out of the other side as they look at Internet porn.
Not all Muslims agree however. Pakistani Muslim Mohammad Jibran Nasir wrote a piece in 2013, condemning the condemnations. According to Nasir, the banning of Valentine’s Day has more to do with the anti-American sentiment than with religion. He writes, “Ironically except for F-16 every single import from America or the West in general is looked at with contempt and hate even if it is a love filled day like Valentine’s day.”
Indeed. Any opportunity the Muslim Ummah has to bash the West is readily seized. Valentine’s Day is no different. Well, let them point their fingers and assume the “moral high ground” while we retrogrades, who believe in the principles of the 10 Commandments, enjoy our special dinners, our flowers and our boxes of chocolates.