• Religion Of Peace

  • Archives

  • Elisabeth was found guilty of hate speech crimes for speaking the truth about Islam. Click to donate to her legal defense fund

  • Categories

  • Meta

  • This blogsite / website is not the official website of ACT! for America, Inc. This blogsite / website is independently owned and operated by that ACT! for America chapter named on this site. The statements, positions, opinions and views expressed in this website, whether written, audible, or video, are those of the individuals and organizations making them and and do not necessarily represent the positions, views, and opinions of ACT! for America, Inc., its directors, officers, or agents. The sole official website of ACT! for America, Inc. is www.actforamerica.org
  • Statements, views, positions and opinions expressed in articles, columns, commentaries and blog posts, whether written, audible, or video, which are not the original work of the ACT! for America chapter that owns and operates this website / blogsite, and is named on this website / blogsite are not necessarily the views, positions, and opinions of the ACT! for America chapter that owns and operates this website / blogsite

Horror in Europe

By:Srdja Trifkovic

…WESTERN ISLAMOPHILIAC APOLOGETICS AND PC propaganda notwithstanding, the original sources for “true” Islam—the Kuran and Hadith—provide ample and detailed evidence on Muhammad’s ideology and subsequent Shari’a practice regarding women. Muhammad, in the Kuran, is unambiguous: “Men are in charge of women because Allah has made the one of them excel the other.” (4:34) They are a step above women. (2:228) “Your wives are as a soil to be cultivated unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will.” (2:223) According to al-Bukhari, Muhammad had a vision of hell—and the majority of its dwellers were women, because “they are not thankful to their husbands.”  The disobedient wives are to be beaten. (4:34) The Kuran also acknowledges the lesser worth of daughters: “And when a father is given the good tidings of a girl, his face is darkened and he chokes inwardly.” (16:48) A son gets double the inheritance of a daughter; and a man’s witness is worth twice that of a woman’s. (2:282) Islamic marriage does not envisage any consent from the bride if she is still under paternal control: Abu Bakr, Muhammad’s friend and early follower, thus wed him to his daughter, Aisha, when she was nine and Muhammad 54. Islamic marriage does not produce any community of property between husband and wife. The latter is permanently dependent on the support of her husband, which may be withdrawn at any moment. When asked who among women is the best, Muhammad replied: “She who gives pleasure to him (husband) when he looks, obeys him when he bids, and who does not oppose fearing his displeasure.” Man’s sexual urge has to be satisfied immediately and unquestioningly: “When a man calls his wife to his bed, and she does not respond, the One Who is in the heaven is displeased with her until he is pleased with her.” On the other hand, “if a female dies while her husband is pleased with her, she will enter Paradise.”

ISLAMIC DOGMA, TRADITION AND PRACTICE are the foundation of a coherent and consistent outlook that has generated its own reality, visible in each and every traditionally Muslim country—and evident in the Islamic diaspora in the West. The mayhem in Cologne and elsewhere in Europe faithfully reflects that outlook.

The treatment of women might be expected to make Islam questionable from the liberal elite’s point of view. This has not happened, for a good reason: Muslim teaching on women, marriage and the family undermines the traditional European concept of matrimony. Islam thus becomes an “objective ally” of the postmodern Cultural-Marxist ideology that relativizes gender, sexuality, marriage and family. It should come as no surprise that Cologne’s leftist mayor Henriette Reker—a mass immigration enthusiast—decided to blame the victims for the assaults. She declared that women and girls should abide by a “code of conduct”—“stay at arm’s length!”—so that “such things [rape, sexual assaults] do not happen to them.” But they will happen, becauserape is endemic to Islam. The only way to avoid “such things” would have been to keep the offenders a few thousand miles away. It may be too late for that…

THE MOST SIGNIFICANT IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCE of last week’s events is that many ordinary Germans are no longer afraid to voice their opinions, in spite of their country’s draconian “hate speech” laws. Check out, for example, a new Facebook group, “Düsseldorf passt auf”—its call for citizens to organize themselves into vigilante groups has attracted eleven thousand supporters in five days. Its goal is to organize patrols in the city on holidays and at various events, so that “our women can safely walk in our city.” The group’s members have no confidence in the police and the state, according to last Friday’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Similar groups are rapidly popping up all over the country. On Saturday police clashed with 2,000 protestors opposing immigration from Muslim countries in Cologne, using water cannons to disperse the crowd calling for Chancellor Angela Merkel’s ouster….

More

Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the Challenge of Radical Islam

HOUSE DEMOCRATS MOVE TO CRIMINALIZE CRITICISM OF ISLAM

By Robert Spencer

December 17, 2015 ought henceforth to be a date which will live in infamy, as that was the day that some of the leading Democrats in the House of Representatives came out in favor of the destruction of the First Amendment. Sponsored by among others, Muslim Congressmen Keith Ellison and Andre Carson, as well as Eleanor Holmes Norton, Loretta Sanchez, Charles Rangel, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Joe Kennedy, Al Green, Judy Chu, Debbie Dingell, Niki Tsongas, John Conyers, José Serrano, Hank Johnson, and many others, House Resolution 569 condemns “violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.” The Resolution has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

That’s right: “violence, bigotry and hateful rhetoric.” The implications of those five words will fly by most people who read them, and the mainstream media, of course, will do nothing to elucidate them. But what H. Res. 569 does is conflate violence — attacks on innocent civilians, which have no justification under any circumstances – with “bigotry” and “hateful rhetoric,” which are identified on the basis of subjective judgments. The inclusion of condemnations of “bigotry” and “hateful rhetoric” in this Resolution, while appearing to be high-minded, take on an ominous character when one recalls the fact that for years, Ellison, Carson, and his allies (including groups such as the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations, CAIR) have been smearing any and all honest examination of how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to incite hatred and violence as “bigotry” and “hateful rhetoric.” This Resolution is using the specter of violence against Muslims to try to quash legitimate research into the motives and goals of those who have vowed to destroy us, which will have the effect of allowing the jihad to advance unimpeded and unopposed….

More

Mark Steyn – Inch by inch our enemies takes the civilized world

The “Islamic Inquisition” and the Blasphemy Police

by Douglas Murray

…Last week, on the anniversary of the publication of the first Mohammed cartoons, Jyllands-Posten republished the original spread. The page and texts were laid out as they had been on that famous day ten year earlier. But one thing was missing: the cartoons. Where the original images had been — even the ones that did not depict Mohammed — there were only blank spaces. What had been possible in 2005 was no longer possible in 2015. One can hardly blame the publishers. After ten years of paying for security, and staff having to work in perhaps the most threatened newspaper office on earth, the editors of Jyllands-Posten signalled that they had had enough of the threats and enough of the danger. They censored themselves.

It took only ten years for most people across the West to learn about Islamic blasphemy — and in the end to abide by it. Today there might be thousands of people willing to publish cartoons of Mohammed on their Twitter accounts, but most of them hide behind aliases and complain about the cowardice of others.

A few days before the Mohammed cartoons’ anniversary, Mark Steyn, Henryk Broder and the Norwegian editor Vebjoern Selbekk addressed a conference in Denmark to commemorate the anniversary of the cartoons. It was held in the Danish Parliament, the only building there now deemed safe enough to withstand the now-traditional attack from the Islamic Blasphemy Police. Anticipating a terrorist attack, the UK Foreign Office and U.S. State Departments both warned their citizens to stay away from the area of the Parliament building that day. The restaurant in which we were meant to be having dinner cancelled the booking; they realized, when police and security officers scouted out the building in advance, who the guests might be.

Ten years ago, you could publish depictions of Mohammed in a Danish newspaper. Ten years later, it is hard for anyone who has been connected with such an act to find a restaurant in Copenhagen that will serve them dinner.

It is not just artists and writers who have learned the lesson; it is everyone — from newspaper conglomerates to the people who serve food in restaurants. Our societies like to think that terrorism and intimidation do not work. They do — or can — but only if we let them. Over the last ten years, a couple of brief eruptions of sanctimonious point-missing aside, it turned out to be fear — not Mohammed cartoons — that went viral.

Freedom, however, was never defended by more than a handful of people. Most prefer their comforts and a quiet life to anything that looks like a fight. But there are still more than a few good people across the world, and more than a handful of them in Scandinavia. If, in previous conflicts, one looked to pilots or statesman to lead the way, in this war against the new “Islamic Inquisition,” it is journalists, cartoonists, writers and artists who find themselves on the front lines and who need to lead. Some of them might be surprised to be in this position. They should not be. Freedom of expression and thought have always had vicious enemies. But the truth has always seen them off, and shall do again.

More

Stossel Censored Part 1

Clear Channel, Intimidated by Terror, Forbids Criticism of Muhammad on Their Billboards

They allowed an ad — from a terror-tied group — that falsely praised Muhammad on “women’s rights.” Then they refused our ad, which countered with the truth.

by Robert Spencer

….After the jihad attack at the Muhammad cartoon contest that Pamela Geller and I hosted in Garland, Texas, last month, we got a taste of those “old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming.”

Many people — on both the left and the right — criticized us for gratuitously offending Muslims. Luminaries such as Bill O’Reilly and Laura Ingraham acknowledged the point of our event — to stand for the freedom of speech against violent intimidation — but insisted that just because we could do something didn’t mean that we should do it.

They maintained that demonstrating respect to Muslim sensibilities would in the long run do more to fight jihad terror than defiance in the face of threats and murder.

Events have moved quickly. Now, just weeks later, we have moved from “you can do it, but you shouldn’t” to “you can’t do it” — at least on public billboard space.

If you dare to cross into political incorrectness, you’ll be subjected to “peer pressure and shaming.” As I wrote recently,Muhammad is now the man we all must love, and the billboard giant Clear Channel has now shown what that means.

Clear Channel ran billboards in Atlanta from the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), stating:

Muhammad — peace be upon him — believed in peace, social justice, women’s rights.

When Geller and I tried to counter this ridiculous deception with the truth, Clear Channel was not so accommodating.

Our initial ad read:

Muhammad believed in war, denial of rights to women, denial of rights to non-Muslims, deceit of unbelievers.

All of these assertions are readily verifiable from core Islamic texts. But Clear Channel nixed this ad, so we developed a new one featuring quotations attributed to Muhammad himself in the Hadith:

I have been made victorious through terror; I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women); I have been commanded to fight against people.

That one got a thumbs-down from Clear Channel as well, even though we readily complied with their request to show the Islamic sources from which these quotes came.

Clear Channel’s Jack Jessen told Pamela Geller that he rejected our ad because:

[It had a] negative connotation to it.

But Clear Channel has no problem with negative ads in general. It readily ran atheist ads criticizing belief in God, and has had no qualms about running Palestinian anti-Israel hate propaganda:

Clear-Channel-atheist-billboard

Clear-Channel-anti-Israel-billboard

More

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,799 other followers

%d bloggers like this: