Saturday, December 10, 2016

Jack Kerwick, Frontpage Magazine: Was Muhammad Really A Feminist?

To read the entire item, kindly click on this link:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265083/was-muhammad-really-feminist-jack-kerwick

WAS MUHAMMAD REALLY A FEMINIST?


The twisted world of leftist crusaders.

 

Muhammad was a feminist. 
Believe it or not, not too long ago the Huffington Post published a column  that made this patently laughable claim.
When I first heard that someone had the gall to write this, I was incredulous, swearing that either the source was mistaken or the article itself was satirical. My intuitions, as it turns out, were wrong on both counts.
The author of the piece, Jim Garrison, insists that Moses, Confucius, the Buddha, and Jesus have nothing on Muhammad as far as advancing women’s rights are concerned, for the founder of Islam “was easily the most radical and empowering in his treatment of women.” “Arguably,” Muhammad was “history’s first feminist.”
The first thing of which to take note here is that this is not history that Garrison presents to his readers.  It is what the philosopher Michael Oakeshott calls “retrospective politics,” the enterprise of enlisting the past in the service of a present political agenda.  Only this is the worst sort of retrospective politics, for the past that Garrison invokes isn’t even a real past. It is an invented past, a past made in the image of his leftist ideology.
Secondly, while Muhammad’s teachings on women may very well have marked an advance over those of his pagan contemporaries in the Arabic world, only someone who is as theologically as he is historically illiterate could think to rank Muhammad above all other religious founders on the question of sexual equality. 
In reality, the Prophet belongs at the bottom of this scale.
As Robert Spencer has noted, the Quran, the Islamic Holy Book that Muslims regard as the incarnation of Allah, affirms the superiority of men over women and commands men “to beat those from whom they ‘fear disobedience.’” It as well likens women to commodities that can and should be used by men as the latter please; assigns only half of the value to the testimony of women that it assigns to that of men; and promotes polygamy, sex with slave girls, and marriage with pre-pubescent girls.  The Quran as well stipulates that the inheritance for male heirs should be double that which it is for females.
And the bulk of those in Hell, Muhammad is said to have remarked, are women. 

Le Hijra. Un cheval de Troie moderne: la doctrine islamique de l’immigration

The HIJRA
By Janet Levy
The American Thinker
Commentaire du livre:
Modern Day Trojan -The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration
By Sam Solomon and Elias Al Maqdisi
ANM Publishers, 2009

139 pp., $14.95
Traduction: Point de Bascule par PLaliberté
Un cheval de Troie moderne: la doctrine islamique de l’immigration.
Au cours des dernières décennies, les mosquées se sont multipliées dans les villes américaines ou européennes (ndlr. canadiennes). Les écoles coraniques et de nombreuses autres organisations musulmanes sont devenues omniprésentes en Occident. Les Américains et les Européens ne cessent d’accepter des accommodements aux demandes des musulmans: notamment l’abolition de la mixité dans les gymnases ou les piscines à certaines heures, des salles de prières dans les lieux de travail. On a modifié des émissions de télévision ou des films dont le contenu offensait des musulmans.. On a même accepté le retrait d’affiches montrant des porcs. Tout cela dans le but de respecter les croyances et les pratiques religieuses des musulmans. 
De nombreux citoyens des démocraties occidentales ne voient dans ces accommodements que des compromis sans conséquence, des marques de civilités et d’ouverture aux besoins d’une religion de plus en plus présente: une religion qu’on veut voir comme un apport positif à notre tradition d’ouverture multiculturelle. De nombreux occidentaux se félicitent de leur esprit de tolérance et d’ouverture.
Bien peu savent que ces demandes d’accommodements s’inscrivent dans un projet insidieux, vieux de 1,400 ans: un projet de conquête et de domination fondé sur les injonctions du Coran et de la Sunna (l’ensemble des paroles et actions attribuées au prophète Mahomet). C’est l’Hégire ou la doctrine de l’immigration qui s’inspire de la manière dont Mahomet s’est enfui de la Mecque pour se rendre à Médine et pour conquérir la Mecque. Cette immigration-là ne doit pas être confondue avec l’arrivée d’immigrants de différentes cultures à la recherche d’une vie meilleure et désireux de faire profiter le pays d’accueil de leurs talents. Il s’agit en fait d’une immigration au service de l’impérialisme arabe. Elle mise sur la ségrégation ethnique pour obtenir privilèges et statut spécial dans les pays d’accueil. L’Hégire c’est une immigration conçue pour dominer les sociétés non-musulmanes et paver la voie à leur totale islamisation.
Dans un livre fascinant intitulé Un cheval de Troie moderne: la doctrine islamique de l’immigration, Sam Solomon, ancien professeur de droit musulman qui s’est converti au christianisme, et Elias Al Maqdisi, un spécialiste de l’islam, expliquent comment fonctionne cette stratégie de conquête vieille de plusieurs siècles, comment s’effectue la migration des musulmans dans les territoires non musulmans: territoires que la doctrine musulmane définit comme «territoires de la guerre». Ils précisent chacune des étapes de cette immigration stratégique dont l’objectif fondamental est de répandre l’islam et de préparer le djihad. Ce petit livre sur l’Hégire montre clairement que la conquête militaire est au cœur de l’expansion musulmane.

Friday, December 09, 2016

Geert Wilders reacts to conviction

Stomach Vacuum Progress: 2½ Month - The Hungarian Experiment

Islamophobic



"This short part of my next animation stands well as its own video. Fear of Islam is not irrational. Fear of some Muslims can be irrational, of course, but as a religion, ideology, and political system, Islam can be horrific and extremely oppressive and thus warrants fear and resistance. As this video is just a preview, I will not make this video Patreon supported, but if you are interested in supporting my future animations, please consider becoming my patron here:
https://www.patreon.com/DarkMatter2525"

Dire Straits - Brothers In Arms

David Wood and Nabeel Qureshi: A Brief History of the Quran



http://www.answeringmuslims.com/

This September 11th, a church in Florida is protesting the growing influence of Islam by offending 2 billion people. Specifically, they're staging a "Burn the Koran" Day. But is this the first day of its kind? In fact, is today's Quran the Quran that Muhammad intended his followers to have? Let's take a look at the evidence!

According to Islam's most trusted sources, the Quran went through numerous changes. Entire chapters of the Qur'an were lost. Large passages were lost. Individual verses were lost. Phrases were lost. Muhammad's top Quran reciters couldn't even agree on which chapters should be included in the Quran!

In this video, David Wood and Nabeel Qureshi explore the history of the Quran to see if the facts line up with popular Muslim beliefs.

Original Burn the Qur'an Day Acts 17 Apologetics Nabeel Qureshi David Wood Koran Burning

David Wood: My Favorite Quran Verse



To prevent ongoing argument and hostility, David Wood extends an olive branch to Islam by sharing his favorite verse of the Quran. The verse is Surah 33, verse 53 (Surat al-Ahzab, Ayah 53), where Allah says:

“O you who believe! Enter not the Prophet's houses, unless permission is given to you for a meal, (and then) not (so early as) to wait for its preparation. But when you are invited, enter, and when you have taken your meal, disperse without sitting for a talk. Verily, such (behavior) annoys the Prophet, and he is shy of (asking) you (to go), but Allah is not shy of (telling you) the truth. And when you ask (his wives) for anything you want, ask them from behind a screen: that is purer for your hearts and for their hearts. And it is not (right) for you that you should annoy Allah’s Messenger, nor that you should ever marry his wives after him (i.e., after his death). Verily! With Allah that shall be an enormity.”

A closer look at this verse shows what the Quran really is.

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/

https://twitter.com/acts17

http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/

Thursday, December 08, 2016

Tony Aranda, Breitbart: EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: Mexican Senators Beat Trump Piñata, Chant Gay Slur

To read the entire item, kindly click on this link:

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/12/08/exclusive-video-mexican-senators-beat-trump-pinata-chant-gay-slur/

by TONY ARANDA8 Dec 2016Mexico City, MX

Left-wing Mexican senators celebrated the start of the Christmas season by beating a piñata of U.S. President-Elect Donald J. Trump while chanting “faggot” and other expletives.

...

...

PRD’s current leader, Miguel Barbosa, referred to the antics as “Christmas humor.” The Mexican politician said his party is strongly opposed to Trump and his nationalist message.
The luxurious posada by members of the PRD comes at a time when most Mexicans live on a minimum wage of approximately $5 USD per day. On the other hand, Mexico spent more than $362 million Pesos or approximately $20 million U.S. to pay the salaries and benefits of its 128 senators.
Tony Aranda is a contributor for Breitbart Texas.

Jimmie Åkesson gästade Malou Efter Tio

David Menzies, Rebel Media: Generation Trudeau on Fidel: Freedom fighting revolutionary or iron fisted dictator?

Bodybuilding Vacuum Tips | RZFitnessTV

Połowa brytyjskich muzułmanów chce szariatu i nie poinformuje policji o terrorystach

https://euroislam.pl/polowa-brytyjskich-muzulmanow-chce-szariatu-i-nie-poinformuje-policji-o-terrorystach/

Połowa brytyjskich muzułmanów chce szariatu i nie poinformuje policji o terrorystach

2 grudnia 2016

Raport brytyjskiej organizacji Policy Exchange pokazuje słabą integrację brytyjskich muzułmanów ze świeckim społeczeństwem.

Poza ogólnymi deklaracjami, w których prawie wszyscy deklarują związek z Wielką Brytanią, w szczegółowych pytaniach wychodzi odmienny obraz. Przykładowo wg 71% muzułmanów meczet jest reprezentantem ich poglądów, a wprowadzenia szariatu chciałaby prawie połowa ankietowanych. Co ciekawe tylko 38% używałoby lub używa finansów opartych na szariacie.

Za radykalizację brytyjscy muzułmanie winią głównie opresyjny rząd, złe warunki gospodarcze i zagraniczne interwencje Wielkiej Brytanii, chociaż trzeba też przyznać, że na przyczyny radykalizacji wskazują także silne idee i przekonania oraz powiązania środowiskowe. Niemniej jednak tylko połowa ankietowanych poinformowałaby policję o bliskiej osobie, która weszła w kontakt ze środowiskiem popierającym terroryzm w Syrii. A jednocześnie w około 80% całkowicie potępiają użycie przemocy w celach politycznych.

Świat postrzegany przez muzułmanów jest także w odmienny sposób. Tylko 4% wierzy, że zamach 11 września został dokonany przez Al-Kaidę, za to prawie 1/3 obwinia amerykański rząd, a 7% Żydów. (j)


Pełny raport: Policy Exchage

Mohamed Omar, Samtiden: Alla muslimer räknas inte som muslimer

För att läsa hela texten, klicka vänligen på länken:

http://samtiden.nu/28403/alla-muslimer-raknas-inte-som-muslimer/

Alla muslimer räknas inte som muslimer

Kan muslimer och kristna hålla gemensam religiös högtid? När ahmadier deltog i fransk gudstjänst hoppades många på det. Men ahmadierna räknas av andra muslimer inte som muslimer. Den glada nyheten var inte så glad, skriver Mohamed Omar.

Från texten:


Därför var det många som gladdes åt nyheten att något dussintal muslimer deltog i gudstjänster i franska kyrkor för att hedra den mördade prästen Jacques Hamel. Vi kunde läsa hoppingivande och hjärtevärmande rubriker som ”Muslimer och kristna bad tillsammans”.
Jag blev dock misstänksam eftersom jag vet att troende muslimer inte kan be tillsammans med kristna i en kyrka. De flesta muslimer skulle uppfatta detta som en allvarlig synd. Det värsta man kan göra som muslim är ”shirk”, det vill säga att sätta någon vid Guds sida. Det är vad man anser att kristna gör när de tillber Jesus. För muslimer är Jesus bara en människa. I kyrkor finns också kors och helgonbilder som är absolut förbjudna enligt islamisk lag.
När jag började söka information om dessa udda muslimer som bad i franska kyrkor fick jag snabbt reda på att det rörda sig om medlemmar i det så kallade ahmadiyya-samfundet. Det är ett mycket litet samfund som är förföljt och lever farligt i alla islamiska stater. Andra muslimer, både sunniter och shiiter, vägrar att erkänna dem som muslimer. Varför? För att de tror på en profet som ska ha kommit efter Muhammed, nämligen indiern Mirza Ghulam Ahmad som levde på 1800-talet. En central dogm i islam är att Muhammed är den siste profeten, profeternas insegel.
Ahmadiyya är alltså en ganska ny, indisk religiös rörelse med synkretistiska drag. Ahmad hämtade också inspiration från kristendom och hinduism. Han menade till exempel att hinduernas gud Krishna var en profet som borde vördas av muslimer.
Ahmadierna är väldigt hatade i islamiska stater. De får inte kalla sig muslimer och inte driva moskéer. De misshandlas, torteras, våldtas och mördas. Det är därför denna religiösa rörelses ledare numera residerar i Storbritannien. Centrum är Fazl-moskén i Southfields, London. Jag använder ordet ”moské”, men muslimer utanför ahmadiyya skulle inte göra det.
Sanningen är att ahmadier är mer hatade och förföljda i islamiska stater än kristna. De har fallit offer för samma hat som dödade fader Jacques Hamel. I Storbritannien får de kalla sig muslimer, men inte i den islamiska staten Pakistan. Ahmadierna får tala i brittiska kyrkor, men inte i brittiska moskéer. En ahmadiyya-imam är bara imam inom det egna samfundet, inte i något annat islamiskt sammanhang.
Men inte ens i väst är de det lätt. Flera islamiska organisationer i Storbritannien kräver att regeringen ska sluta kalla ahmadier muslimer. De blir kränkta av att en sådan kättersk rörelse, som till och med tror på en profet efter Muhammed, ska tillåtas smutsa ner det vackra namnet islam.

Samma islamiska organisationer som vill förbjuda att man gör narr av Muhammed tvekar inte att göra narr av ahmadiernas profet Ahmad. Då är det inte ”islamofobi”, eftersom ahmadierna inte är muslimer. Ja, å gäller inte principen att man ska ”respektera alla profeter”.

Robert Spencer on Hannity on the hijab and human rights



Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer appeared on Fox's Hannity Show on December 6, 2016, to discuss the compatibility of the burqa with Western principles of human rights.


Bill Maher Exposes the Differences between Christianity and Islam - Charlie Rose Show



http://www.billmaher.com/

Wednesday, December 07, 2016

Morgan Freeman - thoughts on race

Bill Maher To Muslim Rep. Keith Ellison: The Qur'an Is A 'Hate Filled Holy Book "

"Håll käften, Naomi. Du är alldeles för vit"

För att läsa hela texten, klicka vänligen på länken:


http://www.expressen.se/ledare/naomi-abramowicz/hall-kaften-naomi-du-ar-alldeles-for-vit/

"Håll käften, Naomi. Du är alldeles för vit"

Publicerad 

William Kilpatrick, Frontpage Magazine: Why You Should Worry About Virgins In Paradise

To read the entire item, kindly click on this link:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265052/why-you-should-worry-about-virgins-paradise-william-kilpatrick

WHY YOU SHOULD WORRY ABOUT VIRGINS IN PARADISE


Will our ideological war against Islamic Supremacism ever get out of first gear?

 

ABOUT WILLIAM KILPATRICK

William Kilpatrick is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad (Regnery Publishing). For more on his work and writings, visit his website, turningpointproject.com.
In the wake of Abdul Artan’s car and knife attack at Ohio State University, the usual questions are being asked:  What was his motive?  Did he have psychological problems?  Will there be a backlash against the Muslim community?
But to those of us who suspect we already know the motive, the most pertinent question is the question of what can be done to defeat Islamic terrorism.  The answer according to many experts is that you can’t defeat jihad without first defeating the ideology behind it.  We must, it is said, so thoroughly discredit and delegitimize that ideology that the enemy ceases to believe in it and therefore loses the will to fight.
So far, so good.  That all makes sense.  We should do everything we can to undermine the ideology that inspires ISIS, al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Amalgamated Brotherhood of Lone Wolves.  So, what exactly is this ideology?  Here, things become a bit murky.  I’ve read a number of authors who’ve written about the subject, but most come up short on specifics.  They seem to assume that calling the beast “radical Islamic terror” is sufficient.
The reason for the evasiveness is that the elusive ideology of the terrorists is strikingly similar to Islam itself.  When terrorist leaders speak of their “ideology,” they do so by citing the Koran and the commands of Allah.  Here’s a sampling:
It is to this religion that we call you…It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah, so that Allah’s Word and religion reign Supreme.
Osama bin Laden, founder of al Qaeda
There is no doubt that Allah commanded us to strike the Kuffar (unbeliever), kill them and fight them by all means necessary.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, founder of al-Qaeda in Iraq which later morphed into ISIS
Support the religion of Allah through jihad in the path of Allah.  Go forth, O mujahidin in the path of Allah.
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, founder of ISIS.
Hmm.  It seems that the ideology that motivates terrorists is a religious ideology.  And what religion might that be?  Here’s where the religion-that-must-not-be-named syndrome kicks in.  Say what awful things you want about al-Qaeda and ISIS, just don’t say they have anything to do with Islam. 
But how can you criticize the ideology of the Islamic State without also criticizing Islam?  And if you can’t criticize Islamic beliefs, how can you defeat the ideology of the Islamic State?
Criticize Islamic beliefs?  The reason we don’t want to go there is that many consider such criticism to be tantamount to declaring war on Islam.  For example, intelligence expert Sebastian Gorka, who makes a very good case for waging ideological war against ISIS et al., also insists that we are not at war with Islam.  I understand the prudential reason for saying that.  The vernacular expression of the rationale goes something like this:  “Do you want to go to war with 1.6 billion Muslims?
Still, if you can’t criticize Islam, how can you defeat the ideology of the terrorists—an ideology that is inextricably bound up with Islam?
Gorka, along with others, says we should base our fight against terrorism on the Cold War model of our fight against communism.  But in the Cold War we didn’t wage ideological war against “perversions” or “misunderstandings” of communism, but against mainstream communism itself.  We didn’t urge Russians and East Europeans to practice a more moderate form of communism.  We urged them to separate themselves altogether from that pernicious ideology.  If we were to follow the Cold War model, we would indeed have to criticize Islam itself—or, at least, many aspects of it.  It is faith in Islam, not faith in “violent extremism” that fuels jihad.  Jihadists don’t kill people for the hell of it.  In fact, they do it to avoid hell, and to reap a heavenly reward.