Imam Suleiman’s views on Sharia and Caliphate for the West

If you make it to the end of this 90 second clip, you see why it matters that this Islamic leader says these things.

This particular imam has quite a history of public antisemitism as well. You can find some of that in the clip below

Special thanks to Andrew Bostom for the clip times and details.

A sterling example of what sharia law is, and how it works

One of the most persistent themes of this site, is trying to assist people in understanding that sharia law, is not like a Western formalized form of law with any kind of equality, and more importantly, MUCH more importantly, not even any kind of due process. Ultimately life and death decisions are made by the guy with the biggest hat.

And all it takes is an accusation. But it is critical to understand why a given accusation will be acted on, or not.

Any accusation that increases the authority and degree of Islam will be acted on, if at all possible. While the exact same accusation or ‘crime’ would not be acted on, if it does not increase the authority of Islam or worse, diminishes its stature, which is itself a crime in Islam.

It doesn’t take a court or anything so formal or grandiose. It just takes a muslim to make the accusation. Say, Blasphemy or adultery or any kind of behaviour where a non-muslim acts like an equal to a muslim like drinking out of a muslim-only well for instance (Asia Bibi) and then a cleric to legitimize the accusation, and then a rabid mob to carry out the murder of the accused. Although sometimes there is a stay in prison and sometimes a sort of trial. But there is no due process. The best an accused can hope for, is massive foreign attention and anger which could result in sanctions.

The example below shows how sharia law works. It was this way in the Islamic State, for years even before it was declared to be such, (although our video proofs of that were taken down. but some where even done by French journalists.) It is this way in much or most of Afghanistan as we saw with a woman who was thrown off a roof, beaten, burned to death and thrown into a ravine of sorts because she was accused of something by an imam who really wanted her killed for some other reason.

Sharia isn’t just something we have to resist. Its the reason people go to war to stop, or perhaps more fairly, to protect a legal system like the one we inherited from the British.

It is also noteworthy that communism has pretty much the same system of justice. And for pretty much the same reasons. You have an opinion, say something or do something that diminishes the authority of communists or communism in the area, you will face court or gulags etc. depending on the stage of communist implementation.

For communism’s equivalent of blasphemy, insulting the leader in any way whatsoever in North Korea, you go to a slave labour camp for three generations. Your grandchildren will be in a camp because you used a part of a page of a magazine in which there is a photo of any of the leaders of North Korea to make a cigarette.

There is little daylight between leftism/communism and Islam.

Frau Merkel’s appeal to crush freedom of speech to save freedoms in Germany

Direct link.

Newspeak at its apex. Thank you MissPiggy for the examination and translation of this one.

This is most likely Merkel’s tandem effort with Erdogan and the OIC to impose Islamic blasphemy laws in Germany and by extension, the EU.

As we have come to expect, the method is to use th Frankfurt School’s Political Correctness in order to slide blasphemy laws in under the guise of tolerance. But it is in reality, the Marcusean Repressive Tolerance, which is the gateway to full Soviet like control on what can and cannot be said aloud. And if thoughts that run counter to the official consensus (global warming, men cannot become biological women) are said in private, the power bestowed on the listener to destroy your life makes #Metoo look trivial.

Looking at Sharia and leftist complicity with it

1. Yasmin Mohammad speaks to the American left’s support of applied orthodox Islam

2. Indonesian province of Aceh Cains a bunch of people for trivial reasons in public

Eleven people are caned in public by a hooded Sharia officer in Indonesia

One woman begged for mercy and another sobbed uncontrollably as ‘s Aceh arch-conservative province flogged 11 people for getting too close to members of the opposite sex. 


The six men and five women were rounded up by religious officers who caught them behaving amorously in public, a crime under local Islamic law.  


Dozens watched as the humiliated victims were whipped outside a mosque in the provincial capital Banda Aceh. 

Despite widespread criticism, public whipping is a common punishment for a range of offences in the deeply conservative region at the tip of Sumatra island, including gambling, drinking , and having gay sex or relations outside of marriage.


Aceh is the only region in the world‘s biggest Muslim-majority country that imposes Islamic law.

Punishment: A hooded member of the Sharia police (pictured left) prepares to dish out 11 canings to people caught with the opposite sex in public, including the woman on the far right


Public caning: One of the men feels the pain of the whipping as he punished is for being too close to the opposite sex in the only Indonesian province to practice Islamic law



Thank you M,  Richard, Wrath of Khan and all who sent in materials this weekend. More to come.

non-blurred video with sign and translation


The woman in the middle of what appears to be a large crowd of leftists and muslims starts out with a sign that says:

“Blasphemy is a right of (those who live in) the Republic of France”

It isn’t until people took her sign away that she went for a message that was harder to ignore.

“Do not sell secularism cheaply”.

This event appears to be a major march against “islamophobia“, that took place in Paris today. This is likely a prelude to a new anti-free speech law in the guise of hate speech. We are seeing this all over the Western world now.

How Frankfurt School managed to make hate speech, out of disagreement with the state

Direct link:

Below, an explanation of this video by the translator, Ava Lon. Thank you very much for this difficult work, and Gates of Vienna for the edit and format.

This is 7 minutes long part of a longer video, from Krzysztof Karo? -the very Polish writer, who informed us about Spinelli and his role in the creation of the EU. The entire video is about the semantic changes uttered by the -as he calls them- Neo-Marxists, in order to appropriate the language, the debate and finally be able to create the narrative.

They reach this goal by starting by a premise (a false premise) that Truth cannot be known at all, it is only described by our imperfect language which can vary from one person to another, and therefore causes the Truth to be un-knowable or creates many Truths. [if you’re confused already, please keep in mind that 2+2=4, no matter how you say it, in what language, and how poor your grammar might be]

If the Truth depends on language, nothing seems simpler than modify it by modifying the language, on purpose. Who decides how the Truth will be modified, or rather: what will be called the Truth once the necessary changes have been performed?

Jürgen Habermas, belonging to the second generation of Frankfurt School philosophers, after suggesting the nonexistence of objective Truth and the possibility therefore of molding it at will, answers this question by proposing a collective solution in the endeavor of deciding what the Truth is, or rather what it should be.

The process in which the Truth is established is called the Discourse, according to the Communicative Action Theory -known in Poland as the Discourse Theory and this is the name used in the argument of Krzysztof Karo? in this video, ‘discourse’ being the key word- [and Discourse, unlike a normal discussion, doesn’t admit dissent], and the consensus that is reached in that process isn’t reached by presenting better arguments, but rather by pressuring everyone to abandon their views and adhere to the consensus.The difference between this and a compromise is that in a compromise everybody gives up something in order to agree on a common ground. In the Neo-Marxist Consensus Discourse certain positions are entirely given up and the person whole-heartedly takes the Truth established by the discourse and its consensus as HIS OWN [just like in Orwell’s 1984, it wasn’t enough to just ACCEPT the Big Brother, you had to truly LOVE him].

Once everybody agreed what the Truth is (in every particular case), doubting, criticizing, speaking about different possibilities, or even just asking questions about that Neo-Marxist “revealed Truth” is sowing discord, enmity and hate speech.

I thought this was very important in the light of the sentencing of ESW in Austria, where clearly the truth was not a defense, and anyway, the court seems to have had already some sort of consensus about what the truth was.

2013 interview with the head of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) on the implementation of UN Res. 16/18

We are restoring this because of its terrible importance. Many people, most in fact, do not know about 16/18 or its importance, and would likely think you unwell or dishonest if you tried to explain it to them.

Here it is from the head of the OIC himself, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, who is more clear than most of our own leaders on the intention of 16/18.

Please note that it has now been thoroughly established that the attack on the US Embassy in Libya was a well planned terrorist attack by Islamic groups and had nothing whatsoever to do with the short and badly made Youtube film on the life of Mohammad mentioned in the video. In fact, that video only had 13 views at the time that the attack happened, which leads many to suspect that the Obama/Clinton admin had created the film as kind of false Cases Belli for this event or one like it. Possibly to advance the implementation of Islamic blasphemy laws within the USA.

Subsequent to this, we have seen Canadian Parliamentary motion M103 be adopted and financed, and many other nations around the world, including Austria and the EU adopt saleable laws which clearly are meant to conform to UN 16/18, although typically renamed into something that the locals can accept.

Direct link:

From EW:

A stunning display of hypocrisy at a “freedom of speech” conference

It is established that Twitter has agreed to conform to Pakistani blasphemy laws.

It is stunning that at a free speech event, RT is banned but the CBC and BBC are not although the reasons for banning RT (presumably) apply more to the CBC and BBC.

The Rebel managed to attend but they clearly attempted to stop Ezra from asking the only question that mattered. This was a stage managed event and no dissent was to be permitted, and the Pakistani censors must not be challenged.

This is a truly outstanding moment by The Rebel’s Ezra Levant, equalled perhaps only by his appearance as a defendant at the disgraceful Canadian ‘Human Rights Commissions’.

Freedom of speech is dying all over the world and the UK appears to be the vanguard of the new totalitarian push against freedom of speech.

H/T Oz-Rita


Asia Bibi in Canada

It is possible that this is the first genuine refugee Canada has taken in. And it is an amazingly good thing that Canada did. One wonders if there are conditions to her being here such as limits to her freedom of speech to discuss Islam and its impact on minorities in Islamic countries. It is difficult not to believe that the Saudi girls are not under conditions like that as their language has been extremely measured since arriving here.

The CBC article failed to mention that the UK turned down her application because of concerns over how local muslims would behave. Once again showing who makes the law in the UK.

It is a powerfully good thing that Canada brought in Asia. However I personally have met migrants to Canada from Syria who were Christian but had to lie and say they were Muslim to get into Canada as a refugee. So while this extremely high profile case is an excellent event, someone needs to look in to the actual policy in Canada in terms of accepting genuine refugees of Islamic horror and discrimination against minority religions and see what is wrong in the system.


A court case where the method is far more important than the result

In the following Project veritas video, James O’keefe video, a teacher who had been secretly filmed by a Project Veritas associate, sued for defamation and lost.

To be honest, I think it was a weak bust. A teacher who, for all we know, had a really difficult large class of tough kids who make teaching a near impossibility, not saying it is this way, but its more than a little easy to believe it was, had a routine he did where he offered to let students fight him. No idea if this ever really happened and no idea if it wasn’t a schtick to earn street cred with students.

But there is one thing that is critically important and critically good about this case:

The judge decided 100% based on what was true and not true.

He decided against the claimant as there could not have been defamation because what was said about him and the video evidence showed it to be true.

This is as central to classical civilization as anything can be.

In communism as we are learning very quickly, what is true does not matter but what collective the parties involved are imputed to belong to. If the plaintiff is white and the defendant is black there will be a different outcome than if they belonged to other groups as assigned by the authorities’ prevailing ideology.

In Islam, it is very similar but much simpler.

The decision again, has nothing at all to do with truth, and everything to do with whether or not Islam is advantaged or disadvantaged by the information presented.

Defamation, liable and slander in any culture that is an intact descendant of Greek thought, MUST make its verdicts based on what can be shown to be true using logic, reason, and evidence.

But in Islam it is 100% based on what serves the interests of Islam and its position of authority. What is true plays exactly no part in any verdict.

This is not me saying it. This is codified in The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights presented to the UN via the OIC as official doctrine.

So whatever you feel about this odd case between what I think is a high school teacher and Project Veritas, we can rejoice that at least our legal system at that time and that place is intact.