Category Archives: Taqyyia

Veiled woman fined: Philippot and Dray suggest a manipulation.

Posted on by

An original translation by Ava Lon with much thanks!

From this most excellent and important website out of France, F Desouche 

SafariScreenSnapz128

by the fandetv 25/08/2016

Florian Philippot [Front National] said ironically, on Wednesday morning on RTL, the woman fined “was lucky” that a journalist from France 4 happened to be there. “So it was a great coincidence for her,” he averred.

Gilbert Collard, [Rassemblement Blue Marine — supporting Marine Le Pen from the Front National] for his part reacted on France Info on women in burkinis: “When in the current context a woman goes to the beach wearing a burkini, sometimes with photographers who will take pictures, we know that it makes the religious dress propaganda, and serves the controversy ISIS wants to initiate.”

Julien Dray, a former member from the Essonne [department in the Île-de-France region], believes the pictures of a woman forced to remove her veil in front of police in Nice were devised for the purpose of dividing the French. “No need to be a rocket scientist to understand that the photos on the beach in Nice were not surprise-pictures…”

Contacted by Scan, this insider close to François Hollande says: “I wonder; I am suspicious. If these pictures are sponsored, the one who did it wanted to create the buzz that we see these days. The objective is to divide the French.” And then this government official proceeds to point out some items that are suspicious in his eyes: “The images are very clear, probably made by telephoto. The woman wears no glasses, near a police station … It’s weird to see her lying like that, with no towel on a pebble beach. She doesn’t seem to be there to tan, because she’s covered, but she hasn’t brought an umbrella.” “A photographer was dispatched to be on hand to take these pictures. For what purpose? By whom? No sooner had they been uploaded, the images already went around the world and could be found in all the press, especially in the media of the Middle East. It was my buddies who alerted me, when they saw the thing spread,” says Julien Dray.
“These images appear to have been prepared. If true, this is very serious. This confirms that people are deliberately trying to undermine the unity of society, liberty […] When we enter this debate, we are already in the trap that tends to divide the country between the naive and the alarmists. We are caught between two extremes,” said the former MP for the Essonne. Without going so far as to identify a sponsor, Julien Dray wonders who would benefit from the deal. “We have to see how the Committee Against Islamophobia in France (CCIF) plays it in the coming days; we know how they operate.” On social networks there’s a shared suspicion that the event was staged, which also includes the Cannes episode relayed in Obs.[Le Nouveau Observateur]

“Feelings of exclusion and resentment” by the muslim community results in Canada day in one town, taking place in a mosque parking lot

Posted on by

A mosque parking lot. This is the concession we make because some people claim that they are made to feel unwelcome when they wear the uniform of the people who are killing us all over the world. Including Canada when they can.

So because of the resentment shown by the people who have enough courage to actually express themselves in the face of the most repugnant ideology and doctrine the world may have ever seen, one mayor has decided to hold the Canada day festivities in a mosque parking lot with a bouncy castle instead of a public park.

I can see that working out well.

I hope those non-Muslims, or should I be multicultural and say, “Najis” or “Kufaar“, bring pork products if they normally would, and alcohol if they normally drink on Canada day (Dominion Day) and ask open unafraid questions about Islamic history, slavery then and now, rules and punishments about apostasy and so on and find out what this is really about. Lets see if this tolerance in the parking lot extends to full throated Canadian culture or just a temporary parking lot detente.

CTV Story here:

Maajid Nawaz: Stealth Jihadist Exposed

Posted on by

While many will not recognize the name, they may recognize the organization he ran, and of which Tommy Robinson, formerly of the EDL, was a temporary partner.

This is a must read, must spread article.

From Gates of Vienna:

Maajid Nawaz is a prominent “moderate” or secular Muslim and the founder of the Quilliam Foundation in Britain. His organization was featured briefly in this space two years ago, when Tommy Robinson and Kevin Carroll left the EDL and teamed up with Quilliam just before Tommy’s trial (see these three posts from October 2013 for more on Tommy Robinson and Quilliam).

The following exposé by Vikram Chatterjee examines the extensive use by Maajid Nawaz of untruths, dissimulation, evasions, and misleading statements in his writings about Islam. In these he reveals himself to be a practitioner of taqiyya, tawriya, and kitman, the time-honored Islamic doctrines of lying and sacred misdirection.

Update: Mr. Chatterjee has cross-posted this article to his own blog, where you will find his further thoughts on Maajid Nawaz.

Maajid Nawaz: Stealth Jihadist Exposed
by Vikram K. Chatterjee

Thanks in part to the help of Douglas Murray, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sam Harris, Prime Minister David Cameron and others, Maajid Nawaz has acquired an undeserved reputation as a secular liberal. Despite his outward facade of secularism and liberalism, Nawaz is in fact a deeply devout Sunni Muslim supremacist, operating far behind enemy lines in the Dar al-Harb, the House of War. Nawaz, to fulfill his duties as a Muslim, is waging a campaign of stealth Jihad in order to further the cause of Islam by making himself appear friendly and open to the Infidels of the West while simultaneously carrying out a campaign of mass deception about Islam itself. His goal is to weaken any resistance to the conquest of the Infidel lands of the West by publicly spreading disinformation about the faith, about its many ways of conquest, and deceiving his audience about the doctrinal details of Islam itself. While this may seem like a preposterous claim to make, it merely reflects the ordinary reality of stealth Jihad.

In what follows, Nawaz’s campaign of deception will be demonstrated.

Maajid Nawaz’s not-so-subtle threats of decapitation

The first thing to be said is that Nawaz is easily shown to have deployed threatening, jihad-tinged language after he supposedly became a secular liberal. In July of 2012, Nawaz’s book Radical: My Journey Out of Islamist Extremism was published by WH Allen. The book purports to be a memoir in which Nawaz describes his youth in Essex, how he joined the Sunni supremacist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, and how he became a political prisoner in Egypt where he supposedly had a revelation in which he saw that “Islamism”, or variously “Islamist extremism” was a divisive political ideology, and decided to leave it (but not, crucially, Islam itself), becoming a secular liberal. Fifteen months later, in October 2013, a year and a half after the UK publication of Nawaz’ memoir, Tommy Robinson quit the English Defense League, the organization which he started, out of fear that its ranks were swelling with neo-Nazis. He embraced Maajid Nawaz and Quilliam Foundation instead, accepting at the time their claims of secularism to be genuine. In an email obtained by Huffington Post Assistant News Editor Jessica Elgot, Nawaz described this event as the “UK’s largest right-wing street movement — the EDL — is being decapitated.”[1] (emphasis added)

Interesting choice of words, no? Why would the “former Islamist extremist” Maajid Nawaz use such threatening, jihad-tinged language? Could his secular liberalism be a clever sham? As we shall see, turning to the book he co-authored with Sam Harris, the evidence shows Nawaz is cold and calculating in his bald-faced telling of untruths, repeatedly deploying outrageous falsehoods about Islam.

The lies of Maajid Nawaz in Islam and the Future of Tolerance: A Dialogue

Published in October 2015, Islam and the Future of Tolerance: A Dialogue purports to be a conversation between two liberals, one an acknowledged atheist and secularist, the other a supposedly nominal Muslim. The goal of the book seems to be to find a way of talking about Islam and its attendant problems in a polite way, and search for a path for a kind of Islamic secularism. Harris, apparently convinced of Nawaz’ liberalism and secularism, entered into the “dialogue” with him in October 2014. In an article entitled “Can Liberalism Be Saved From Itself”, Harris wrote what will prove to have been a fateful sentence:

Whatever the prospects are for moving Islam out of the Middle Ages, hope lies not with obscurantists like Reza Aslan but with reformers like Maajid Nawaz.[2]

Harris called Aslan an obscurantist, yet turning to his book with Nawaz, on page 44 we find Nawaz saying, of Sayyid Qutb, the notorious Muslim Brotherhood leader, theologian and author of Milestones, and In The Shade of the Qur’an, whose zealous career was a primary force in creating the modern Islamic movements to restore the Caliphate, that “the Egyptian regime killed him for writing a book”.

This is a straightforward falsehood. Notoriously, Qutb was executed by the Egyptian state for his alleged involvement in an attempt to assassinate Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser.[3] By saying that Qutb was executed for merely writing a book, Nawaz portrays Qutb as a devout Muslim as an innocent victim, a tried and true tactic of Islamic propaganda. It seems highly unlikely that Nawaz is unaware of the real reason for Qutb’s execution, given that Nawaz spent four years at the same prison in which Qutb was held, Mazra Tora.

Moving on, on page 61 of the book, Harris brings up the important point of Qur’anic literalism:

I want to ask you about this, because my understanding is that basically all “moderate” Muslims — that is, those who aren’t remotely like Islamists, or even especially conservative, in their social attitudes — are nevertheless fundamentalists by the Christian standard, because they believe the Qur’an to be the literal and inerrant word of God.

Excellent question, Sam. Do mainstream Muslims believe that the Qur’an is the literal and inerrant word of God? What is Nawaz’s reply?

Please read the rest at Gates of Vienna

Revisiting the Rose Garden fiasco at the Vatican

Posted on by

There has been some discussion about a couple of statements made by the pope to Abbas, leader of the Palestinian Authority at the Vatican recently. This is not yet resolved although the sensationalist error, that the pope called Abbas an “Angel of Peace” as well as the video posted last night translated into Spanish where the pope said, paraphrasing, ‘We will be eternally one as we have eternally the same mission’, seems to have been mistranslated the same way by several people. Even so, commenters to this site who appear to be native Italian speakers have attempted to clarify what the pope actually said, which, if they are correct, is considerably a more appropriate sentiment. In fact exactly what one might expect from that office.

This seems a good time to repost something that took place at the Vatican in 2014 where I had requested the translation myself and had it checked by third parties to be certain it was accurate. This is where the pope held a peace gathering and the Palestinian delegation had an imam who broke with the script and read a prayer asking allah to help the muslims defeat the Christians and the Jews. Below is an analysis on this event by Stephen Coughlin.

Maj. (Ret) Stephen Coughlin

This was not an error by the pope or a mistranslation. This certainly looks like a deception pulled off by the Palestinians and Islamic side of this gathering. While the pope cannot be faulted for what his gusts did to him, he should be aware, is aware, of the actual mission of islam today, doubly so as he oversaw a canonization of martyrs defending Europe from muslim invasion,  as well as one would presume his knowledge of islam and access to the same information the rest of us have about current events.

Some muslims react to the attack. (Mostly blaming the targets of it)

Posted on by

Person 1:

Makes reasonable condemnation and even appears to say that the attackers are not real muslims

Person 2:

Blames Pamela Geller and her organization for disrupting the “peace of our city” and accuses her of inciting hatred. At no point does he say anything bad about the attack or the attackers.

Person 3:

Speaks about the horrible condition for muslims in Texas because of the backlash that isn’t happening and never does happen due to an attack muslims did.

In this video, the muslim naturally blames the people at the conference for inciting the attack so it is their fault. He goes on to claim that the US converts to Islam were really reacting to 30 years of American war on muslims. As if these attackers were refugees from a war torn country and had some kind of PTSD from it and felt they needed to ‘defend islam’ etc. It gets worse after that.

A lie of omission by prayer at the White House

Posted on by

There are of course, many ways to deceive people with what you say. One of them is by what you do not say, when it is directly relevant to the question asked but only the part of the answer that assuages your concerns is given.

Examples of this kind of deception are too easy to think of from one’s own life’s experience to bother typing out here I suspect.

On Feb. 19 2015 at the White House a quite typical but pernicious example of this kind of lie was used by the clerics who read the one religious prayer that was given at the summit on ‘violent extremism’.

In the video below, you can see exactly what two of the omissions were. One was the lines spoken in Arabic but not translated into English which changes the meaning quite a bit. This is the same tactic used against the Marines by the islamic Barbary Pirates when defeated by Jefferson’s American forces. (Article 11 guaranteeing no enmity between Christian and Islamic states was not put into the Arabic version.)

The second lie of omission is the verse that comes right after the verse they did recite, which fundamentally transforms (wait that sounds familiar) the meaning of the verse they did read.

There will be a lot more analysis added by link in this post by the scholar Dr. Andrew Bostom and others as the evening goes on and people have their posts ready. Please check back shortly. Meanwhile, there is this important link which explains how this particular deception is often used.

Gates of Vienna post on this matter here

Preempting a classic Islamic tactic to come in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack

Posted on by

At some point, either today or this week, various politicians, I would dare guess Justin Trudeau among them, but actual elected leaders along with various Islamic clerics, muslim community leaders, islamic spokespeople and anyone they can dig out will start using carefully crafted language to seem to condemn today’s attack and try to make the narrative about the backlash against the muslim community that is sorely needed but never comes.

A few weeks ago, we published this video which explains exactly how these linguistic tricks work. Please watch and pay special attention to the section on terrorism. Its only 20 minutes but it will prepare you, and anyone you care to share it with or discuss it with, by giving you the tools you need to defend yourself from this rhetorical shenanigan.

Does Islam really forbid the killing of others?

Posted on by

In recent debates I have seen between various people representing muslims and the rest of the world, most recently thanks to the atrocities committed by the Islamic State, I have seen the same line quoted from koran by nearly all who wish to make it appear that Islam doesn’t sanction the killing of others no matter what the faith or group of the victim.

I wanted to link to the best article I have read on the subject so far which was written by Sonia Bailley but couldn’t find it. So I asked her if she would be kind enough to send it to me and allow me to republish it here so that I can find it and link to it in future when needs be. Which will likely be quite a bit.

Thank you very much Sonia

Eeyore for Vlad:

Saving All of Humanity in Islam? Not!

By Sonia Bailley

How typically deceptive it is when Muslims refer to koranic verse 5:32 claiming that saving one human being is like saving all of humanity. This analogy applies only when a Muslim is killed by a Jew. Muslims are attempting to prove that Islam cares about people of all religious faiths. It doesn’t.

First, verse 5:32 is Jewish in origin — it comes from Judaism, from the Jerusalem Talmud (Sanhedrin 4:1, 22a), and it refers to and protects people of ALL religions, unlike the koranic verse that followed later on. This is far from the only Islamic verse or concept snatched from Judaism. Others were pilfered from Christianity and Zoroastrianism.

Koranic verse 5:32 was meant only for Jews to follow, and protects Muslims in that Jews are forbidden to kill them. Jews are referred to explicitly at the beginning of the verse: “we decreed for the Children of Israel”.

Second, the purpose of this verse was not to instill or reveal benevolence in the Muslim, but rather to place aggressive restrictions on Jews regarding whom they can kill without punishment: Jews can only kill (a) in retaliation for manslaughter, and (b) non-Muslims for causing “corruption in the earth“ or fitna (Islam not being followed).

What the verse really says is that if a Jew kills a Muslim, it’s as if the Jew kills all of humanity, akin to genocide. In reality this quote justifies Islamic discrimination by protecting only Muslims from being killed, and places Jews under constant threat of heavy retaliation should one Jew kill a Muslim (see 5:33 below). Other koranic verses (and Islamic texts) reveal there is no manslaughter involved when Muslims kill non-Muslims.

When you cherry-pick from verse 5:32, as most Muslims do (and as Obama did in his Cairo speech in June 2009), it appears to condemn the killing of ALL humans by anyone. This is why parts of the verse are always purposely omitted by proselytizers of Islam when attempting to convert others. However, when understood in its entirety, this koranic verse permits and encourages the killing of non-Muslims by Jews.

If, as Muslims claim (based on 5:32), they cannot kill anyone of any religion, then you would expect, at the very least, that they not kill other Muslims. However, take a look around the world. Pick any country where death, oppression and destruction run rampant. You will see the extent to which Muslims with the power to kill (like ISIS) care about Muslims who are not considered to be Muslim enough (like Shiite or Ahmadi Muslims), let alone people of other religions, in order to avoid fitna (a state of disorder due to people not following Islam).

Here is koranic verse 5:32, which should be read in its entirety: “For that cause, we decreed for the Children of Israel, that whoever kills a human for reasons other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind. And whoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came to them with clear proofs (of Allah’s sovereignty), but afterwards lo! Many of them become transgressors of the earth.”

Here is the next verse, 5:33, showing how to punish the disbelievers of Islam: “Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified, or that their HANDS and FEET BE CUT OFF from opposite sides, or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment.”

“Saving one human is like saving all of humanity” applies only when that human being is a Muslim. A life is worthy only when it follows Islam. Otherwise, it just doesn’t matter.

Possible fraud under investigation in at least five anti-jihad projects

Posted on by

An original translation by SIMONXML

From this Dutch site:

By: Merijn Rengers, John Schoorl – 09/20/14, 07:01

The Public Prosecutor (OM) is investigating fraud and corruption in at least five major anti-radicalization projects. This has been revealed by investigations by the Dutch Volkskrant newspaper into the  misuse of subsidies to combat jihadism in the Netherlands.

According to a spokesperson for the OM there are two suspects in a criminal investigation into fraud involving subsidies provided by the Institute for Multicultural Affairs (FORUM). Those involved say that it concerns two anti-radicalization experts who were arrested on July 31 in The Hague

One is FORUM program manager and Labour politician Halim el Madkouri, the other the Hague Berber activist, Farid L. Shortly before his arrest, the latter had been seen by a number of undercover agents giving an envelope containing four thousand euros in cash to El Madkouri  in a coffee bar.

Continue Reading →

Former Archbishop of Canterbury channels 100 year old novel in his betrayal of Great Britain

Posted on by

‘British and Islamic values can go hand in hand’ says Dr Rowan Williams on visit to Lincolnshire

Some choice quotes from the article linked above:

Dr Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, was a special guest at an event at the Lincolnshire Showground that saw thousands gather for four days of debate about Islam. He told the crowds at Living Islam that Muslims have brought back “open, honest and difficult public discussion” as one of their “greatest gifts” to the UK.

At the Lincolnshire Showground, Lord Williams talked about British values and Islamic values and how the two are often reported as being at odds with each other.

Yet he blamed the media for much of this. “In Birmingham, we have seen a local parish and a mosque combining together to provide family services and youth activities,” Lord Williams said.

“It’s really important that we respect and try to understand diversity of conscience and belief and conviction.

“These are not just about what makes us British – they’re about what makes us human.”

He also criticised some sections of the media for portraying Muslims as “un-British”, and slammed the “illiteracy” about religion among Government figures.

Lord Williams said that he believed the most difficult thing facing British Muslims was the media’s emphasis on what made Muslims different.

“I think that Lincoln Cathedral is one of the greatest treasures of Western Europe.

“I have seen that there’s an academy in Scunthorpe that Muslims and Christians study at, St Lawrence Academy, and it’s a brilliant example of integration between different religions in Lincolnshire.”

The event, which was organised by the Islamic Society of Britain, attracted between 4,500 to 5,000 visitors throughout the four days.

Shamima Hossain, 44, who had travelled to the event with family from Norwich, said she had enjoyed Lord Williams’ speech.

“I think he’s amazing,” she said. “As a Muslim, it’s really pleasing to hear a Christian be so encompassing of all faiths.”

H/T M.

Now have a read of the first few chapters of G.K. Chesterton’s ‘The Flying Inn’

From chapter II written in 1914 where a British community leader tries to convince the rest of England that a debt is owed to Islam and that to give up things distinctly British because Islam forbids them can only be a good thing after all:

“. . . do we indeed owe nothing,” the diplomatist was saying “to that gesture of high refusal in which so many centuries ago the great Arabian mystic put the wine-cup from his lips? Do we owe nothing to the long vigil of a valiant race, the long fast by which they have testified against the venomous beauty of the Vine? Ours is an age when men come more and more to see that the creeds hold treasures for each other, that each religion has

a secret for its neighbour, that faith unto faith uttereth speech, and church unto church showeth knowledge. If it be true, and I claim again the indulgence of Oman Pasha when I say I think it is true, that we of the West have brought some light to Islam in the matter of the preciousness of peace and of civil order, may we not say

that Islam in answer shall give us peace in a thousand homes, and encourage us to cut down that curse that has done so much to thwart and madden the virtues of Western Christendom. Already in my own country the orgies that made horrible the nights of the noblest families are no more. Already the legislature takes more and more sweeping action to deliver the populace from the bondage of the all-destroying drug. Surely the prophet of Mecca is reaping his harvest; the cession of the disputed vineyards to the greatest of his champions is of all acts the most appropriate to this day; to this happy day that may yet deliver the East from the curse of war and the West from the curse of wine.

The gallant prince who meets us here at last, to offer an olive branch even more glorious than his sword, may well have our sympathy if he himself views the cession with some sentimental regret; but I have little doubt that he also will live to rejoice in it at last. And I would remind you that it is not the vine alone that has been the sign of the glory of the South. There is another sacred tree unstained by loose and violent memories, guiltless of the blood of Pentheus or of Orpheus and the broken lyre. We shall pass from this place in a little while as all things pass and perish:

“Far called, our navies melt away. On dune and headland sinks the fire, And all our pomp of yesterday Is one with Nineveh and Tyre.

“But so long as sun can shine and soil can nourish, happier men and women after us shall look on this lovely islet and it shall tell its own story; for they shall see these three holy olive trees lifted in everlasting benediction, over the humble spot out of which came the peace of the world.”

And so we see. A novelist 100 years ago this year saw the slingers of pernicious spin doctoring to try and sell Islam as a religion of peace and miscible with values that Islam was in fact, created to destroy utterly and then erase even its memory as being from ‘the time of ignorance’ [sic] before islam was founded.

And we hear it everywhere from cowards and opportunists that see a fast buck or some community position and temporary bureaucratic advantage by selling out not just their own people, but their own culture, their own history and ancestors and even reason itself.

Eeyore for Vlad with a big HT to M.