Search This Blog

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

BBC whitewashing all Islamic nastiness about Nalanda India

Of course it's supposed to be thereligion.of. Peace (bs)

Here is a typical example of the BBC leaving out some extraordinary facts...

"Nalanda University in northern India drew scholars from all over Asia, surviving for hundreds of years before being destroyed by invaders in 1193

This is from the BBC about the reemergence  of a very ancient university, based on Buddhism.  No mention who invaded and destroyed the highly advanced centre of learning.   This the BBC quote in full:

"Nalanda University in northern India drew scholars from all over Asia, surviving for hundreds of years before being destroyed by invaders in 1193"

Well it turns that it was destroyed by a raider Islamic army, who imposed Islam and quite amazingly was a period of the highest amount of conversions to Islam and mosque building.  You wouldn't even get a hint of this from the BBC article. 

Quote from the wiki entry: (

"Nalanda was ransacked and destroyed by an army underBakhtiyar Khilji in 1193. The great library of Nalanda University was so vast that it is reported to have burned for three months after the invaders set fire to it, ransacked and destroyed the monasteries, and drove the monks from the site."

"The Persian historian Minhaj-i-Siraj, in his chronicle the Tabaqat-I-Nasiri, reported that thousands of monks were burned alive and thousands beheaded as Khilji tried his best to uproot Buddhism[13] the burning of the library continued for several months and "smoke from the burning manuscripts hung for days like a dark pall over the low hills."[14]

In fact it was so disastrous that it ceased to be a centre of learning until now!!!!

Syrian madness

"While willing to engage with the rebels, Canada is among the few western governments refusing to recognize the opposition rebel coalition as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people.
"Our strong concern has been, and continues to be, the number of radical jihadists that have entered parts of the opposition and, in our view, that's not getting better. It is, in fact, getting worse," Baird said.
The UK and France committed to only supplying arms to "moderate" factions within the opposition. Still, the decision to allow the arms embargo to expire came after 12 hours of intense debate among EU member states...."

What moderates?  A bit like trying to find a needle in a haystack.  And what's to say that these arms don't  fall into the hands of less so moderately inclined groups brandishing black flags and imposing the full version of sharia law.  
Is there any way that an arm can distinguish a bad guy, the enemy from a civilian.   
This is sheer madness 

Sunday, May 26, 2013

Umar rules for Christian Dhiminis


  In return for “safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion”
 The Christians will not:
Build “a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk”;

“Restore any place of worship that needs restoration”;

Use such places “for the purpose of enmity against Muslims”;

“Allow a spy against Muslims into our churches and homes or hide deceit [or betrayal] against Muslims”;

Imitate the Muslims’ “clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames and title names”;
 “Ride on saddles, hang swords on the shoulders, collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons”;

“Encrypt our stamps in Arabic”

“Sell liquor”

“Teach our children the Qur’an”;

“Publicize practices of Shirk” – that is, associating partners with Allah, such as regarding Jesus as Son of God. In other words, Christian and other non-Muslim religious practice will be private, if not downright furtive;

Build “crosses on the outside of our churches and demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets” – again, Christian worship must not be public, where Muslims can see it and become annoyed;

“Sound the bells in our churches, except discreetly, or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims, nor raise our voices [with prayer] at our funerals, or light torches in funeral processions in the fairways of Muslims, or their markets”;

“Bury our dead next to Muslim dead”;

“Buy servants who were captured by Muslims”;

“Invite anyone to Shirk” – that is, proselytize, although the Christians also agree not to:

“Prevent any of our fellows from embracing Islam, if they choose to do so.” Thus the Christians can be the objects of proselytizing, but must not engage in it themselves;

“Beat any Muslim.”

Meanwhile, Christians must obey the following; if not, they could be killed:

 Allow Muslims to rest “in our churches whether they come by day or night”;

“Open the doors [of our houses of worship] for the wayfarer and passerby”;

Provide board and food for “those Muslims who come as guests” for three days;

“Respect Muslims, move from the places we sit in if they choose to sit in them”

“Have the front of our hair cut, wear our customary clothes wherever we are, wear belts around our waist” – these are so that a Muslim recognizes a non-Muslim as such and doesn’t make the mistake of greeting him with As-salaamu aleikum, “Peace be upon you,” which is the Muslim greeting for a fellow Muslim;

“Be guides for Muslims and refrain from breaching their privacy in their homes.”

The Christians swore: “If we break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimmah (promise of protection) is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion.

Muhammad declared that the dhimmi cannot walk on the same road as the Muslim.
 “Do not initiate the Salam [greeting of peace] to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley.”

religions tolerance

Mid-East backed Muslims

Christian persecution

Comment on Islamic friendship

A good point  was made on Atlas Shrugs website on the interpretation of a crucial verse from the Koran:

At the other end of the spectrum, it looks like the true Islamist life imitates the Koran "Oh believers, do not take the Yahood and the Nasara, the Jews and the Christians, as awliya." 

The word awliya is the plural of wali. The word wali means many different things. It means friend, it means guardian, it means protector, it means master, it means ally and many other things.
So when Allah azza wa jal says do not take the Yahood and Nasara as awliya, it doesn't just mean do not take them as friends. Do not take them as your guardians, your protectors, your allies, your friends, your masters.

 In no way should there be this alliance with the kuffar. Allah says they are allies, they are the awliya, of one another. And whoever makes them a friend, then that person is of them. Allah does not guide those who are sinful.

Saturday, May 25, 2013

Peace loving majority who don't speak or stand up

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt; yet, for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by the fanatics. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because, like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Bosnians, Afghanis, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians and many others, have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us, watching it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts: the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

To read the rest of the article Click here

Friday, May 24, 2013

Hala fair unfair choices boycott

Misleading taqqiya as usual

Great article from jihad

Note what Mehdi Hasan leaves out of his Qur'an quotation. "The Muslim faith does not turn men to terror: The two suspects in the Woolwich killing were violating the doctrine of their own holy book," by Mehdi Hasan in the Telegraph, May 23 (thanks to JH):
'Whosoever killeth a human being…” says the Koran, in the 32nd verse of its fifth chapter, “it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind.”
Thus, the two supposedly Muslim men suspected of killing and mutilating an unarmed, off-duty soldier in the middle of a London street, while shouting “Allahu Akbar” (“God is Great”), were violating the injunction of their own holy book. Perversely, it was the non-Muslim Cub Scout leader who, in trying to save the soldier’s life, and standing up to his alleged attackers, was acting in accordance with Koranic principles. Let’s be clear: Islam doesn’t permit the killing of innocents. Jihad is permissible only in self-defence and if sanctioned by a legitimate government. To quote from our Prime Minister’s pitch-perfect statement outside No 10, Wednesday’s barbarism was “a betrayal of Islam and of the Muslim communities who give so much to our country”.
Yes, let's be clear. Qur'an 5:32 actually says this:
For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.
Hasan quoted it thusly: "Whosoever killeth a human shall be as if he had killed all mankind." Notice what he left out: "for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth." So the Qur'an is saying only that killing a human being for something other than manslaughter or "corruption in the earth" is as if one had killed all mankind.
But what if someone does commit "corruption in the earth"? The Qur'an goes on: "The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom." (Qur'an 5:33)
Now we see why Mehdi Hasan left that part out of his Qur'an quote.
So it is permissible -- indeed, commanded -- to kill those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after "corruption in the land." Islam doesn't permit the killing of innocents, but this victim was a British soldier. He was, in the view of his killer, making war upon Allah and his messenger and spreading corruption in the land by fighting in Afghanistan. In that case, the killer's jihad was defensive, and Hasan's words about it being only permissible if sanctioned by a legitimate government are simply false in terms of Islamic law.
To be sure, only the state authority can declare offensive jihad. A Shafi'i manual of Islamic law that was certified in 1991 by the clerics at Al-Azhar University, one of the leading authorities in the Islamic world, as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy, stipulates that “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians...until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It adds a comment by Sheikh Nuh ‘Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)...while remaining in their ancestral religions.” ('Umdat al-Salik, o9.8).
Of course, there is no caliph today, and upon this fact hinges the oft-repeated claim that people like the London murderer are waging jihad illegitimately, as no state authority has authorized their jihad. But he and others like him explain their actions in terms of defensive jihad, which needs no state authority to call it, and becomes "obligatory for everyone" ('Umdat al-Salik, o9.3) if a Muslim land is attacked. The end of the defensive jihad, however, is not peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims as equals: 'Umdat al-Salik specifies that the warfare against non-Muslims must continue until "the final descent of Jesus." After that, "nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus' descent" (o9.8).
Surely Mehdi Hasan knows all this. So why is he misleading people in the pages of the Telegraph?

Thursday, May 23, 2013

The fall out Britain in the age of denial

By DOUGLAS MURRAY London How many ignored warnings does it take? That is one question that should hang over Britain after the horror of the daytime murder of a British soldier on the streets of south London. On Wednesday afternoon, Drummer Lee Rigby was killed in Woolwich by two men wielding large knives and shouting "Allahu akbar"—God is great.

Islamists have been saying for years they would do this. They have planned to do it. And now they have done it. The attack itself is not surprising. What is surprising is that British society remains so utterly unwilling not just to deal with this threat, but even to admit its existence. Politicians have called the Woolwich killing "unforgivable" and "barbarous." But expressions of anger should not really be enough.

 Attempts to attack military targets in Britain go back to before the millennium and even before, it is important to note, the war on terror. In 1998 Amer Mirza, a member of the now-banned extremist group al Muhajiroun, attempted to petrol-bomb British army barracks. In 2007, a cell of Muslim men was found guilty of plotting to kidnap and behead a British soldier in Birmingham. The plan had been to take the soldier to a lock-up garage and cut off his head "like a pig." They wanted to film this act on camera and send it around the world to cause maximum terror.

 In 2009, al Muhajiroun protested at a homecoming parade in Luton for British troops returning from Afghanistan. Carrying banners saying "go to hell," "butchers" and "terrorists," the group was protected by British police officers from an increasingly irate crowd of locals. The resulting outrage toward the police gave rise to the deeply troubling English Defence League, a street protest movement that often turns violent.

 Now comes the attack in Woolwich, which the perpetrators—as with the earlier cell—wished to be observed and even filmed. Reports suggest that they invited people to capture their actions on video. The perpetrators gave interviews, machetes in hand, to bystanders with cameras. This horrific scene is something that will stick in the memory. But it should also have been foreseen. Instead we entered the stage of denial. For there is already, in the reaction to events, more than a hint of what I have previously termed "Toulouse syndrome." The term is named after the attacks last year carried out by a jihadist called Mohammed Merah, who killed three French soldiers in a rampage that concluded with the murders of four French Jews at a school in Toulouse. In the early stages of the attacks, when little was known, there was significant speculation that the culprit was a far-right extremist. At that stage everybody knew what they were going to say. But once the culprit turned out to be an Islamist, the gaze nearly fell away completely. "Nothing to see here, please move on" was the order of the day. "Toulouse syndrome" also touched Boston last month. After the bombing at the marathon, media and politicians waited, hoping—some even said as much—that the attackers would be tea-party types. Then everybody would know what to say. But when it turned out to be Islamists? So it is with the Woolwich killing, which British officials have lined up to denounce. Yes it is sickening. Of course it is barbaric. But what of it? Even all these years after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2011, our societies remain unfit for purpose in facing up to—and facing down—Islamic extremism.

Too many still seek refuge in ignorance and denial that was so memorably displayed by U.S. officials after the Fort Hood shooting in 2009. A man who was a member of the American armed forces, Maj. Nidal Hasan, gunned down his colleagues while shouting "Allahu akbar." On that occasion the American government, like the French government before it and the British government this week, decided to focus on everything about the attack other than what really mattered: the motive. Fort Hood was put down to a case of workplace violence.

There will be many angles to the events in London that must be addressed in the coming days, and we can hope many will receive the appropriate level of public attention. Among them will be one particularly unpleasant irony. Most of the extremists who have repeatedly expressed their hatred of British soldiers are themselves supported by the British state. A prominent hate-preacher—Anjem Choudary, a leader of the disbanded al Muhajiroun—was even caught on video earlier this year extolling Britain's "jihad-seekers' allowance." As he explained to his followers, "The normal situation, really, is to take money from the kafir"—a slur for non-Muslims. "Allahu akbar. We take the money."

After the video showed up online, a BBC reporter asked Mr. Choudary to clarify how much he's taking—the press has long reported a sum of £25,000 ($37,770) per year. "It's irrelevant," Mr. Choudary replied. This would not be the first time a country has paid both sides in a conflict. But if the reported figure is anywhere near accurate, it would surely be the first time in human history that a society has paid its opponents better than it pays its own.

 A British soldier can expect to start in the army on a salary of around £16,000 ($24,172). The events in south London must cause a re-evaluation by British society of the insanity we have been permitting. The question is not how sad we feel. The only question should be what we do about it.

Mr. Murray is associate director of the Henry Jackson Society, a London-based think tank.

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Portes une croix wear a cross

From resistance republicaine

French Christian in the suburbs of Paris.

Since summer 2012, I wear a small cross as an act of solidarity with all of the Christians persecuted around the world. 
Since summer 2012, I have been subjected to being stared at in an unkind way, insulted and several "polite" threats, along the lines of " it's not a good idea to wear that thing here", I suggest that you take off that piece of shit", "ma'am are you sucidical or what?"

Depuis l’été 2012 je porte une petite croix en solidarité avec tous les Chrétiens persécutés à travers le monde. Depuis l’été 2012, j’ai eu droit à des regards mauvais, des insultes et plusieurs « menaces » polies du genre : « C’est pas bien de porter ce truc ici » , « Je te conseille d’enlever cette merde ici. », « T’es suicidaire madame ou quoi? »

Monday, May 20, 2013

Religion of peace? U r kidding?

If Islam and the prophet Mohammed is so peaceful why is there so much hate, violence and bloodshed around the world.

"This is not a time to surrender, this is a time to inspire the new generation,” 

If the political leaders of the western world are to be believed, it is as a result of cultural misunderstandings.

Read, watch this and take note:

Muslims don’t understand the real nature of Islam,” said Yousef, who said it is a fanatical religion that favors war over peace. He cited the Arab Spring’s failure to create meaningful change and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as proof that Islam is propelling Arab states backward rather than forward.

To read the rest of the article, click on:

This is person is the son of the founder of Hamas, the son of an Islamic cleric.

Sunday, May 19, 2013


Please let me know if you feel that something should be added or changed.  Many thanks!


To: The International Community, The U.N. Seceratary General, World Leaders

We, the undersigned, are appalled by the recent violent attacks against the Christian community in Egypt.  We are asking for your help in exerting political pressure on the government of Egypt to provide equitable, humane, fair, and just treatment to the Coptic Egyptian community.

Once more, the Coptic community is experiencing bouts of brutal mob violence against individuals and property. Recently, one Copt has been killed, while churches have been attacked by mobs in the name of Islam.  Appropriately 85%of the Egyptian population are of the Muslim faith and in recent times, tensions have been escalated by Muslim extremists, with total impunity as the state authorities have been unwilling to address this issue and bring to justice those who have incited violence and killing against the Copts.  Very few perpetrators involved in mob attacks have been brought to justice. Indeed, there is widespread evidence that members of Egyptian law enforcement have been seen to direct & assist the mobs.  Moreover, there are numerous instances of police taking no action to prevent & arrest members of mobs, but standing by and watching the attacks.

Furthermore, there have been a number of incidents in which Copts have faced prosecution and imprisonment as a result of their faith.  Furthermore, there are a number of incidents in which young Copts have been kidnapped and either forced to convert to Islam or held for ransom.  No perpetrators have been investigated, apprehended or prosecuted to date. 

The situation for the Copts in Egypt has further deteriorated since the Presidential elections, as they are being continually persecuted for adhering to their Christian faith.

We are asking all of the governments that value and cherish human rights, as enshrined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, to exert significant political & economic pressure against the government of President Morsi.

We are asking that governments take the following actions:

  1. To call upon the United Nations to formally condemn the violence & persecution of the Copts taking place in the state of Egypt.
  2. To demand the United Nations to formally establish an inquiry commission to fully investigate the mob attacks on the Coptic community.
  3. To call upon the United Nations to address the failure of the Egyptian government to adhere with its UN obligations.
  4. To demand the national government to withhold allocated financial aid to Egpyt.
  5. Summon the Egyptian Ambassador to express profound displeasure of the recent series of mob attacks against Copts (individuals & church premises), resulting in injury and loss of life. These attacks are a heinous breach of fundamental human rights enshrined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, of which Egypt is a signatory.  Article 3 states that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of persons”.
  6. To ask the government to inform the Egyptian government that until such time as all human rights (full compliance of Articles 1,3, 5, 18 & 20 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights) are fully implemented & enforced, all state funding & aid to Egypt is suspended.
  7. To demand that the Egyptian authorities commence an investigation, monitored by the UN, into the recent St Mark cathedral attack, in order to apprehend the ring leaders of the mob attacks.
  8. To ask for the immediate arrest of those individuals who have propagated and incited hatred and violence, whose activities, speeches have been well documented in all the Egyptian media.
  9. Call upon the Interior Ministry to ensure the prompt arrest and trial of those responsible for the killing of Copts, those responsible for the destruction & vandalism of Copt churches.
  10. Under article 40 of the Egyptian constitution stipulates that all citizens are equal, regardless of color, creed or religion.  The Coptic community has been unable to freely practise their faith and are not permitted to renovate or build churches.
  11. To demand the Egyptian authorities to conduct an investigation into the misconduct of law enforcement personnel & to implement a review of the police and security forces that failed to stop the mob attacks or intervene in any way, to suspend any official or secuirty agent on duty in the area, until the investigation is completed.
  12. To call upon the ministry of Interior to punish those officials found guilty of misconduct or dereliction of duty and to withdraw pension and other benefits.
  13. Call upon the Egyptian government to provide all victims of violence with the appropriate support & reparation.
  14. Call upon the Egyptian ministry of education to adhere to the principles of the UN Human Rights Declaration by modifying all public education material including the removal of all mandated Islamic texts for non-Muslims, and religious hatred and incitement against Christians, Jews, Bahai’s, or any other sects, and replacing this material with topics that teach children the values of democracy, human rights, religious freedom, openness, and diversity.

Thursday, May 16, 2013

long-range jihadis

From Facebook page: Citizen Warrior

In discussion with European policy makers, Walid Phares made what I believe to be a significant distinction between "hot-headed Jihadists" and "long-range Jihadists."

The hot-headed Jihadists are blowing up subways and flying planes into buildings. The long-range Jihadists are involved in indoctrination of the young. They are creating the pools Jihadist recruiters can later draw from. This is the well-funded production of young Jihadist-slanted minds. They are also involved in vigorous PR efforts to prevent non-Muslims from catching on to the bigger picture.

The significance of this distinction is that almost all of the security efforts in the United States and Europe are aimed at stopping the hot-headed Jihadists. It is a law-enforcement model. It seeks to track down and incarcerate terrorists.

It does nothing to address the much bigger threat: The long-range Jihadists. That's what we're interested in most here — stopping Islam's relentless encroachment (in other words, defeating the plans of the long-range Jihadists). Our number one goal is to raise public awareness of the aims and methods of the long-range Jihadists so new policies can be instigated nationally to stop the Jihadists from waging long-range jihad by gaining concessions from the West. Public awareness is the first step.

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Some quotes from Muslims

A Muslim cleric  on women's rights.  

“Women are not entitled to respect when they walk around without a Hijab. They are to blame for it when they are attacked,” Imam Shahid Mehdi, a Danish cleric.

A Muslim cleric on Jews and the holocaust

Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them – even though they exaggerated this issue – he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers....Qaradawi, popular Islamic cleric.

Islamic leader on invading the West

[..]we will not stop at this point [i.e., “freeing Egypt from secularism and modernity”], but will pursue this evil force to its own lands, invade its Western heartland, and struggle to overcome it until all the world shouts by the name of the Prophet and the teachings of Islam spread throughout the world. Muslim Brotherhood founder, HASSAN AL BANNA. (The same organization represented by Egyptian president Morsi).

And on islamic history

"This war is fundamentally religious. Under no circumstances should we forget the enmity between us and the infidels... .The confrontation and conflict between them and us started centuries ago." Osama bin Laden, Saudi proponent of Wahhabism. 

Islamic leader on warfare

Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and the shadow of the sword!" People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to paradise, which can be opened only by holy warriors!" 

Islamic leader on mankind and religion

"It is not merely a religious creed or compound name for a few forms of worship, but a comprehensive system which envisages to annihilate all tyrannical and evil systems in the world and enforce its own program of reform which it deems best for the well being of mankind."ABU ALA MAWDUDI, 20th century Islamic leader 

A Muslim on Islam 

 And we will make people bordering the Caliphate believe in Islam. Or if they refuse then we'll ask them to be ruled by Islam. And if after all discussions and negotiations they still refuse, then the last resort will be a jihad to spread the spirit of Islam and the rule of Islam. This is done in the interests of all people to get them out of darkness and into light." HIZB UT-TAHRIR SPOKESMAN