Fun stories about Islam: Angels & Demons. Slavery & Conquest | William Federer

 

I know most of this stuff. I learned something, after all, from 17 years of writing about it. From the Koran, to the Hadith, from Ibn Ishaq's Life of Muhammad, to the Umdat al-salik, the sacred manual of Islamic Sharia law. 

I've not heard Dr William Federer before. He's good at telling a fun and compelling story. A scary one, too. 

One we need to understand and treat seriously. Because, bottom line, it's "Islam must conquer the world".  That's the aim of the religious ideology foundd by Muhammad. Only then, according to pious Muslims, will there be peace. Islam style. 

That's it. That's the story of Islam and its aims. One we're witnessing, at a surge, in front of us now. 

Over to you, Dr Will. 

You’re Not Allowed to Say This… The REAL Reason This War Exists | Mosab Hassan Yousef

 

I post this as a history lesson in Islam as the "final revealed religon". And what this means for all non-Muslims in the world.

A history lesson in "Why the Muslims try to kill or subjugate all Jews". 

I've been banging on about this since the beginning of this blog. 

Why? 

Because it's in all the doctrines of Islam -- the Koran, the Hadith, the Sirah, the life of Muhammad, the Sharia -- and in all the actions of Muslims when they attack via terrorist acts in the west. They make it clear. "We are not here in [the U.K., Europe, wherever] to take part. We're here to Take Over". 

Mosab Hassan Yousef is the so-called "Son of Hamas". Because he's the son of one of Hamas' foundational leaders. He's a hafiz -- one who has memorised the whole of the Koran. He knows whereof he speaks. 

Muslim believe, because Mohammad told them so, in the Koran, that Islam is the latest revealed Abrahamic religion and it abrogates -- it cancels -- the previous religions of Judaism and Christianity. This is a very dangerous belief because it leads to their attempts to physically silence, to kill, those Christians and Jews who continue to believe that they have the right, the obligation, to carry on with their religion. 

Islam really DOES "hate our freedoms"

This was Question number one in the 3.5 hour (!) discussion between Coleman Hughes and Dave Smith some 5 months ago. 

Coleman agrees with Dave's opening claim that there's no truth to the idea that Osama bin Ladin and Al Qaeda attacked America on 911 because "They hate our freedoms". 

While I'm shaking my head: but it is true! 

And I have the proof. The writings of Osama bin Ladin himself. 

Look at this quote from bin Ladin: 

“For practically everything valued by the immoral West is condemned under Sharia law.”

Isn't that the very definition of hating the "immoral West" for its freedoms? Given that Freedom is our most cherished Value?

Bin Ladin's writings were collected and translated by Raymond Ibrahim in his book "The Al Qaeda Reader" (2002). Which I consider -- after my 20 years of reading and following the deeds and depredations of Islam -- to be a must-read for anyone trying to understand motives of the likes of ISIS, Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, Jihadis in general and, yes, even the Iranian mullahs today. 

One of the few who does understand, who's not a Muslim, is Sam Harris. He has written well and trenchantly on the subject. EG: "What do Jihadists really want?", 26 August 2016. And the related post on ISIS.

Meanwhile, Dave Smith's belief that Jihadi Muslims are out to attack the west because of (or mainly because of) what he calls "terrestrial grievances", like the Israel-Palestine issue, colours every bit of his analyses, and destroys most of them. 

One way this belief ruins his analysis is that it's western-centric. The idea that if we we fix this or that, then all will be well. No. It's not true. 

We can do all the Jihadis demand, attend to all their grievances, pacify all their problems, and they will still want to kill us (unless we convert). Because that's Islam. That's what Islam demands. That's what the Koran demands. That's what Muhammad, o.b.o. his god, demands. 

I'm reposting below a piece I wrote here on 25 August 2009. I was responding to. BBC World Service radio program of that day. I talk a lot about Ibrahim and the writings of bin Ladin. 

I remember thinking that even if the BBC did nothing about my suggestion, I might educate some of its staffers in the editorial rooms. In this I have clearly had zero impact, for they are more Islamo-philic than ever.

Yet, as I re-read what I wrote 17 years ago, it's just as true today as it was then. It's been true since the birth of Islam 1,400 years ago: Submit or Die, infidel! 

The post, 25 August 2009:

If we give away Israel, all will be ok.... (not)

Don’t trust anyone who doesn’t like dogs!

 

Islamists in New York, in Britain, in Europe are coming after our dogs. Because in Islam they are “unclean”. 

Not satisfied with hating dogs in private while letting those of us who love our dogs get on with owning and loving them, the Islamists demand that we hew to their beliefs. Beliefs they hold because the “perfect man” — that murderous, genocidal, paedophilic ratbag, the “prophet” Muhammad — didn’t like dogs. That’s it. That’s their sole reason for this caniphobia. Which, btw, triggers my Islamophobia…

I’ve often posted stuff by Oren Cahanovitc, Israeli, owner of the tour company “travellingIsrael.com, knowledgeable and balanced commenter on the Middle East issues we know and hear all too much about.

I’ve got him in my list of Israel commenters. 

Here he is above talking of Islamists’ latest attack on the good life of the west. Attempting to turn the west into the hellholes they fled from. They fled from. And try to recreate. Go figure. 

Sigh…

By the way, Oren is correct that not all cultures are the same. Islam, for example, is more violent than most. Just as the Jain culture is far more peaceable than most. You’d think that that would be clear and obvious. But it’s not, especially on the Left, because of damage done to common sense by post-modernism, brought to us mainly by French and German philosophers. The likes of Foucault, Derrida and the Frankfurt School.

Muslim massacres of Jews up to establishment of the state of Israel | The Perfect Man

Click above to enlarge 

I’m posting the list above for the record. The search was “Muslim attacks on, or massacres of, Jews AD 600 to 1948”.  Note: “This list is not exhaustive…”.

Exhaustive or not, it clearly disproves the delusion that Muslim Arab states and Muslim residents of the region that became Israel, were incensed by the announcement of the State of Israel in 1948: “If only Israel would go away, all would be well.”

No. Muslims have been killing Jews FOREVER. Not just since the creation of Israel.

These are attacks on Jews since world's worst man, Muhammad became a man, c. AD 600. The man who Muslims insist on calling "The Perfect Man". A Perfect Man who took part in — who instigated and led — the first two of the massacres listed above, the genocide of the Banu Qurayza tribe of Jews and the subsequent “…extermination of Arabian Jewish tribes”. 

The Perfect Man who personally, proudly, beheaded over 600 male Jews in 622. 

ADDED: The Sirah, Islam’s official and authoritative biography of Muhammad, proudly notes The Perfect Man’s “compassion”. How so ? Because he ordered that only men of the Jewish tribes be killed. If in doubt, boys were made to drop their pants. If they had any pubic hair, they were deemed a man and promptly beheaded. Often by Muhammad himself. Jewish women and children were kept as slaves. That’s what counts as compassion in Islam. Up to today! Muslims are proud of this! Proud of their Perfect Man.

All of these massacres, including those personally carried out by Muhammad, “Mr Perfect”, are recorded in detail in the Sirah of Muhammad, the official Muslim biography of the "Perfect Man", by Ibn Ishaq. 

I’ve read the Sirah. It's in my library. This book is a celebratory, blood-drenched recitation of the horrors that Muhammad committed in this own lifetime. And of the atrocities, the tortures, the murders, the massacres, that he and his followers committed. In his life Muhammad personally started of took part in, 27 major battles. He was a warmonger. A swordsman. A murderer. A rapist. A Perfect Man.

Viewed Proudly up to today.

And yet somehow, we are asked to accept — as a depressing number of westerners appear to — that this is a "Religion of Peace". (Spellcheck even autocompleted "Peace" for me after I’d typed  in “Religion”; that’s how deep the brainwashing is).

Note the second of the massacres listed above: "Extermination of Arabian Jewish Tribes". Extermination! 

Muslims, Islamists, are trying to do this until today. To exterminate every last Jew from the Holy Land. Which is Holy only because the Jews were there and because Christians followed a revolutionary Jew. 

Arab Muslims occupy 99.7% of the lands in the Middle East. They cannot abide that 0.3% of the lands are occupied by Jews, the original and indigenous occupants.

They — Hamas, the PA, residents of Gaza, Muslim settlers of Judea and Samaria, surrounding Muslim states — do not want a "Two State Solution". They want every Jew cleansed from the Middle East. And then from the world. 

….

Goodness! I do seem to have gone on a bit of a rave!  When all I’d wanted to do was to post a list of Muslim massacres of Jews over the centuries.

(By the way, try the other way around —  ask AI the number of Jewish attacks or massacres of Muslims — and it’s slim pickings).

Congress notices that *Islam wants to conquer the West* | Chip Roy and Robert Spencer

 

For a very long time, all I've been about on this blog is the threat of Islam to our societies. About how it's the Muslim Brotherhood that's the tip of the spear. 

[The Muslim Brotherhood Memorandum about it's "Civilisational Jihad" and program to "destroy the West from within".]

We're starting to see real focus on this threat, both in the United States and in Europe. I'm not sure it's "better late than never", as it may be too late. But I do hope not. 

Robert Spencer is one of the first guys I started following here 17 years ago. 

He's very well read on all matters Islam, has written many books on Islamic doctrine. By the way, he's neither Jew, nor Muslim, but a Catholic. He can quote at length not just the Bible, but also reams of Islamic theology, verses from the Koran, sayings from the Hadith,  chapters from the Sirah, the Life of Muhammad, crimes & punishments from the Umdat al-Salik, Islamic Sharia law. 

Spencer is better read on the canons of Islam than most Muslim scholars. I've seen him debate -- and defeat -- many.

Good on Congressman Chip Roy for bringing this threat to the Congress, via the person of Spencer. 

Islam and Islamisation is a threat. It's what Muslims repeatedly says it is: 

"We are not here to take part. We are here to take over". 

They say that again and again. In London and New York. In Salzburg and in Sydney. 

But somehow the bien pensants, the well wishers, the "good thinkers" (the Left!), don't believe that. Oh, they say, Muslim immigrants will be just like us; they will become liberal democrats. If we're just nice to them. 

No, that's not how it works. Muslims prey on that naive attitude, of course. They use the useful idiots, of course. But in the end they will dominate. Dominate us. And we will then know what it's like to have "Democracy Die in Darkness". 

Unless they're fought. They have to be fought. I fear we have neither the recognition of the threat, nor the will to do anything about it, even if we did recognize it. 

Though perhaps the above, is a glimmer of hope. 

Christ and Muhammad, a history lesson | Brigitte Gabriel

 

On this day, the birth day of Christ, the prophet. And King. And consider what Muhammad took from the Old Testament to cobble together his “recitation”, his “Koran”. 

And of course a Merry Christmas to One and All! 🥂❤️🎉🎄

“I’m perfect because God chose me” | Muhammad, the “perfect man”

"This is London" | Visigard24

  

After September 11, 2001, I watched president George W. Bush stand on the smoking ruins of the Twin Towers and declare that "Islam is a religion of peace".   

I didn't know anything about Islam then. 

I wondered though -- surely many people wondered -- how can the people who flew the planes into these buildings, killing 3,000 innocents, how can they represent a "Religion of peace"? How does that work? 

I got me a Koran, and read it cover to cover. This is easier to do than then Bible, for the Koran is quite a slim volume. Since then I've read and reread the Koran (searching in vain for any peaceable content), and read the rest of the main body of Islamic theology: the Hadith, the Sirah of Muhammad, the Umdat of the Sharia. 

I still remember clearly my first reading of that Koran. It sent shivers up my spine. 

I realised, as I read it, that the 911 perpetrators had simply been following what they were told to do, as good Muslims. What they were told they must do, in the sacred text of their Koran. What the Hadith confirmed they must do. What the Sirah described Muhammad doing himself to be their exemplar of “the perfect man”. 

And I thought "If this is what wer're dealing with, we've got a real problem."

Indeed that is what we're dealing with. The ideology as set out, very simply and very clearly, in the Koran and the rest of Trinity of Islam.. The Koran is the “perfect book" given by god, by Allah, via the Angel Gabriel, recited to the "perfect man" Muhammad, an illiterate Arab peasant. 

It is that text, that book, that "perfect book" -- full of inconsistencies and arrant nonsense as it is -- which must be followed to the letter, by every good Muslim. That's all the 911 hijackers were doing. They were following their Good Book. 

This is indeed what we're dealing with. Thus we are indeed in trouble. 

Which I realised way back then. Not earlier than many others, but early enough. 

And yet, noone in the west took any notice of the threat. They remember one thing: "Islam is a Religion of Peace". 

Well, it's only a religion of peace if everyone submits to it. And not even then, to be fair, for in countries that are fully Islamic, they still have arguments and fights over the different interpretations of their "perfect" religion, the most obvious of which are between Shia and Sunni. But that's a whole 'nother issue. The big issue for Muslims is to make the rest of the world, the non-Muslim world, obey their religion. To turn Dar al-Harb (the non-Islamic world) into the Dar al-Islam. 

And that's what they're doing, with remarkable success all over Europe, the UK, and now increasingly Australia and even the United States. 

What Visigard24 and the Apostate Prophet talk about in the video above is all true. I'm rather surprised, tbf, at how calmly they talk about it, given that it's happening all around them, right in front of their eyes. 

I fear it's too late though. I fear the United Kingdom is doomed. To be a slave state of Islam. To become Islamic. What's happened up today --what you see in Tower Hamlets in the video above -- happened much faster than I thought it could, 16 years ago. Much. I expect the full submission to the Will of Allah, by the whole of the United Kingdom, will also happen faster. Probably in my lifetime. Within ten or twenty years. 

And, just to be clear. This is not at all a good thing. Islam is an ideology. It's not "just" a religion. It's a whole of life ideology. And it's not nice. Not at all nice. 

Islam is supremacist, it is homophobic, it is misogynist, it is xenophobic, it is intolerant, it is censorious, it is violently suppressive of all religions other than Islam. 

It is this horrid ideology that is already in the United Kingdom and is on the way to becoming the dominant, the only ideology, the only "religion" in the UK. This is what is coming to what has been until very recently, the fount of tolerance and democracy in the world. It is coming for the rest of the world too. 

Mark my words, ye infidels!

Gloom. 

“Islam is the sanctification of man’s most corrupted instincts” | Dan Burmawi

	Dan Burmawi ⁦‪@DanBurmawy‬⁩ Islam is the sanctification of man's most corrupted instincts. It takes what is base in human nature and give it a divine sanction. Man's desire to dominate women? Islam codifies it. Veiling, polygamy, child marriage, testimony worth half a man's, all justified as God's will.   19/8/2025, 7:12 pm

"Islam is the sanctification of man's most corrupted instincts." Absolutely true. 

100%. 

From the Qu'ran to the Hadith. From the Sirah of Muhammad to the Umdat of Sharia, every line, every word, every verse of Islamic doctrine sanctifies the base instincts of man. Specifically man. To do exactly as Dan Burmawi lays out. (A man I'd never heard of till now).

I've read every one of those foundational texts of Islam, many of them more than once. They are chilling. If you absorb them and you truly believe them, you're halfway to Jihad. To war in the name of Allah. To kill and to be killed. A martyr for your god, your family and your community. And thence to waft heavenward to your promised 72 virgins, your houris, your almond-eyed maidens, in that carnal parody of heaven. 

After Jihad, Jannah. 

And so we get the actions of Muslims. Not the majority, but enough of its 1.4 billion to keep the chaos at full burn. 47,000 terrorist actions since 911, most against fellow Muslims, many against neighbours. Nowhere does Islam live peaceably with its neighbours. Not in the Philippines, not in Malaysia, not in Thailand, not in India or Kashmir, nor in Africa, and… most of all … not anywhere near or next to a neighbourhood of Joooz! 

Sent from my iPad

Reposting “Can Banna the Younger right the wrongs of Banna the Elder?”

As I learn the other day that the Muslim Brotherhood has been banned in the United States, and about time too, I wondered when I had first mentioned the Brotherhood on this blog. Turns out it was 1 September 2009, an amazing 16 years ago. I wrote the piece below, which still reads pretty well, me reckons. 

Read below, or also here’s the link to the 2009 post.

Since that post, I did a car trip from Cape Town to Cairo, across the whole of Africa. Blog here.

In Cairo I did a tour of the city with a taxi driver who was the spitting image of Sayyid Qutb, the legendary promoter of Hassan al-Banna’s new organisation, in the 1920s, which he called the Muslim Brotherhood. I said that to the taxi driver. He was none too pleased. The Brotherhood was then already banned in Egypt. As it is in all the Gulf Countries. It's just not banned in the ever-trusting, ever-naive West. Till now, at least in the U.S....

For quick reference, the Muslim Brotherhood is the Big Daddy, the OG, of all the worst, all the most brutal, all the most efficient terrorist outfits in the world today. Hamas, to Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the PLO, Al-Qaeda and ISIS; the Brotherhood is the progenitor of them all. 

It’s also spawned more benign-on-the-surface outfits to fool western intelligentsia, like CAIR, the Council of American Islamic Relations, and the MCB, the  Muslim Council of Britain. Which do fine jobs of fooling the intelligentsia, because the intelligentsia want to be fooled, to have plausible deniability, so they don’t have to face the reality of what the Islamist influx to their countries means for their populations. The threats, the dangers.

But enough of that. 

The article is re-posted below where be a pic of said Sayyid Qutb. 

================

1st September 2009 Post begins: 

What do an 88-year old Egyptian writer living in Cairo and a teenage American girl living in Florida have in common?

Answer: the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic Jihad and “honour killings”.

Here are the dots….

Gamal al-Banna is the 88-year old Egyptian writer, the younger brother of the late Hassan al-Banna.

Banna the Elder established the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928.  

The Muslim Brotherhood’s influence was greatly expanded by Sayyid Qutb in the 1950s (that's Qutb pictured here).

Qutb was mentor to Osama bin Laden and to Ayman Zawahiri, a “theoretician” of al-Qaeda.  Much of the terror rhetoric of al-Qaeda draws directly from the Muslim Brotherhood.  In the US, the Muslim Brotherhood has said that it is engaged, in its own words: 

"... in a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

The Muslim Brotherhood motto: 

"Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."

The Muslim Brotherhood platform demands strict implementation of Sharia law, which calls for death for apostasy, including killing one’s children:

“When a person … apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed”  (Manual of Islamic Jurisprudence, Reliance of the Traveller,  o.8.1).  And:

“The following are not subject to retaliation: …  a father or mother for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring” (o.1.2)

This is not just Islamic legal theory.  It is also fact. People are killed, tortured, raped or threatened with death all the time for apostasy from Islam [Ref 4].

“You get the picture?  Oh yes, we see…. 

Hassan and Sayyid, 

the leaders of the pack…”

Banna the Younger [Gamal] writes for a more moderate Islam: he’s against the wearing of the veil, against female genital mutilation, in favour of women leading prayer.

The teenage American girl is Rifqa Bary, the 17-year old from Ohio who converted from Islam to Christianity in 2005, and about whom I wrote here .   When her father found out she had become an apostate from Islam, she says he beat her and threatened to kill her.  She fled to Florida in July, in fear for her life. 

The Muslim Brotherhood connection?  The lawyers for Ms Bary have issued to the media an “Investigation and Intelligence Memorandum” [3] which provides evidence from the US Justice Department of connections between the Noor Mosque in Ohio attended by the Bary family and the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hamas, and Jihadi terrorism.

Since (a) the Muslim Brotherhood is an Islamist organisation calling for for strict adherence to Sharia, which mandates death for apostates, since (b) the Noor Mosque has clear connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and since (c) Mr. Bary was a devoted attendee at the Noor Mosque, there is at least clear a priori evidence to keep Ms Bary away from her father.

You would think that the “moderate Muslims” we hear so much about would tackle this issue: try to get the death penalty for apostasy provisions changed.  But the problem is, they can’t.  There can be no change in Islam and Islamic law: Ijtihad (Koranic and Hadithian exegesis) closed its door centuries ago.

So all they can do is try to deny that death provisions exist (in which they are plain wrong), and try to shift the focus from the threat on the young girl’s life, by instead raising fears for their own safety!  Robert Spencer: 

“This is, of course, how Islamic groups in the U.S. have reacted to every act of violence and every threat that any Muslim has issued in recent years: they've raised fears of a non-existent "backlash" and claimed they're being persecuted, rather than address the root causes of the violence and brutality within their own community. And the bemused, befuddled multiculturalists in the mainstream media go along with it happily, every time.” (ref)

In his latest article in favour of some flexibility [2] in Islam Banna the Younger [Gamal] has said that belly dancers ought not to be criticized.  

Would it not be nice if this old Lion of Moderation were able to address the Rifqa Bary case direct? A nice kind of squaring of the circle.  To denounce honour killings, flat out, no if’s no buts.  And denounce, while he’s about it, the poisonous legacy of his brother’s most famous creation the Muslim Brotherhood.

BTW: I’ve read Sayyid Qutb: his Milestones and Social Justice in Islam.  They’re pretty dreary, illogical, circular in argumentation, frequently self-contradictory, and otherwise a farrago of sophistry.  I thought them rather like reading Mao Tse-tung in the seventies, when I had to do it at the Peking Language Institute: writing that was like fairy floss, fluffy and insubstantial, superficially pretty, but squashing down to nothing, sickly sweet glob.   Both writers, Qutb and Mao, have caused rather a lot of trouble,  though, thereby proving Orwell right: that we have to watch out for bad writing, as it can have baleful effects.  In particular we need to watch Qutb and the Muslim Brotherhood; unlike Mao, they continue to pursue their aims for a worse world.

References:

   1.   A voice for 'new understanding' of Islam -  Michael Slackman discusses Gamal al-Banna, IHT 20 Oct 2006, 

   2.   Hints of Pluralism in Egyptian Religious Debates, Michael Slackman on Gamal al-Banna, IHT, 1 September 2009

   3.    Investigation and Intelligence Memorandum,  Issued in Rifqa Bary case, 30^th August 2009

   4.   Murders, torture, rape or death threats for apostasy from Islam in: Australia, Bangladesh,  Britain, Britain again, Egypt, Egypt again, Iran, Nigeria, Somalia

"The establishment of Israel inflamed Palestinian anger". Not true

"The establishment of Israel inflamed Palestinian anger".

First of all they weren't known as "Palestinians" at the time. They were known as "Arabs". The term "Palestinians" has referred, since Roman times, to the Jews, and then under the British Mandate, to both Jews and Arabs. 

The "Harbour Bridge Bigots" who marched in Sydney last Sunday, believe -- completely wrongly -- that prior to Israeli independence in 1948, the "Palestinians" were Arab only. They believe, again wrongly, that there were a small number of  Jews in the land, but that the majority came from Europe and stole their land. That was not true because (i) the number of Jews already in the land was close to the number of Arabs and (ii) the land that new arrivals acquired in Palestine was bought from absentee Turkish landlords (this is well documented and not in dispute). 

The Bridge Bigots believe a fantasy: that before Israel was established all was good in the land of "Palestine".  A mostly Arab Palestine. "We were fine with the Jews. We all go along. Until they came in from Europe, stole our land and established their illegitimate state." 

Not true. The Jew hatred did not start from the establishment of the Jewish state of Israel. 

There were hundreds of cases of Muslims attacking and massacring Jews, since Muhammad first killed jews in the Battle of Banu Qurayza, in 627 -- where he and his followers decapitated 600 to 900 Jewish men. That battle is recorded, in exultant and celebratory detail, by Ibn Ishaq in his "Sirah of Muhammad", The Life of Muhammad (which I have). This is core doctrine to Muslims. Muhammad, this mass murderer, is the Jesus of the Muslim community. He is "the perfect man". To be emulated. 

It's important for we non-Muslims to know that. It's foundational to Muslims, core and important to their belief system: Muhammad is the perfect man who must be emulated at all times. 

To keep the numbers of Muslim attacks on Jews down to a manageable level I've looked only at those between 1900 and 1947 (just before the establishment of the State of Israel).

Muslim attacks on Jews in Palestine: 

April 4-7, 1920: Jerusalem Riots (Nebi Musa Riots) – Arab mobs attacked Jews in Jerusalem during the Nebi Musa pilgrimage, killing 5 Jews and injuring 211.

May 1-6, 1921: Jaffa Riots – Arab rioters attacked Jewish residents in Jaffa, killing 47 Jews and injuring 146, spreading to other areas.

August 23-29, 1929: Hebron Massacre – Arab mobs in Hebron killed 67 Jews, looting homes and synagogues; survivors were evacuated by British authorities.

August 23-29, 1929: Safed Massacre – Arab rioters in Safed killed 18-20 Jews, burning and looting Jewish homes and businesses.

1936-1939: Arab Revolt in Palestine – Widespread Arab attacks during the revolt killed 415 Jews, targeting settlements and civilians across Mandatory Palestine. [Source]

Ok, but what about Jews attacking Muslims in the same period?

Let's see....

Hmm... The answer is: None! There were no attacks recorded in history, by Jews on Muslims before the 1948 Israel War of Independence. 

"No major documented massacres by Jewish groups against Arab Muslims in the Middle East from 1900 to 1947 meet the criteria of deliberate, large-scale attacks causing significant civilian deaths." [Source]

The corollary is: there were no cases of Jews attacking Muslim villages and driving them out of those villages. That did happen post 1948, as a part of the war effort. Israel was attacked, after all. Unilaterally and unprovoked, by all the surrounding Arab states. Which themselves had driven Muslims out of their villages -- on the grounds that they didn't want them in the way when they went about destroying the Jews, and with the promise that they could return once that genocide had been completed. 

Sadly, for the Arab armies, and for their Muslim populations, they did not succeed in massacring the Jews or in defeating their new army. They lost. This was their Nakba. Their "disaster". Which they spin today as their "holocaust". And which they spin as the Jews kicking them out of their land. 

Did not happen. 

All this above is one or two of the many reasons I don't agree with the Bigots on the Bridge, the crowds who marched across Sydney Harbour Bridge, for "Humanity", in reality, whether they knew it or not, they marched for the victory by Hamas over the Jewish state. For the victory of a supremacist, misogynist, homophobic, exclusionary, genocidal, apartheid terrorist outfit called Hamas. That's what they do, if they know it or not. 

I do not stand with them. They are either deluded or outright terror supporting. If not outright Hamas supporters, they are useful idiots. And I'm done with them. Even if I'm in the minority. Even if millions more march. Numbers don't make the truth here. Numbers are not the morality here. Numbers are not a persuasive argument here. 

Palestinian Activist Challenges Israeli Historian, BIG MISTAKE!

100% truth bombs. From the historian, professor Daniel Schueftan.

Some people just want to kill you. No matter what. Which is the Gazans and the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria. 

Key to understanding Middle East. The animus against Jews and Israel is ordained in Islamic doctrine. Deep and clear in the doctrine. The Trinity of Islam. 

It’s not about land. It’s not about rights. It’s not about having a state. 

It’s about a religious obligation to kill Jews. An obligation put upon them by their “perfect man” Muhammad, 14 centuries ago. 

It’s all in the Islamic Trinity: the Koran, the Hadith and the Sirah. 

https://youtu.be/0GWF8LYtdGo?si=rZshc4vO322ZTpho 

Muslim hate on Jews | Harris Sultan

Click above for the video

Harris Sultan, an Aussie ex-Muslim shows us what is taught to Muslims by Muslims. This is something that I've shown on here since the beginning of this blog, and so I've been a failure in making anything different, because nothing is different: Muslims still hate just as much on Jews as did their founder Muhammad in 600. He hated them then, because they laughed at his proselytising, just as Muslims hate Jews today, for that ancient scorn of their propthet. 

That's the problem in the middle east. Not that Israel occupies some "Palestinian" land. But that Muslims simply hate Jews for being Jews. For having laughed at their "perfect man", Muhammad.

Muslim Brotherhood radicalises NOLA mass murderer

Summary

1. The mass murder by truck on New Year''s Eve in New Orleans was motivated by the ideology of Islam.
2. That ideology is spread in the United States by the Muslim Brotherhood, via a multitude of related outfits, the top being the Council on American Islamic Relations, CAIR.
3. The Muslim Brotherhood operates very much behind the scenes. Its main aim is "eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within" to establish the global Islamic caliphate.
4. The Muslim Brotherhood invented the term "Islamophobia" to deflect and deter any criticism of the ideology of Islam. 
5. To counter this supremacist ideology we need to defang the term "islamophobia".

A man named Shamsud-Din Jabbar murdered 14 people in New Orleans on NYE by driving his truck into them. When I saw he was a Muslim, I thought, well... there's the motive then. Islam.

Jumping to conclusions? Stereotyping? 

Sure I am. Like George Clooney as "Ryan" says in his movie Up in the Air: "I'm like my mother. I stereotype. It's faster."

• Ryan (George Clooney) [to Natalie while watching passengers go through airport security] Never get behind people traveling with infants. I've never seen a stroller collapse in less than 20 minutes. Old people are worse. Their bodies are littered with hidden metal and they never seem to appreciate how little time they have left. Bingo, Asians. They pack light, travel efficiently, and they have a thing for slip on shoes. Gotta love 'em.
• Natalie: That's racist.
• Ryan: I'm like my mother, I stereotype. It's faster. 

So, sure, I stereotype. It's faster. 

When I heard Jabbar was a pious Muslim, I thought, well, that seals it then. Killing infidels. Killing unbelievers. It's what you gotta do if you're a pious Muslim. 

And when we learned that he was flying an ISIS flag from his pick up truck! Well, that did it. QED. For me, anyway. 

Not for the FBI, though. Their first go at jumping to a conclusion was from the narrative that Islam is a "Religion of Peace" and so this can't be a terrorist incident. As the lead FBI investigator said immediately after the killings: "... it is not a terrorist event..." 

So, I jump to a conclusion by stereotyping and I'm right. As I usually am. FBI jumps to a conclusion derived from a narrative and is wrong. As it usually is. 

Others say Jabbar was in financial straits. Owed his ex-wife piles of alimony. His real estate business was failing. That's why he committed these vile acts. Suicide by cop. But then I recall I was in a similar way back around the mid 1990s, and similar thoughts came to mind. But I pushed them aside, loser thoughts, and selfish. Many others have. Only if you have the Lord above, in the shape of Allah, will you think that killing a lot of infidels will not only solve your own problem, but give you free entry to the virgin-land of Allah's imagination. This is a mass death "event", driven by the ideology of Islam. There you have it. 

Jabbar's trailer-home in Houston TX 

Jabbar has a Koran on the table, open at Surah 9.111, which says:

Allah has indeed purchased from the believers their lives and wealth in exchange for Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah and kill or are killed. This is a true promise binding on Him in the Torah, the Gospel, and the Quran. And whose promise is truer than Allah’s? So rejoice in the exchange you have made with Him. That is ˹truly˺ the ultimate triumph. [Reference]

You see. If you kill infidels and are killed, you go to heaven, where Allah promises you 72 virgins. If you kill infidels and are not killed yourself... no worries. You're blessed by Allah and have those doe-eyed houris awaiting you whenever you're ready. So it's a good deal either way, dead or alive. As long as you kill non-Muslims. 

One of the "Reflections" recorded at the Surah says this is a "trade" and not a "sacrifice". That is: you trade your life to Allah and in return for your trade, Allah gives you 72 virgins. Personally, I don't see how that is supposed to make it better, but somehow it is. To Muslims, at least, for they all love this Surah. 

On Jabbar's bookshelf I recognise the Hadith of Bukhari, green with gold lettering, same as my copies. The Hadith are second only to the Koran in authority, Bukhari's being the most authoritative. They relate the doings and sayings of Muhammad (whereas the Koran is -- we are told -- the actual, literal word of Allah, passed direct to Muhammed by the Angel Gabriel). The fact that Jabbar was reading both the Koran and the Hadith confirms he was a true and pious believer. 

Worth repeating here that Islam is the only religion in the world that still calls on its believers to kill unbelievers. It says to kill unbelievers "wherever you find them". 

It is a powerful ideology that encourages killing non-Muslims. As Peter Jennings notes: 

Islamic State and other groups remain a powerful ideological force. They offer a certainty, now and in the eternal life, which some people – many in fact – will kill for.

This is not just in the Middle East. For some in Muslim diaspora communities in the West, and handfuls of non-Muslim individuals who may be willing to adopt an extremist Islamism, this ideology is a powerful force.

The imam at Jabbar's mosque 

Jabbar frequented a mosque near his trailer-home in Houston. The Imam of the mosque, Fahmee Al-Uqdah, is something of a Jew-hater. Nothing unusual there, for any pious Muslim is going to hate Jews.

The Koran hates on Jews. The Hadith even more so. The Jewish tribes in Medina, today's Saudi Arabia, made fun of Muhammad when he came to preach his message. They laughed at him. He never forgave them. Hated them. Fought them. And that goes on to this day. As the Jews are still the kings of stand-up....

The Imam at Jabbar's mosque explains to his flock why Hitler -- a man with a "nice moustache" -- killed Jews. Basically, he says, they brought it on themselves for being too successful. You see. [Later: I saw and read this on the NYP site, but it seems to have been deleted].

The Imam sent a letter out to his congregation after the killings telling them that if the FBI or media wanted any comment, they should refer to CAIR or ISGH. CAIR is the Council on American Islamic Relations and ISGH is a subsidiary of ISNA is the Islamic Society of North America. 

I understand why you'd want to advise folks not to talk to the FBI or media, without some expert help. After all, we say the same. Don't talk to the police without your lawyer present. 

But CAIR and ISNA are both part of the Muslim Brotherhood web in North America. As are the dozens of other Islamic organisations in the United States. The Brotherhood is behind them all. 

This is a worry, for the Brotherhood's aim, since founded in 1928, has been the Islamisation of the whole world. It's set out in an Explanatory Memorandum.

The Ikhwan [Muslim Brothers] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions. [Reference]

All CAIR and no responsibility

In 2008 the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Islam's peak body in the U.S. and many other Islamic organisations were found to be creatures of the Muslim Brotherhood, both giving and receiving finance for terrorists. This was the conclusion of the "Holy Land Foundation" trials, run by Obama's own Justice Department. 

Nothing has changed since then. There has been no crack down on the activities of any of these Brotherhood-related entities. We have probable gone even softer on them than before, as we see overt Hamas-loving activities at US Universities and cities. Hamas itself being a creating of the Muslim Brotherhood. 

And this despite the fact that the United Arab Emirates named CAIR as a terrorist body in 2014. And that there are more bans against the Muslim Brotherhood in the Islamic world than there are in the west. Which is so scared of being labelled "Islamophobic" for doing so. 

Muslim Brotherhood orgs in the US at 1998
Many more since. From here

No action against the Muslim Brotherhood

Why have we done nothing? In part because of the success of all these MB bodies around the US, which are charged with Public Relations. They have made criticism of Islam a taboo for many by the deployment of the Islamophobe label on anyone who dares to criticise. 

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been banging on about this for years. She says we should be even more concerned with Dawa than with terrorism. Dawa is the proselytisation of Islam. Spreading Islam by "peaceful" means. Islamisation. 

Ms. Hirsi Ali is not afraid to call these groups out. Her book names five including the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which asserts—and in turn receives in the mainstream media—the status of a moderate Muslim organization. But groups like CAIR, Ms. Hirsi Ali says, “take advantage of the focus on ‘inclusiveness’ by progressive political bodies in democratic societies, and then force these societies to bow to Islamist demands in the name of peaceful coexistence.” [Reference]

My posts on the Muslim Brotherhood, as at 2019

Dismantling the word "Islamophobia"

"Islamophobia" is a bogus word. It was invented by the Muslim Brotherhood, specifically to deflect criticism of Islam. It's been wildly successful at that. 

We need to reclaim the word. By reclaim I mean to ditch it. So revile it. To mock it. To refuse to be silenced by it. To tell everyone that it was invented by the ideological fount of supremacist Islam. 

Christopher Hitchens said that the word "Islamophobia" is “a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons.”

The fascists are the Muslim Brotherhood. The cowards are all those too scared to speak honestly about Islam. And the morons are all those who too readily accept that there is such a thing as a "phobia" when what is being criticised is an ideology. 

==================

RELATED

"Islamophobia" a term invented by the Muslim Brotherhood. Ex Muslim Brother, Abdur-Rachman Muhammad: "It is a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics".

Muslim Brotherhood ties to ISIS and Al-Qaeda Counter Extremism Project

What in the hell is wrong with disliking Islam, the ideology? Ridvan Aydemir, Apostate Prophet

Connect the dots between New Orleans and support for anti-Israel terror Jonathan Tobin, JNS

The aim of Islam in America. [Feb 2013 post] The then Chair of CAIR Omar M. Ahmad says: "... Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant,The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth..."

The Muslim Brotherhood plan for Dar al-Islam. Brigitte Gabriel

“Two-Tier Keir” | Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Blood in Britain's Streets. By Ayaan Hirsi Ali

I’ve followed Hirsi Ali for many years. Somali-born, forced into marriage with a much older man who abused her, forced to have FGM, she managed to escape, to Holland, team up with filmmaker Theo Van Gough (grand-nephew, iirc, of the painter) to make the movie “Fitna” about the mistreatment of women in Islam, which subject she knew from first hand experience. Theo was murdered by an Islamist nutter for his “blasphemy”. The murderer pinned a note to Theo’s body, with his knife. It said “To Ayaan: you’re next”. Ayaan fled to the U.K., then to the U.S. 

She married the famous popular historian Niall Ferguson along the way. And converted from atheism to Christianity.

She is a powerful, scrupulous, brave direct woman. From her blog, in response to the chaos unfolding in Britain:

/snip:

It should go without saying that all violent disorder which endangers lives and destroys property is unacceptable. There is no excuse that justifies riots, attacks on citizens, property damage and arson. This red line applies to all individuals or groups on the political spectrum from far right to far left and just as much to all ethnic and religious minorities regardless of their numbers or social status. It tears at the social fabric and destroys the trust which is necessary for common flourishing. Unfortunately, the British Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer did not say this in his statement on the developments.

The Prime Minister decided instead to single out what he calls "far-right" and made a point of stressing the need to keep Muslims and minority communities safe. 

Read it all…

Some comments from Me 

Mass immigration 

This is a concern across the western world. By polling 70-90% of people in Europe, the UK, the U.S., say they want a limit to mass immigration, and especially illegal mass migration. The elites — politicians and the media — have ignored or mocked them. France voted to limit mass immigration, but instead, through Macron’s manipulations they ended up with communism. Britons wanted limits on mass immigration and got a Left-wing pro-more immigration Labour Party of Sir Keir Starmer.

Here’s a thought: it’s not so much mass immigration that’s the problem as the type of it. I don’t think Brits would be nearly so concerned if the immigration was from the Far East — China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam— or from Hindu India or Christian Bangladesh. Or from Nigerian atheists. Or Zoroastrian Iranians. Or pantheist Poles. 

But a lot of it — perhaps even most of it — is from Islamic countries. Large chunks of Muslim immigrants,  y all our experience and polling, don’t share many or any of western values. The ideology of Islam despises other religions and non-religious. It is homophobic, misogynist, sectarian, militarist, supremacist, and has been so since its founding by the warlord Muhammad. 

How can locals warm to immigrants who have bombed their buses, killed their young festival goers, knifed their veterans, decapitated their politicians? Seriously, how?

Big Brother Starmer

The British PM, Sir Keir Starmer, instead of taking these widespread concerns into account, not only ignores them, but threatens the messengers. His government just said: “Think before you post”.

Imagine that! Be careful what you say. Sir Keir has 3,000 stormtroopers combing the internet for “hate speech”. Basic ally anything Sir Keir doesn’t like. 

They’re threatening to arrest the famous best-selling author Douglas Murray, FFS!

Steven Edginton, the smart young investigative journalist, was nearly arrested. His crime? He reported in the failures and unpopularity of DEI policies in the British armed forces.  

And in the meantime Tulsi Gabbard over in the USA, has been put on a “Terror Watch List”!

Free Speech and our basic rights as citizens are being throttled and it’s not from the Right. In all cases it’s the Left parties that are going after their opponents with lawfare, lowfare and unfairfare.

Why?

The question is then: “why do politicians across the western world ignore the will of the majority of their people? Why?”

I don’t get it. And neither does the media, because they don’t ask the question. To them it’s self evident that more immigration is A Good Thing. If you question it’s you who’s the bigot.

I blame John Lennon. At least partly. Listen to the lyrics of “Imagine”: 

Imagine there's no countries

It isn't hard to do

Nothing to kill or die for

And no religion, too

Yes, it is easy to imagine it. In a perfect world, no borders, we travel where we want when we want, no countries: no passport needed. The freedom of mankind. As an atheist for nearly 70 years (!) I’d love to imagine “no religion too”.

But of course that’s not how the world works. Which fact is a stubborn thing. 

Religion is stronger than ever. The Fundamentalist religious are more numerous than ever. Big chunks of humanity believe in supernatural deities who tell them to hate those who don’t believe as they do, that women are worth only half a man, that minorities should be subdued and battled. That blasphemers and apostates must be killed. When big chunks of those big chunks come to the west their confident supremacist values overcome our own flaccid “tolerant” values— as we see from our own actual, real, in-front-of-our-eyes experience. But Starmer, Macron, Harris-Biden, Albanese (Australia) do not want to — will not — face that fact. 

And the world, humankind, is worse for it. A net decrease in civilisation, net increase in barbarism. 

REPOST: “Why won’t Israel accept the right of return for Palestinians?"

Arabs and Jews fled. Only the Arabs still claim refugee status

 I repost this from August 2018. It remains as true now as it was then. 

The main point: in 1948, the Arabs living in the land that was to be called “Israel”, were told by their Arab neighbours to flee, so that they, the Arab armies, could be left free to slaughter the Jews. The local  Arabs -- now called “Palestinians” -- would then be allowed to return. In triumph, presumably. 

That never happened, because the Arab armies lost to the newly-born Israel Defence Forces. 

And the Arabs have never got over it. And never forgiven the Jews. Whose initial “error” was to laugh at Muhammd, way back when he was just a budding saviour and warlord. 

You don’t get to rewrite history because you lost. The post I did back then, which remains relevant: 

“Why won't Israel accept the right of return for Palestinians?”

Because there is no “right of return” for Palestinians. The phrase in UNGAR 194 about the return of refugees states in part:

“11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date,…”

The operative phrase that remains unfulfilled by the Palestinians is: “and live at peace with their neighbours”. To date there has been little evidence that any self-styled Palestinian is willing to “live at peace with their neighbours”. No country can be expected to accept a massive intake of a hostile population that has only one objective: destroying the country they claim they want to “return” to.

Article 11 goes on to say that:

“compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;”

A/RES/194 (III) of 11 December 1948 

The entire Arab League, along with the Higher Arab Committee for Palestine, which was the representative of the Arabs of Palestine at that time, rejected UNGAR 194 in its entirety when it was published in December 1948. You cannot come back 45 years later (1993) and say, “Hey, you remember that offer you made back in 1948? I’d like to take you up on that!”

As for compensation, there are very few Arabs from Palestine who can actually demand compensation for the simple fact that only about 8% (including land owned in the West Bank and Gaza, which would only be eligible for compensation if Israel annexed the same parcels of land) of the Mandate land was actually owned by local Arabs, and several thousand claims have already been adjudicated since 1948. How many can possibly be left?

Then there’s the issue of compensation, which “should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;”, which includes the Arab League governments and the Higher Arab Committee for Palestine, who “advised” and in many cases threatened Arabs to leave their homes:

“The Arab exodus, initially, at least, was encouraged by many Arab leaders, such as Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem exiled by the British for siding with the Germans in WWII, and by the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine. They viewed the first wave of Arab setbacks as merely transitory. Let Palestine Arabs flee into neighboring countries. It would serve to arouse the other Arab peoples to greater effort, and when the Arab invasion struck, the Palestinians could be compensated with the property of Jews driven into the sea.” Kenneth Bilby, an American correspondent covering Palestine during the war. (1940- “New Star in the Near East”, New York, 1950, pp. 30-31)

And: 

“I do not want to impugn anybody but only to help the refugees. The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the Arab States in opposing partition and the Jewish State. The Arab States agreed upon this policy unanimously, and they must share in the solution of the problem.” Emil Ghoury, Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee, the official leader of the Palestinian Arabs, in a Beirut newspaper, also reported in the Daily Telegraph on September 6, 1948.

And:

“The Arab civilians panicked and fled ignominiously. Villages were frequently abandoned before they were threatened by the progress of war.” General Glubb Pasha (the British officer who helped build the Transjordanian Army) wrote this in the London Daily Mail (August 12, 1948).

And:

“The Arab Exodus …was not caused by the actual battle, but by the exaggerated description spread by the Arab leaders to incite them to fight the Jews. …For the flight and fall of the other villages it is our leaders who are responsible because of their dissemination of rumors exaggerating Jewish crimes and describing them as atrocities in order to inflame the Arabs ... By spreading rumors of Jewish atrocities, killings of women and children etc., they instilled fear and terror in the hearts of the Arabs in Palestine, until they fled leaving their homes and properties to the enemy.” – The Jordanian daily newspaper Al Urdun, April 9, 1953.

And:

“The Arab governments told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in.” A refugee quoted in Al Difaa (Jordan) September 6, 1954.

And:

“The wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boasting of an unrealistic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of some weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab states, and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re-enter and re-take possession of the country.” – Edward Atiyah (Secretary of the Arab League, London, The Arabs, 1955, p. 183)

Even Mahmoud Abbas blames the Arab League states for their part in today’s status of the self-styled “Palestinians”:

“The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny, but instead they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, imposed upon them a political and ideological blockade and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe.

“The Arab states succeeded in scattering the Palestinian people and in destroying their unity. They did not recognize them as a unified people until the states of the world did so, and this is regrettable.” – The Current President of the Palestinian authority- Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas), from the official journal of the PLO, Falastin el-Thawra (“What We Have Learned and What We Should Do”), Beirut, March 1976, reprinted in the Wall Street Journal, June 5,2003.

As for compensation, there’s also the “minor detail” of compensating the 850,000 Jews expelled from Arab lands, with all their possessions confiscated, since they were also a result of the same war. The Arab League states, so humiliated over losing the 1948 war, expelled all their Jewish populations and stole their possessions. 

If the “Palestinians” deserve compensation, then so do the Jews, whose families lived in those lands for a thousand years or more before Mohammed invented Islam, deserve the same consideration… and it’s several times larger than any accumulated Palestinian claims could ever be.

From Michael Davison.