The most foolish Islamic beliefs

 

“The most foolish Islamic beliefs”. Yeah, well. It’s a target rich environment.

I started this blog a couple decades ago. To record issues about Islam. As in the ideology. The thought system. Not the people. The ideas. The belief system.

The vid above is a pretty good selection and well researched.

Fact-checked by me and authorised as ☑️.

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. 

“The 1,400-year history of Islamic conquests and colonisation of endless cultures.” | Gad Saad

	Gad Saad ⁦‪@GadSaad‬⁩ There are nearly 2 billion Muslims, many are peaceful, many are not. There is a 1,400-year history of Islamic conquests and colonization of endless cultures. Hundreds of millions of people (conservative estimate) have been forcibly converted, subjugated, enslaved, or killed by   11/3/2026, 10:01 am

There are nearly 2 billion Muslims, many are peaceful, many are not.  There is a 1,400-year history of Islamic conquests and colonisation of endless cultures.  

Hundreds of millions of people (conservative estimate) have been forcibly converted, subjugated, enslaved, or killed by the Noble Faith of Peaceful Genocides.  

If you study the foundational Islamic tenets, (Koran, Hadith and Sirah, the Trinity of Islam) they could not be any more antithetical to American freedoms & liberties.  Literally.  

So, now I ask you:  

Given that we all know an Ahmad who is very nice and peaceful, what is the evidence that you would need to see, as Americans, to say: "I don't wish to tolerate Islam in my society?"  

Or is it that no amount of evidence can convince you because "freedom of religion"?

Lionel Shriver discusses this very issue with Dad Saves America. 

The “Islam” vs “Islamism” trap | Dan Burmawi

I’ve never been much of a one for the distinction between “Islam” and “Islamism”. 

Though I do recognise its usefulness as a tactical split to acknowledge the millions of Muslims who do not follow their faith down all its prescribed, violent, tenets. (Which I call the Trinity of Islam).

Still, it only takes a small percent of islamists to cause havoc and chaos. Just as it only took 5% of Russian Bolsheviks to make Revolution. Nazis were a small minority of Germans when they took power. 

/Snip

“… Islam is not a private faith but an inherently political ideology, with expansionist ambitions embedded in its foundational texts and history. From this perspective, vigilance requires scrutinizing anyone with ties, however historical or familial, to Islamist networks, lest the West repeat the mistakes that allowed groups like the Muslim Brotherhood to embed themselves within democratic institutions.

A neat phrase encapsulates this conundrum: 

“Islamists (or Jihadis) are snakes in the grass. Islam is the grass”. 

Dan Burmawi analyses the issue in “The Islam-Islamism Trap”. 

Americans are fed up with Islam. Australia should do the same

 

A large minority — perhaps even a majority — of adherents to the “Religion of Peace” want to destroy the West. 

The reason they want to do this is set out in the Koran. And the Hadith. And the Sirah. The Trinity of Islamic doctrine. 

The reason is: 

They -- Muslims -- are "Correct". We -- all the rest of the non-Muslim world -- are "Wrong". We should not just be "educated" to Submit to Islam. If we offer any resistance, we must be fought and subdued. 

That's Islam for you. That's not me saying that. That's the Islamic Trinity. The core, the foundational, documents of Islam.

Don't believe me? Read a Koran. 

Not All Apples are the Same | Konstantin Kisin

 

IMO: it's not an issue with "radical" Islam. It's a problem with Islam. Its core texts are the Koran, the Hadith and the Sirah, life of Muhammad. In all of these the enemy is all non-Muslims. The aim of all Muslims -- according to these foundational texts -- is to fight against all non-Muslims. To carry out Jihad against them.

To me that means the problem is ISLAM. Nor radical Islam. But Islam. 

By all polls large chunks of the Islamic community believe all the stuff in the core texts. They believe in the supremacy of Islam over all other religions; they are homophobic; they are misogynist; they are racist. And they do not believe in free speech. All of that in their core texts. The Trinity of Islam. 

“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

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 

Is there such a thing as "extremist Islam"?

In a word "NO". 

For if there is such a thing as "extremist" Islam, then there is its opposite: namely a "non-extremist" Islam. But there is no evidence of such a beast. Not in the Islamic Trinity: the Koran, the Hadith and the Sirah. Nor in its codified Sacred Law of Sharia. Nor even by Scholars of Islam. 

It's not just me says this. It's all pious and knowledgeable Muslims. They insist "there's Islam and that's that". 

To the extent that there is such a thing as a "moderate Muslim", it's not that he follows a "moderate" form of Islam, of a "non-extremist" Islam, it's that he decides not to follow parts of it that he doesn't like. That's the case for many Muslims. For they are scared to leave the religion, given the penalty for apostasy is ostracisation or death. Much easier, then, to just let it be. Remain Muslim, but don't follow it. I've seen many such Muslims in my travels, perhaps most in the very Islamic country of South Sudan. The muezzin's call to prayer, five times a day, was ignored by all around us, from dawn to dusk. 

Over fifteen years ago, I wrote about this. Which was some years after my awakening to the essence of Islam, which for me came by dint of reading the Koran. Then re-reading it in case I'd missed something. Surely, I thought, there must be something loving and peaceable here? Nah...  

By contrast -- and I say this as a lifelong Atheist -- the Bible is a breath of fresh air. In the Bible we have many horrid and violent passages, but all in the Old Testament. Go the New Testament and love abounds. There's no such relief in the Koran. It's all hate on non-Muslims, hate specifically for Jews and Christians, and telling all Muslims what wonderful and superior creatures they are. It's relentless, and we need to understand, in the west, that that relentlessness continues up until today. It is now in the veins of our nations. 

Here's a summary: Jesus Christ is a lover. Muhammad is a hater. 

Look, I mean... just read it. Read the Koran. Muhammad is non stop hating on everyone other than people who submit to his "new" religion, his "latest" revelation from God, which he got in a cave via the Angel Gabriel. Read it. It's hateful from one page to the next. Don't blame me! Don't tell me I'm the bigot. I'm only reporting what's in the Koran, available, out there, for everyone to read. 

That is why: when I had read the Koran I came to the conclusion that "If this is what we're dealing with, then we're in trouble". It is indeed what we're dealing with. In most places in the west, we're "dealing" with it by ignoring it. Dealing with Islamisation by not dealing with it. Or worse: Dealing with it by criminalising any criticism of its ideology, calling such criticism "Islamophobia". Dealing with it, as King Charles did with his Easter message, by grotesquely presenting it as a loving religion "caring for those in need". Yeah, right. 

Below is the longish piece I wrote back in March 2010, about Islam. The Open Letter I quoted, by David Solway is rather long, but does cover the issues elegantly. He's talking about Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician who was at the time warning about Islam. He's still there, still fighting the ideology, winning hearts and minds, but not allowed by the EU blob to take his rightful position as PM of The Netherlands, through some kind of subterfuge and EU-style lawfare. They just don't like "populists" those Eurocrats, despite popular being what the people want. It's all part of how we're "dealing" with this mortal threat. 

The full post is here. 

Snip, from Wednesday 17 March, 2010:

Below is a thoughtful open letter to Geert Wilders, [Wayback] who is facing trial in the Netherlands for so-called "hate speech" for criticising Islam.  Solway spends some time on the vexed issue of whether there are "moderate" Muslims and if there is a difference between "Islam" and "Islamism".  I well remember the first time I read the Koran a decade ago and thinking "if this is what we have to deal with, we're in trouble".  David Solway quotes Roger Simon on this point:

“if Wilders is correct, and the line between Islam and Islamism is as blurred as the Dutchman posits, then we in the West are in very deep trouble indeed.”

And we are in deep trouble indeed.   Solway's full letter is below.  It's an important read.

An open letter to Geert Wilders: 

"A profile in courage". 

Though we have not met, I feel as if I know you well. I have followed your trials—and trial—closely and, like many who are engaged in the same fight against Islamic supremacism and the various forms of jihad that confront us, I endorse your campaign on behalf of the West and its traditional liberties in every way that I can.

Indeed, I wonder if you are aware of the extent of your de facto “support network,” a majority in America who, according to a Pew Research Center survey, are “very concerned” about the rise of Islamic extremism, and certainly a significant minority of the increasingly vocal. The same may now be the case in your own country and in a number of other European nations as well—Switzerland and its minaret affair come immediately to mind—as ordinary people gradually come to realize the threat they are facing.

Keep reading 

“Islam is not the source of terrorism!” | Angela Merkel

	Imtiaz Mahmood ⁦‪@ImtiazMadmood‬⁩ "Islam is not the source of terrorism!" ~ Angela Merkel Saying otherwise will be Islamophobia. Meanwhile, in the last 30 days, there were 115 Islamic attacks in 24 countries, in which 860 people were killed and 872 injured. You don't hear about this because it does not fit… pic.x.com/epicRPJ8Td   23/2/2025, 2:00 pm

Really? 

Merkel speaks 100% nonsense here. Click above for the video of her nonsensical lies. 

Does she not realise that the reason "Islamic authorities" don't speak up to denounce "violent Islam" vs "peaceful Islam" — as she pleads for them to do - is because there is no difference between the peaceful and the violent? 

Islam is Islam. 

Islam doesn't need Islamic scholars to explain itself to us. 

Islam easily understood via the Koran, the Hadith and the Sharia law -- the Trinity of Islam. At its core it is the max supremacist religion in the world. It specifies that its supremacy shall be extended "by the sword", by terrorism, by battle, by "fighting in the way of Allah" until all the world is subjugated to the will of Allah. Until we submit, "submission" being the meaning of the word "Islam". The chaos across Europe now is not despite Islam, but because of it. 

I believe Merkel doesn't know this and is just spouting pabulum written for her. Which also happens to fit in with her world view that "wir Schaffen das", ie, "we can do this", as she said at the beginning of the migrant surge in 2015. 

It turns out Germany "cannot do this", cannot handle the supremacist hordes, as proven by multiple, ongoing, raging Islamic attacks on the German host population. And across Europe wherever there are large Islamic enclaves. 

She, Angela Merkel, is the one person most responsible for the disastrous current surge in violent crime across Germany and everywhere in Europe that's welcomed waves of illegal Islamist immigrants. 

Are you allowed to be who you think you are? Or do you have to accept that you're what other people think you are?

Twelve years ago now, as I was just getting into writing this blog, I learned that people thought I was a real right wing nutter, because of my views on Islam. Which was the whole initial purpose of starting this blog. To write about Islam. 

What startled me was that I was considered to be a right wing nutter simply on the basis of my views on Islam. Me! A long-time Australian Labor Party supporter. Who'd voted Labor since Whitlam and right through to Keating. How very dare they! Call me right wing?!

I wrote a blog post about this, way back in 2010, titled "swimming with the right wing fishies". 

The thing is: whatever my Occasional Readers thought about what I said about Islam, I did write about it with some knowledge. I read all the foundational texts of Islam, what I now call the Trinity of Islam -- The Koran (the Islamic Bible), the Hadith (stories about Muhammad) and the Sirah (the official life of Muhammad by Ibn Ishak). I read in detail the actual detailed texts of Sharia law, via the standard text on Sunni Sacred Law, the Umdat al-Salik. 

I wrote that Islam is more than a religion. It is an ideology. I said it was (and is) a horrid ideology. That it combines the worst of fascism with the worst of communism then slathers it with the worst of a cult religious belief, a death cult, with a belief in a supernatural being that makes it unfalsifiable. A horrid religion and a horrid ideology. I thought. And that made me a right winger apparently. 

• Being against a religious ideology that subjugates women is right wing, apparently. 
• Being against a religious ideology that oppresses or kills gay people is right wing, apparently. Being against a religious ideology that suppresses free speech is right wing, apparently. 
• Being against a religious ideology that hates on non-Muslims is right wing, apparently. 
• Being against a religious ideology that sectarian is right wing, apparently. 
• Being against a religious ideology that wants to kill all jews is right wing, apparently. 
• Being against a religious ideology that burns churches is right wing, apparently. 
• Being against a religious ideology that demands supplication to its religious laws of Sharia is right wing, apparently. 
• Being against a religious ideology that wants to dominate the world is right wing, apparently. 

But, hey! I've got a life to live, so I didn't mind too much the label. Save that I didn't accept it. I still felt I was a person of the Left. Just that I didn't like a totalitarian ideology like Islam is all. And in that dislike there were -- and still are -- many totally bona fide Left wingers. One of the most famous: Sam Harris. 

Why am I writing about this again? Because again I'm charged with being Right wing and again I deny it. 

An Occasional Reader says to me: "Of course, you're a conservative. A right wing person". 

I say: "No, I'm not. I view myself as an Independent. As a member of the Heterodox Academy". 

OR: "But you're right wing. Go on admit it. There's nothing to be ashamed of". 

Me:"Except I'm not. I don't accept the label". 

OR: "But you have to. What you think you are is irrelevant. You are what other people think you are". 

Me: "Well, I don't accept it. I say I am what I believe I am, and that's an independent". 

OR: "You're no way a centrist". 

Me: "I didn't say centrist. Just independent". 

OR: "Very well. Name some left wing views you have". 

Me: "Many. Like on Gun Control. Abortion, I'm pro choice, of the Bill Clintonian type -- safe, legal and rare. On minority rights, support. Just don't support trans men in women's spaces, or transing pre-pubescent youths". 

OR: "That doesn't make you centrist". 

Me: "I didn't say centrist. I said independent". 

And so it went on. 

And in the end I wonder. Is it true that I'm only what other people think I am? I guess on one level it surely it. For example, if everyone thinks I'm a jerk, while I think I'm god's gift to mankind, the fact of the matter is, I'm a jerk. Because everyone thinks I am. Because all they see is that I'm a jerk. 

But what the OR and I are talking about is something a bit different isn't it?

For a start, there's the fact that people accepting you for what you believe you are is very much a Left wing thing. Think the whole trans issue. If I believe I'm a woman, I'm a woman. If I believe I'm a furry animal, I'm a cat, or cheetah. And we are required to affirm that belief. 

But then not even I believe that. I call it woo-woo. I call it woke nonsense. If someone believes they're Napoleon, we might humour them for a while, but we don't really affirm it. We don't affirm the anorexic girl's belief that she's too fat. 

Nevertheless, there must surely be times when what people think of us is off the mark. For example, everyone thought Jimmy Saville was the most wonderful man. Until they learned he was a serial nonce. What did he think of himself all that time, when the outside world didn't know, or didn't want to know? Surely he knew himself better, and surely he knew what he was. 

Or take the man of the moment, Donald Trump. People think about him in all sorts of ways. To his supporters, that he's a world wonder. Those who don't say he's all sorts of things. Just today on MSNBC I heard people say, in all seriousness that he's a narcissistic sociopath and a felon. He's none of these things, at least in my view. Even that difference in perceptions must make us rethink the concept that we are what people say we are, surely. After all, half of America had TDS and the other half worshipped him. Meantime, he has a fine family and they all appear to love him. That's a difference right there, isn't it? 

The I think of this: that the white man in the United States at one time thought all Black men were sub-human. Treated as slaves. Did that mean they were indeed sub-human and should be enslaved?  Of course not. But that was the view of other people about another people, of a different colour. So how can the OR say, in sweeping terms, "you are what others think you are, no matter what you may feel you are". 

In any case, I'm what I think I am, at least to me. To me, I'm pretty liberal. With some right of centre views. Which I came to by looking at the issue. 

But that might just make me a jerk. 

Oh well....  Happy 2025!

Two States Terrible Solution

Click above for the video 
This fellow does good vids, IMO

It’s not just since 1917 that Muslim Arabs have been killing Jews. It’s since Muhammad in the 7th century.

Christopher Hitchens once said that the reason Muhammad hated the Jews is that they laughed at him. It’s true they did. We can read it in the Koran, the Hadith, the Sirah, the biography of Muhammad. 

It’s not surprising. After all, Muhammad was most likely a Paranoid Schizophrenic. He heard voices, the voice of the Angel Gabriel, who apparently recited the Koran to him, an illiterate farmer in !ecca. He was told to hate Jews, so says the Trimity of Islam. He went to Medina to proselytise to the Jews, who in good stand-up schtick giggled and mocked him. To his eternal induration. Which is continued to the day because to Muslims Muhammad is “the perfect man”.

The Monks are right!

	Millwall Paul 🇬🇧 🇺🇸 🇪🇸 🇮🇱🤘🏼 ⁦‪@MillwallDocks‬⁩ BBC's Simon Reeve interviews Burmese Monks on the scourge of Rohingya Muslims and doesn't like their answers. Watch their comments and see if they sound familiar to you 👀 pic.twitter.com/djNd1aabiG   2/1/2024, 6:12 pm

The Monks are right.

Because Islam is not just a religion, but an ideology. Yes, it is. Look it up. 

It’s not an ideology that calls for good neighbourliness. Instead it’s supremacist, homophobic, misogynistic. It is anti getting along with non-Muslims.

When in minority it strives to increase. When it’s beyond a minority, it tells the rest of us that it’s either you convert to Islam, or pay a tax, or we kill you. The Trinity of Islam mandates this: the Koran, the Hadith and the Sirah of Muhammad. 

We have plenty of countries to affirm this. The 57 countries of the Islamic Conference. 

We have 1300 years of Islamic conquests to affirm it.

The monks are just saying this, no matter the BBC doesn’t like it. Because they don’t want to be road kill. 

Of course, of course, of course there are plenty of Muslims that are fine people. Neighbourly. Get along.  Don’t follow the Trinity of Islam. The Monks are talking big trend and on that they’re spot on. Simon Reeve is non-plussed.

HAMAS: calling a Nazi a Nazi

REPOSTING this post from 2011, in which I look at the issue of calling everyone a “Nazi”. Which is kind of what happens these days. And which I’ve steered clear of. Except, back in 2011, in the case of Hamas. Because they really are modern Nazis. Arguably worse: the Nazis of Germany were ashamed of their Holocaust. They hid it. The modern Nazis, Hamas, are proud of what they do. They celebrate it. And they have fellow followers, in academia, in the media, in even, I’m sad to say, amongst friends. 

ADDED: I no longer think Julian Assange is a “prissy blonde pissant”. I now think he’s a hero and martyr to free speech. There. I admit my wrong.  

REPOST:

Writing a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald, I read up their page of tips on letter-writing style, which has something along the lines of “we take the view that the first person to make a comparison with the Nazis has lost the argument”.

This rather caught my attention.  For sure my letter (about Wikileaks) contained no such analogy -- no matter how tempting the thought that the prissy blond pissant Julian Assange does rather remind one of the good Aryan lads of the Third Reich --  and the next day it was duly published [here].

But I’ve continued to think about that stricture of the Herald’s sub-editors.
For sure there are many cases of the inappropriate analogy of [name your hated ideology here] and the Nazis.  There’s even a Facebook  page on it here.  Obama has been likened to Hitler.  Then again, he’s also been likened to Mao and Peaceniks, and said to be a Muslim.  As the Facebook page says, “make up your mind, he can’t be all four”.

Then there’s Hamas’ criticism of Israel’s policies in Gaza: equating them with the Holocaust.   That’s clearly waaay beyond the pale.  “Genocide”?  You’re kidding.

A more subtle one has lured many an Islam apologist onto its rocks: the suggestion that Muslims are being targetted today, just like the Jews of the 1930s.  Sounds powerfully reminiscent, right?  Well, no.  The analogy does not stand the most cursory scrutiny (See Christopher Hitchens on it here), though it does exert a strong allure to bien pensants, who believe that Muslims are being unfairly targetted.  But there is no analogy between Jews being targetted for exterminationfor purely fabricated reasons, and Islam, Islam the ideology, being questioned and challenged for its clearly and unequivocally bigoted tenets.

But what if the analogy with Nazism is correct?  In the case of Islam, I came to the thought that it was a theocratic equivalent to Nazism quite independently and purely on the basis of its documents, its actions, its teachings.  And reading, not just the Koran, Hadith and Sira (life of Muhammad), aka “The Trinity of Islam, but also books such as “Icon of Evil: Hitler’s Mufti and the Rise of Radical Islam” by Dalin and Rothman.[1]  This is the story of Haj Amin al-Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem before, during and after WWII right up to his death in 1974. One of the worst men in history.

Al-Husseini met Hitler and shared the latter’s dream to rid the world of Jews.  He offered Muslim troops for the task and offered to be the Fuehrer’s tool to exterminate Jews in the Middle East. This is documented fact.  In offering his services to Hitler, al-Husseini was punctilious to state -- both to the Fuehrer and on his regular radio addresses to Muslims broadcast from Berlin -- that in carrying out the proposed genocide, he was carrying out the wishes of Allah and his "prophet", carrying out, in other words, the demands of Islam.

Other similarities between Islam and Nazism:

• Supremacism: the belief that there is only one true ideology and that it should conquer the world
• Belief in one supreme leader: Hitler and Muhammad
• Warlike: both Hitler and Muhammad waged war against “unbelievers”
• Hatred of “bourgeois” art
• Rabid anti-Semitism: see above.
• The salute: Hamas and Hezbollah have chosen – quite deliberately, one assumes – the Nazi salute as their token of obedience to the supreme leader.

Hezbollah shows its true colours

Ways in which they are not alike:

Islam is non-racist cf Nazism.  Though Islam does make a clear distinction between true believers and non-believers, or kuffars, much as Nazism did between the Aryan race and non-Aryans.

So, let’s say that I wanted to write something to the Herald and chose to make the – correct – analogy of radical/orthodox Islam to Nazism.  Would I then be blackballed by the sub-eds for having broken their stricture?  Seems rather unfair to me, that simply because so many Nazism analogies are wrong, they assume, in their arrogation, that all such comparisons are wrong.  Rather a case of “you vill obey orders”, nein?

Just like the Nazis.

Related:
"The Madonna in the Tortilla", Roland Shirk, Jihad Watch, 20 January 2011. Here.
"On the furphy that Muslims are the new Jews", Peter at 12 October 2010. Here.
"Cathophobes on the march", Peter at 14 September 2010. Here.
"Free Exercise of Religion? No, Thanks", Christopher Hitchens, Slate, September 6, 2010. Here.

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

[1] Another book on the mufti:  “The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism: Adolf Hitler and Haj Amin al-Husseini”, Chuck Morse, Universe, 2003.  Here.

Not all religions are the same

“Musims”?? What the L ?....

Uncomfortable for many.  Nonetheless true.  Societies ordered under Christian principles are different from societies ordered under Islamic principles.  The former is better.  For all concerned.  I’m an atheist, worked in Christian and Islamic countries. I’ll take the Christian one any day. This is William Kilpatrick writing on a site I’ve never heard of before, LifeSite:

According to the Declaration of Independence, all men are created equal, but are all Supreme Beings equal? The Declaration states that men are "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights," but which Creator is the Declaration referring to? It would make no sense to claim that Allah would qualify for the position, because in Islam all men are not created equal. Muslims, who are described in the Koran as "the best of people," are considered to be decidedly superior to non-Muslims. For example, under Shariah law a Muslim who kills another Muslim may have to pay with his life, but a Muslim who kills a non-Muslim need only pay "blood money" to the murdered man's relatives. Islamic charity isn't dispensed equally, either. It's only meant for other Muslims. During the recent flooding in Pakistan, police and local clerics refused aid and shelter to Christians and Hindus, despite the fact that the majority of relief money and supplies came from non-Muslim countries. "With charity toward all" is an alien concept in much of the Muslim world.The Supreme Being as depicted in the Koran is an entirely different sort of being from the one depicted in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Although a lot of Christians like to say that "We all worship the same God," the Koran explicitly rejects Christianity and the Christian notion of God. It does this on several occasions and in no uncertain terms. The Jesus of the Koran, for example, seems to have been introduced into it for the sole purpose of denying the claims of Jesus of Nazareth. etc....

These are not cherry-picked. The sentiments are shot through the Trinity of Islam, the core texts of Islam: The Koran, the Hadith and the Sirah (life of Muhammad). Moreover they are carried out in practice: eg Pakistan, as above; and to cap it off, Islamic sacred jurisprudence is codified in the Sharia (best summary: The Reliance of the Traveller).
See for example, my posts on “What Sharia says about charity” and “What Sharia says about non-Muslims”.  More generally, “What Sharia says about.... They show that William Kilpatrick is correct in his summaries. There are good exceptions....  Then again, they’re not all that keen on the LGBT thing in Islam.  Though slavery, fine... (it’s not just ISIS).

ADDED: Yasmine Mohammed talks about these issue in her recent podcast with Sam Harris (12 Nov 19)

Suicide bombers rue their failure to kill innocents

	JZahav (@JZahav1)
24/3/19, 12:17 am 3 Palestinian women failed suicide bombers on why they wanted to blow up Jews: "I don't like this life. I want to be close to Allah" "We are not just against the occupation. Our goal is to spread Islam everywhere" "I don't want a fun life on Earth. I only want to satisfy Allah" pic.twitter.com/X2YF2a7LrC

These women are failures. They had wanted to murder civilians. Including any children that happened in their way. For the sake of Allah. And to spread Islam to the whole world. Because it says so in the Koran. And the Hadith. And because their parents would be proud of them. 

They are, in short……

Islamophobes! 

(After all, if I suggest that some Muslims are driven, by the ideology set out in their holy books, to kill civilians and to spread Islam to the whole world, there is no doubt at all I would be labelled an Islamophobe).

Dutch former anti-Muslim politician converts to Islam – POLITICO

Huh?
I just gotta file this under "Things I don't get".
I don't get how someone can read all about Islam and then say "yup, that's the religion for me!"
I mean, really, what has Joram Van Klaveren seen that I've somehow missed?
I've read the Koran.
I've read many parts of it multiple times and in multiple translations.
I've read swathes of the Hadith - the doings and sayings of Muhammad. And I've read the Sirah of Muhammad, the official biography of his life by Ibn Ishaq.
And I've looked, by Allah I've looked.... I've found not a single thing to like in these, the Islamic trinity. Not one. Just spine tingling violence and calls to arms. So, maybe, if you're that way inclined.....
What has Van Klaveren found? Why did none ask him this simple question? Because to do so would be impolite?
I don't know.
Hence : Things I Don't Get.

Many people in mostly Christian countries believe values clash with Islam – poll | The Guardian

Here's the thing:

• The many (in the West) who are concerned that Islam doesn't share the values of the West are correct. 
• And the many (in the Middle East) who aren’t concerned that Christianity doesn’t share the values of Islam are also correct.

First the Islam side. The core documents of Islam, the Islamic Trinity, include the following:

• The law of the land must be the law of Allah, not the law of man. 
• Man-made laws are blasphemous
• Islam must reign supreme. 
• All other religions have to be wiped out or must submit to Islam and pay a tax (the "jizya") for doing so. 
• Jihad, holy war, is the way for Islam to reign supreme 
• Homosexuals are abominations and must be killed
• Apostates are dangerous and must be killed
• Blasphemers are horrid and must be killed 
• Jews are apes and monkeys and must be killed
• Women who commit adultery are faithless and must be killed. 
• Women are second class creatures who must obey men
• Men have the right to beat women
• Girls should have their clitoris cut off

Is that enough?  (heaps of killing, note). None of this is cherry-picking: it is all clear, unequivocal, middle-of-the-road, uncontroversial, bog-standard, plain vanilla Islamic doctrine. (More under the "Sharia” Tab above). 

So, yes, these values are absolutely in opposition to those that we've developed and held dear over many centuries in the west. 

In short: Islam is not compatible with western values.
Nor can Islam be made compatible with western values, for many reasons, too long to go into here. 

Meantime, Christians in the Middle East have been killed and hounded out. In Saudi Arabia they are not even allowed to pray, on penalty of death. So of course the Muslims in those countries don't worry about Christians.

Christians in the Middle East are the subjugated dhimmi, already. Bear in mind: Christianity was born and grew up in the Middle East. And now they're wiped out? 

And still this pope, this Marxist Islam-apologist pays obeisance to the mufti of Al-Azhar University. 

Shame on Bergoglio.

"No, London has not fallen to Islam" | TheNewArab

Tower Hamlets UK. The Muslim population is now 12.5%, over the
6% population where no country totally free, as I showed 7 years ago

What is it that irks me about this article, "No London has not fallen to Islam" by Sadek Hamid?  Its straw man attacks? London may not have "fallen to Islam" (the straw man), but there's a process happening before our eyes, and it's the Islamisation of the UK.  

Am I upset by its rampant victimhood?  Muslims are "demonised" or seen as 'the enemy within" (no they're not, as hate crime figures show: Jews are much more attacked than Muslims, both in total number and in proportion). 

Or is it Its claims that all who criticise Islam are of the Alt-right?  Quillette for example is most assuredly not an alt-right site, as Hamid claims: it's very much of the Left, just not of the regressive Left that the likes of Hamid count on to support their supremacist agenda. But to Hamid it's critical of the ideology of Islam, and therefore Alt-right.  That's the new catch-all slur, added to "racism".

I dunno, but it's of a piece with narratives that any critique of Islam must somehow be based on racism, bigotry and islamophobia.

Not that muslims must do anything to fit in, mind you.  Oh no, "integration is a myth". it must be abandoned, in favour of "acceptance", by the host society, of course.  So Hamid tells us. Accept, that is, things like the increasing number of Sharia courts — 100 plus in the UK alone at the latest count. Accept "modesty" clothing, burkas and all (despite the fact they're banned in a number of Muslim countries for security reasons). Accept the closure of pubs and wine bars (alcohol-free zones). Accept the wiping out of pork on menus at schools and hospitals (sharia law zones). Accept that there really are "no-go" zones. Zones where unveiled women enter at their peril.  Zones where Ambulances are attacked because they represent the authorities. And Tower Hamlets (I've been) is most assuredly Pak-Arabia in England. (and not in a good way: to repeat, if it were Hindus, dressed equally differently as are Muslim women, there would not be anything like the concerns, because the concerns are about the ideology, not the dress per se).

And if we observe that all of that is "islamisation" then shame on us.

Hamid quotes one Otto English about Andy Ngo's piece: "It's like going to Lancaster county in Pennsylvania and assuming that The Amish are taking over". Well, no, because the Amish have no doctrine of take-over. The Islamic doctrine — the Trinity of Islam — very much does. The Amish have stayed put in Lancaster for 200 years. Islam is spreading to every corner of Europe and the UK.

Hamid is playing the card that says: "nothing to see here".  And if you do, you're an islamophobe.

This will resonate with many. And render society mute and helpless against a very muscular ideology which very much wants to Islamise the west. That's not fantasist conspiracist paranoia.  That's baked into the ideology of Islam and blow to the likes of Hamid for trying to pull the wool over people's eyes.

By the way; I went to study and work in China in the seventies. A very different China from today. One of the things I did, almost without thinking, was to try to fit in. I learnt the language, I wore Chinese clothes, their "Mao suits" and cotton cloth shoes, I ate their food, I lived where they did.  There's nothing wrong with trying to fit in. There's a great deal wrong with deciding that, as a matter of course, as a matter of ideology, you're not going to fit in.  Because, well, because Islam.

Link here.

Overzealous reactions to Islamophobia do more harm than good | Arab News

Muhammad and the Dead Poets' society. When he couldn't be bothered
he had others do his beheading for him.  Favourite targets: jews and poets

Herein the problem with apologists of Islam, apologists like Maha Akeel in the Arab News (talking of Boris Johnson making fun of the burka).
They say things that are patently untrue. And which are easily provably untrue, even according to their own doctrines. When they do this, they are either Knaves or Fools. That is, they either know they are lying and are just trying to fool we infidels.  Or they are Fools in that they don't know that they are lying, they really believe what they are saying.
I don't know where most Muslim apologists fall on the Knave vs Fool dichotomy.  I suspect it's most often the latter; that is, the are Fools, who truly believe what they're telling us, untrue and all that it may be.
The Trinity of Islam, for example, has numerous example of Muhammad killing people, himself, or ordering the killing of people. And of taking revenge — poets and Jews were his favourite targets.
Yet someone like Maha Akeel, whose brain has been rotted by obeisance to this violent ideology, can say patently false things like:

The Prophet faced numerous incidents of insult and defeat but did not retaliate with vengeance or violence when he had the chance.

Oh yes, he did!

Just look at poets, just poets, killed by him or on his orders:

For a man who "never" took revenge, there certainly are a curious number of bodies piled up around the prophet of Islam:

..."Ka'ab bin Al Ashraf used to satire the Prophet and incited the infidels of the Quraish against him... They used to hurt the Prophet and his Companions... When Ka'ab bin Al Ashraf refused to desist from hurting the Prophet the Prophet ordered Sa'd bin Mu'adh to send a band to kill him... When they killed him, the Jews and the polytheist were frightened... (Abu Dawud 3000)

and

Abu Afak was one of the B. Amr b. Auf of the B. Ubayda clan. He showed his disaffection when the apostle killed al-Harith b. Suwayd b. Samit... The apostle said, "Who will deal with this rascal for me?" Whereupon Salim b. Umayr, brother of B. Amr b. Auf, one of the "weepers", went forth and killed him. (Ibn Ishaq 995)

and

She [Asma bint Marwan] was of B. Umayyya b. Zayd. When Abu Afak had been killed she displayed disaffection... Blaming Islam and its followers she said: "I despise B. Malik and al-Nabit and Auf and B. al-Khazraj. You obey a stranger who is none of yours... Do you expect good from him after the killing of your chiefs?"...
When the apostle heard what she had said he said, "Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?" Umayr b. Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. (Ibn Ishaq 996)

These were three poets murdered on Muhammad's orders for having criticized or made fun of him (usually for having murdered someone else).  Source

Still, to Akeel, Muhammad is: 

"... the beloved Prophet in his patience, humility, strength, kindness, tolerance and benevolence".

[gee, sounds like Boris...]

Akeel may even believe this. Which makes her a Fool rather than a Knave.  Not sure which is worse. The Fool is naive; the Knave is a cheat.  

But both are wrong.