Google bows to Muslim pressure, changes search results to conceal criticism of Islam

“Google’s first page results for searches of terms such as ‘jihad’, ‘shariah’ and ‘taqiyya’ now return mostly reputable explanations of the Islamic concepts. Taqiyya, which describes the circumstances under which a Muslim can conceal their belief in the face of persecution, is the sole term to feature a questionable website on the first page of results.”

“Reputable” according to whom? “Questionable” according to whom? Google is bowing to pressure from Muslim such as Omar Suleiman without considering whether those who are demanding that the search results be skewed in a particular direction might have an ulterior motive. Could it be that those who are pressuring Google want to conceal certain truths about Islam that they would prefer that non-Muslims not know?

This is a real possibility, but of course Google executives would have to study Islam themselves in order to determine whether or not these Muslims who are pressuring them are misleading them, and that’s not going to happen. Still, they could have done a bit more due diligence, and made some efforts to determine whether those being tarred as “hate groups” really deserved the label, whether the Southern Poverty Law Center was really a reliable and objective arbiter of which groups were and weren’t “hate groups,” and whether the information that Google was suppressing was really inaccurate. Instead, Google seems to have swallowed uncritically everything Omar Suleiman and the others said.

Suleiman, however, still isn’t satisfied: “One leading activist in favor of Google modifying its results told Anadolu Agency he noticed the updated search results and thanked the company for its efforts but said ‘much still needs to be done.’” He claimed that Google has a responsibility to “combat ‘hate-filled Islamophobia’ similar to how they work to suppress extremist propaganda from groups like Daesh and al-Qaeda.”

This should have made Google executives stop and think. The Islamic State (Daesh) and al-Qaeda slaughter people gleefully and call openly for more mass murders. There is no firm evidence that anyone has ever been killed by a “hate-filled Islamophobe,” and the claim that Hamas-linked CAIR and the SPLC make in this article, that this supposed “Islamophobic” rhetoric has led to a rise in hate crimes against Muslims, is supported by not a scintilla of evidence. Suleiman is equating critical words with murderous deeds, and Google should have realized at that point that he had an agenda and wasn’t being honest.

“Suleiman said Google should differentiate between ‘criticism of Islam and hate-filled Islamophobia’, emphasizing the religion should not be infringed upon.”

That’s not clear. He apparently is saying that there is acceptable criticism of Islam that is not “hate-filled Islamophobia,” but if that is so, then the religion can be “infringed upon,” at least by this legitimate criticism, no? Or if the claim that Islam must not be “infringed upon” means that it cannot be criticized, why is that so of Islam but not any other religion?

Suleiman says: “I don’t think Google has a responsibility to portray Muslims positively. I think Google has a responsibility to weed out fear-mongering and hate groups but I don’t want Google to silence critique of Islam, or critique of Muslims.”

The problem with this is that neither Suleiman, nor Hamas-linked CAIR, nor anyone else who has ever said that there was a distinction between legitimate criticism of Islam and “hate-filled Islamophobia” has ever identified anyone he thinks is a legitimate critic of Islam who is not “Islamophobic.” Over 16 books now, as well as thousands of articles and over 45,000 blog posts, I have attempted to present a reasonable, documented, fair and accurate criticism of Islam and explanation of the jihad doctrine. Nevertheless, I’ve been tarred as a purveyor of “hate-filled Islamophobia” by groups and individuals that have never given my work a fair hearing, but have read it only to search of gotcha!-quotes they could wrench away from their obvious benign meaning in order to claim I was saying something hateful. And this isn’t just me — this happens to anyone and everyone who dares to utter a critical word about Islam or jihad, wherever they are on the political spectrum.

This experience, reinforced countless times over a decade and a half, makes me extremely skeptical when Omar Suleiman says that he doesn’t want Google to silence critique of Islam. If he could produce some critique of Islam that he approved of, my skepticism might lessen. But he won’t, and can’t. It seems much more likely that he pressured Google to skew its results so as to deep-six criticism of Islam, but knowing that he couldn’t tell them that he was trying to bring Google into line with Sharia blasphemy laws forbidding criticism of Islam, he told them instead that he wasn’t against criticism of Islam as such, but only against “hate-filled Islamophobia.”

Mr. Suleiman, if you and your colleagues hadn’t spent years tarring rational criticism of Islam that was accurate and presented in good faith as “hate-filled Islamophobia,” I might have believed you. But as one of your primary victims, I don’t.

I discuss the Islamic supremacist initiative to compel the West to accept Sharia blasphemy laws under the guise of stamping out “hate speech,” an initiative that is now galloping forward and achieving immense success, in my new book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies).

“US Muslim groups welcome changes to Google results,” by Michael Hernandez, Anadolu Agency, July 26, 2017:

Queries about Islam and Muslims on the world’s largest search engine have been updated amid public pressure to tamp down alleged disinformation from hate groups.

However, activists who have worked to bring about the changes say more work remains.

In the past, users on Google seeking information about the religion or its adherents would be presented prominently with what many criticized as propaganda from hate groups.

That has recently changed.

Google’s first page results for searches of terms such as “jihad”, “shariah” and “taqiyya” now return mostly reputable explanations of the Islamic concepts. Taqiyya, which describes the circumstances under which a Muslim can conceal their belief in the face of persecution, is the sole term to feature a questionable website on the first page of results.

Google did not confirm to Anadolu Agency the changes but said it is constantly updating its algorithms.

The search giant referred the agency to a recent blog post in which it said it was working to push back on what it called “offensive or clearly misleading content”.

“To help prevent the spread of such content for this subset of queries, we’ve improved our evaluation methods and made algorithmic updates to surface more authoritative content,” it said.

Combatting Islamophobia

One leading activist in favor of Google modifying its results told Anadolu Agency he noticed the updated search results and thanked the company for its efforts but said “much still needs to be done”.

Imam Omar Suleiman, who has been at the forefront of efforts to combat misleading information about his faith on the web, argued that Google and companies like it have a responsibility to combat “hate-filled Islamophobia” similar to how they work to suppress extremist propaganda from groups like Daesh and al-Qaeda.

Suleiman said Google should differentiate between “criticism of Islam and hate-filled Islamophobia”, emphasizing the religion should not be infringed upon.

“Google does not need to silence criticism of Islam and honest discussions about Islam, but heavily funded hate groups that are able to work the SEOs to get their websites showing up on the first, second page – I think that’s deeply problematic,” the popular imam said, referring to search engine optimization — the way in which websites are able to improve their placement in search engine results.

The task of sorting out legitimate criticism or debate about Islam from misleading information will not be easy, particularly in societies that value freedom of speech — a fact Suleiman, who is the founder and president of the Yaqeen Institute for Islamic Research, acknowledged.

Google told Anadolu Agency it does not seek to remove content from its platform simply because it is unsavory or unpopular, but does its best to prevent hate speech from appearing.

One way it is working to improve on the effort is by providing users with a mechanism in autofill suggestions that would allow users to alert the company when an offensive term appears.

Amid a nationwide increase in hate crimes targeting Muslims, the effort to combat misinformation is more imperative than ever, Muslim group said.

Hate crimes against Muslims

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, the U.S.’s largest Muslim advocacy group, said it tracked a 584 percent increase in anti-Muslim hate crimes from 2014 to 2016.

The group is not the only one to find such numbers. The Southern Poverty Law Center tracks hate incidents and groups in the U.S. and said it found hate groups increasing in number for the second consecutive year in 2016, fueled largely by a near-tripling of anti-Muslim groups.

“The growth has been accompanied by a rash of crimes targeting Muslims,” the center said in its annual report.

Information people receive from a variety of sources — television, radio and the Internet — no doubt plays a role in fomenting hatred among some of those who perpetrate attacks but could also be used to stop them.

“We are seeing a rise in hate crimes towards Muslims, and there is a direct connection between this demonization of Islam and Muslims and the hate crimes that are being perpetuated against Muslims in the United States,” Suleiman said.

Still, he maintained that such voices should not be censored but “should not be featured prominently as authoritative voices.”

Suleiman added: “I don’t think Google has a responsibility to portray Muslims positively. I think Google has a responsibility to weed out fear-mongering and hate groups but I don’t want Google to silence critique of Islam, or critique of Muslims…

Yes, you do.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Robert Spencer at Breitbart: From Rushdie to Geller: The Steady Erosion of Free Speech

Video: Robert Spencer on Fox’s Varney & Co.: US & UK Must Do More to Fight ISIS At Home

How Western governments, media & others in positions of authority have enabled jihad & punished its critics

“Robert Spencer delivers another indispensable book.” Bruce Bawer’s review of my book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies), over at FrontPage:

Bruce Bawer

[To order “The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies),” CLICK HERE.]

What would we do without Robert Spencer? In over a dozen definitive books, and on his invaluable Jihad Watch website, he has served as a one-man truth squad on the subject of Islam, providing readers with lucid, cogent accounts of the belief system itself, of the Koran, of jihad, and of the life of Muhammed. In Stealth Jihad (2008), he described the ways in which Islamic law is being forced upon America, subverting the nation’s constitutional freedoms in aggressive but peaceful and even, at times, seemingly reasonable ways. Now, in The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies), he looks at the same phenomenon from the other side – providing a compendious if not comprehensive history of the ways in which Western governments, media, and others in positions of authority have enabled stealth jihad and punished its critics.

Needless to say, it’s a depressing story. In my 2009 book Surrender, I told it up to that point – the Salman Rushdie fatwa, the murders of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh, the Danish cartoons. As it happens, Spencer kicks off his account with the cartoons, reminding us that the good guys (notably Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who refused to discuss freedom of speech with Muslim ambassadors) were outnumbered by the bad guys (the UN’s Louise Arbour and Doudou Diène, the EU’s Javier Solana, and – surprise! – Bill Clinton, all of whom condemned the cartoons). Spencer then takes a long leap back – not to Rushdie, but all the way back to Muhammed, who himself, Spencer points out, initiated the time-honored Islamic practice of eliminating critics tout de suite. After each of several poets – among them Ka’b bin a’l-Ashraf, Abu Afak, and Asma bint Marwan – publicly mocked Islam, Muhammed, prefiguring Henry II, asked aloud, “Who will rid me of [insert poet’s name here]?” Each of these versifiers was promptly dispatched by one of his faithful followers. And a beloved Islamic custom was born.

Spencer doesn’t just focus on Islam. By way of demonstrating to American readers that they shouldn’t put too much faith in the indelible, rock-solid nature of the First Amendment, he harks back to the 1798 Sedition Act – under which several individuals were imprisoned for mocking then-President John Adams – and the 1917 Espionage Act, under which Socialist Party leaders were jailed for opposing the draft. History, warns Spencer, “shows that First Amendment protections of free speech are most likely to be curtailed in a time of serious and imminent threats to the nation.” Have we reached that point now? After all, look at the procedural encumbrances that have been placed on the Second Amendment in many jurisdictions. Who’s to say that the same can’t happen to the First?

It’s not as if it such limitations haven’t been entertained at the highest levels. Spencer reminds us of a failed 2015 House resolution that decried “violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims”; of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 statement that “every constitutional right and amendment can be tailored in an appropriate way without breaching the Constitution”; of Hillary’s promise, in a 2011 Istanbul speech, to use “old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming” to silence Islam’s critics; of President Obama’s support for a UN Human Rights Council motion calling for the criminalization of “negative racial and religious stereotyping”; and of an Assistant Attorney General’s refusal “to affirm that the Obama Justice Department would not attempt to criminalize criticism of Islam.”

And of course Spencer revisits the Benghazi killings, every aspect of which, we’re reminded, was pure evil – Hillary’s mendacious attribution of the killings to an anti-Islam video; her promise to a victim’s father that its producer, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, would be “arrested and prosecuted”; Nakoula’s actual arrest and year-long (!) imprisonment (allegedly for a minor violation of probation); the cruelly cynical condemnations of the video by Obama himself as well as by innumerable administration flunkies, such as UN Ambassador Susan Rice. Every one of these actions, of course, was a betrayal not only of the First Amendment but of the dead in Benghazi, of the American people, and of the truth itself. Spencer quotes the estimable Kenneth Timmerman (whose 2016 book Deception: The Making of the YouTube Video Hillary and Obama Blamed for Benghazi I don’t think I’ve even heard of before) as calling Nakoula “the first victim of Islamic Sharia blasphemy laws in the United States.” During the presidential campaign, Democrats complained endlessly about conservatives’ supposed harping on Benghazi; in fact Hillary’s heinous conduct in this matter – forget everything else she’s ever done – should have been more than enough reason for a decent-minded electorate to repudiate her entirely. And to think that this wretch dared to call half of America deplorable!

There are details in Spencer’s book that will be familiar to some readers but new to others. For example, I didn’t know – or had forgotten – that on the very day after the massacre at that San Bernardino Christmas party in December 2015, then Attorney General Loretta Lynch, speaking to a Muslim group, focused not on that jihadist atrocity but on the purported danger of “anti-Muslim violence,” and instead of committing the Justice Department to enhanced anti-terrorism measures made comments that seemed to many to suggest that she was prepared instead to prosecute anti-Muslim speech acts. One of the very few politicians to call her on these reprehensible remarks was former New York Governor George Pataki, who, in a tweet, dared her to arrest him for wanting to see jihadists annihilated. (Similarly, when Terry Jones, an obscure Florida pastor, announced his intention to burn copies of the Koran, drawing protests not only from Obama and Hillary but also from Sarah Palin and General David Petraeus, the good guy was New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who instead of upbraiding Jones affirmed his First Amendment rights.)

Spencer reminds us that the FBI officials knew of Major Nidal Hasan’s terrorist contacts and pro-jihadist statements before he committed the Fort Hood massacre, but let him alone, for the same reason that British authorities kept mum for years about the systematic rape of children (ultimately over 1400 of them) by Muslims in Rotherham: because they didn’t want to be called Islamophobes. At the other end of the cowardice-to-courage spectrum, Spencer tells us how a terrorist plan to kill soldiers at Fort Dix was foiled by a young Circuit City clerk, Brian Morgenstern, whom the plotters paid to transfer jihad videos from VHS to DVD. When Morgenstern noticed the alarming contents of the videos, he hesitated to say anything to anybody for fear he was being “racist,” but overcame his fear, informed authorities, and saved lives. As Spencer notes, Morgenstern’s hesitation was a perfect example of the kind of “peer pressure” and “shaming” that Hillary Clinton celebrated in Istanbul.

“Americans,” laments Spencer, “are internalizing Islamic blasphemy law.” Well, that’s certainly the case with despicable Doonesbury cartoonist Garry Trudeau, who accused the murdered Charlie Hebdo cartoonists of “hate speech” and of having “brought a world of pain to France.” Another is the execrable novelist Joyce Carol Oates, who (along a couple of hundred other writers) criticized a posthumous award by PEN, the authors’ rights organization, to the Charlie Hebdo victims. Far from all of the dhimmis have been on the left: among those who objected to the 2015 Draw Muhammed event in Garland, Texas, were Bill O’Reilly, Laura Ingraham, Rep. Peter King (a leading anti-jihad voice in Congress), and, alas, Donald Trump. Spencer reminds us that in the midst of the Satanic Verses controversy, the Vatican denounced Salman Rushdie; that Pope Benedict, after causing a ruckus by censuring Islam in his 2006 Regensburg speech, quickly tendered a groveling apology; and that Pope Francis responded to the Charlie Hebdo massacre by calling for limits to the right to criticize somebody else’s beliefs, suggesting that if you “make fun of the faith of others” you should “expect a punch.”

One of this book’s big pluses is the attention it draws to unsung heroes – and villains – in the counterjihadist struggle: I’ve never heard of Natalie Merchant or her rock group, 10,000 Maniacs, but kudos to her for deciding to stop covering Cat Stevens’s “Peace Train” (which had apparently been a big hit for her) after he expressed support for the Rushdie fatwa.

Near the beginning of this work, Spencer quotes 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta, who told the passengers on American Airlines Flight 11: “Just stay quiet and you’ll be okay.” Well, as we all know now, they weren’t okay. In the days and weeks after that fateful day, we should all have gotten busy learning things that would have entirely altered the grim history related in these pages. The tragic fact, alas, is that during the sixteen years since 9/11, the forces of ignorance and submission have on the ascendant in the West, aiding stealth jihad and squelching its critics. Atta’s seven simple words have become the refrain of the CAIR crowd and the pro-Islamic left – and tens of millions of men and women in the West have listened, held their tongues, and buried their heads in the sand. Atta’s promise – his assurance, his admonition – echoes throughout this book, in which Spencer, at appropriate moments, quotes it again and yet again, reminding us that it was, and is, nothing but a deadly lie. The cumulative effect is powerful, even haunting. As we reach the volume’s concluding pages – in which Spencer covers some of the latest acts of campus violence by the fascist anti-fascists known as Antifa and offers up sage advice for President Trump (who we can only hope will read this book) – we find Atta’s chilling words ringing in our ears. No: as Spencer has made abundantly, authoritatively, and illuminatingly clear, staying quiet will not make everything okay.

RELATED ARTICLES:

US Navy ship fires warning shots at Iranian ship in Persian Gulf

UK: Police vow “You can’t hide from us if your spewing abuse from behind a computer screen”

Afghanistan: Muslim soldiers are using boys as sex slaves, and the U.S. is looking the other way

What are we in Afghanistan for, if not to stand for our own values and the principles of human rights? Instead, U.S. officials are aiding and abetting the destruction of these boys’ lives — and all too often sacrificing the lives of our own troops. This is beyond shameful.

“Those are the ones brought near in the Gardens of Pleasure, a company of the former peoples and a few of the later peoples, on thrones woven, reclining on them, facing each other. There will circulate among them young boys made eternal with vessels, pitchers and a cup from a flowing spring.” — Qur’an 56:11-18

“And they will be given to drink a cup whose mixture is of ginger, a fountain within Paradise named Salsabeel. There will circulate among them young boys made eternal. When you see them, you would think them scattered pearls. And when you look there, you will see pleasure and great dominion.” — Qur’an 76:17-20

“Afghan soldiers are using boys as sex slaves, and the U.S. is looking the other way,” by Anuj Chopra, Washington Post, July 18, 2017:

KABUL – Last summer, an Afghan police commander invited me to his post for tea — and to view his “beautiful” boy sex slave.

I stumbled through a farm of chest-high opium poppy stocks to reach his mud-and-wattle outpost on the outskirts of Tarin Kot, the capital of southern Uruzgan province that is teetering in the face of a Taliban upsurge. On its open roof, a slight teenager sat next to his hulking captor, stealing sad glances at me as he quietly filled our tea glasses. A shock of auburn curls jutted out of his embroidered pillbox hat and his milky eyes were lined with kohl. The commander flaunted him the way a ringmaster exhibits an exotic animal. “See my beautiful bacha (boy slave),” he said, blithe and casual, a gun dangling at his side.

The commander, an ally of the United States in the war against the Taliban, is not an anomaly. Hundreds of such outposts of the Afghan Local Police (ALP), a front-line force armed and funded with U.S. taxpayer dollars, and other pro-government militias are believed to have enslaved young boys for dancing and sexual companionship, many of them kidnapped.

Freedom from the Taliban’s puritanical regime in 2001 also brought freedom to do “bacha bazi,” the cultural practice of sexual slavery and abuse of boys who are often dressed effeminately and whose possession is seen by Afghan strongmen as a marker of power and masculinity….

I reported last year how the Taliban are exploiting entrenched bacha bazi to infiltrate Afghan security ranks, effectively using child sex slaves — many of them brutally abused and hungry for revenge — as Trojan Horses to mount deadly insider attacks.

Institutionalized bacha bazi, described as culturally sanctioned male rape, is likely to continue unabated in the absence of any real deterrent. The United Nations has called on Afghanistan to urgently adopt legislation to criminalize bacha bazi and swiftly prosecute state officials guilty of the practice.

One senior official in Uruzgan described bacha bazi as an addiction worse than opium, saying commanders compete — and sometimes battle — one another to snatch pretty boys. Many prowl neighborhoods for boys “who have not seen the sun for years,” a cultural euphemism for unblemished beauty.

Last year when I unearthed a kidnapping epidemic of boys, it was disturbing to see local authorities pussyfooting around the issue and using security to rationalize their inaction. On the surface, President Ashraf Ghani has vowed zero tolerance for bacha bazi in security forces. But multiple officials in southern Afghanistan told me that any action against guilty commanders — a bulwark against insurgents — would anger them and cause them to abandon their posts with their loyalists, paving the way for the Taliban. There is therefore no desire to recover or rescue the innocent victims whose lives have been upended by this practice….

The Worst of All Tyrannies

European Court of Human Rights upholds Belgium’s ban on burqas and full-face Islamic veils

Odd and surprising that they didn’t block this ban as “Islamophobic,” but it is refreshing to see common sense prevail. The veil is a security issue: it makes it too easy to commit crimes. And anyway, why are Europeans and North Americans the only ones forbidden to try to protect their cultural identity?

“European Court of Human Rights upholds Belgium’s ban on burqas and full-face Islamic veils,” by Lizzie Dearden, Independent, July 11, 2017:

Belgium’s ban on burqas and other full-face Islamic veils has been upheld by the European Court of Human Rights.

Judges said the nationwide prohibition, which came into effect in 2011, did not violate the rights to private and family life and freedom of religion, or discrimination laws.

The court found Belgium had the right to impose restrictions aiming to ensure the principles of “living together” and the “protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.

Its ruling said the government had been responding “to a practice that it considered to be incompatible, in Belgian society, with social communication and more generally the establishment of human relations, which were indispensable for life in society…essential to ensure the functioning of a democratic society”.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) dismissed two separate cases – one appealing Belgium’s nationwide ban and another on a 2008 by-law adopted by three municipalities.

The first case was brought by two women – Samia Belcacemi and Yamina Oussar – who previously attempted to have the law suspended and annulled at the Constitutional Court in Brussels.
In pictures: Protest against burkini bans in London

They both gave evidence on how the ban has affected their lives as Muslim women who choose to wear the niqab, which covers the face except for the eyes.

Ms Belcacemi said she initially continued to wear the veil in public but removed it over fear of being jailed or fined, while Ms Oussar said the law has forced her to stay at home….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Hugh Fitzgerald: John Quincy Adams: “Steady, Active, and Industrious” (Part I)

Facebook says Muslim’s rape threat against ex-Muslim doesn’t violate its “community standards”

Snopes Carries Water for Muhammad

“Mostly False” Indiana billboard is actually 100% true. My latest in FrontPage:

​The self-proclaimed fact-checker Snopes.com has been harshly criticized for its Leftist bias, and as is so often the case, a tilt to the Left also means a willingness to foster ignorance and complacency about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat. After a billboard went up in Indiana pointing out six unsavory aspects of the life of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, Snopes labeled the billboard’s charges “Mostly False” – but that label applies far more accurately to the Snopes report than to the billboard.

Snopes’ falsehoods begin with its initial assertion that the billboard’s title, “the perfect man,” “is poor translation from an Arabic phrase in the Koran, which describes the Prophet as an excellent example.” In reality, the appellation “perfect man” is not a poor translation of a Qur’anic phrase; it is not a Qur’anic phrase at all. The Qur’anic phrase “excellent example” (33:21) is uswa hasana, while “perfect man” is al-insan al-kamil, a title ascribed to Muhammad in Islamic tradition.

Snopes goes on to state that “none of the items listed on the billboard appear in the Koran — they are historical events, and the accuracy of details surrounding them remain contested by scholars.” This is true, but irrelevant, since Muhammad’s status as the “excellent example” for Muslims, as well as the “perfect man,” make him a model for emulation for Muslims: if Muhammad did it, it is good, and Muslims should do it.

A scholar that Snopes cites as an authority, Ayesha S. Chaudhry, Associate Professor of Islamic Studies and Gender Studies at the University of British Columbia, “told us that all accounts of the Prophet’s life, which occurred 1,400 years ago in 7th-century Arabia, were written at least 200 years after his death, and their reliability for accuracy is shaky.” This unreliability is something Islamic apologists acknowledge only when confronted with unsavory aspects of Muhammad’s career as recorded in the earliest Muslim sources. Chaudhry doesn’t mention the fact that when Islamic scholars deem a statement or action by Muhammad to be authentic, it is normative for Islamic law, and all the statements on the billboard come from Islamic sources that Muslims deem authentic.

1. Married 6-year-old

Regarding the billboard’s charge that Muhammad married a six-year-old girl, Snopes claims that “the age of the young wife in question, Aisha Bint Abu Bakr, is contested — many believe she was actually in her late teens when she married Muhammad. Accounts contradict each other; while Aisha is quoted by one source saying she was six when she was married and nine when the marriage was consummated, another account describes Muhammad refusing offers from older men to marry his 9-year-old daughter because he thought her to be too young. Muhammad’s first wife, Khadija, on the other hand, was 15 years his senior and he remained married to her exclusively until she died.”

Denise Spellberg, history professor at the University of Texas at Austin, adds: “Most early accounts state Aisha was 6 or 7 at betrothal and 9 or 10 when the marriage was consummated. One later source in Arabic from the 13th century suggests 9 at the age of betrothal, and 12 at consummation. Child betrothal and marriage were not uncommon at this time in Arabia or throughout the pre-modern world. In Roman law, girls had to be 12, for example.”

In reality, few aspects of Islam that contradict Western laws and principles of human rights are more abundantly attested in Islamic law than the permissibility of child marriage. Islamic tradition records that Muhammad’s favorite wife, Aisha, was six when Muhammad wedded her and nine when he consummated the marriage: “The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death)” (Sahih Bukhari 7.62.88).

Another tradition has Aisha herself recount the scene: “The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, ‘Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.’ Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. (Sahih Bukhari 5.58.234). Muhammad was at this time fifty-four years old.

Chaudhry doesn’t explain to Snopes why she rejects the testimony of Sahih Bukhari, the hadith collection that Muslims consider most reliable. Nor does she cite the sources that show that Aisha was older; in reality, they only do so indirectly, by making chronological statements that suggest she was older, without saying so explicitly. These sources are, moreover, much later than Bukhari and are considered much less reliable.

2. Tortured and killed unbelievers

Snopes then moves on to the billboard’s charge that Muhammad tortured and killed nonbelievers: “Chaudhry also told us she doesn’t know of any accounts of nonbelievers being tortured and killed, although Muhammad was engaged in warfare during his lifetime.” It quotes her: “Torturing and killing non-believers — I don’t know what they’re talking about. There were several battles that happen during his life and they’re complicated.”

How odd to find such ignorance in a professor of Islamic Studies! How about these?

“When Muhammad saw Hamzah he said, ‘If Allah gives me victory over the Quraysh at any time, I shall mutilate thirty of their men!’ When the Muslims saw the rage of the Prophet they said, ‘By Allah, if we are victorious over them, we shall mutilate them in a way which no Arab has ever mutilated anybody.” (Al-Tabari, vol. 7, p. 133; cf. Ibn Ishaq 387)

“Anas reported: Eight men of the tribe of ‘Ukl came to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and swore allegiance to him on Islam, but found the climate of that land uncongenial to their health and thus they became sick, and they made complaint of that to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: Why don’t you go to (the fold) of our camels along with our shepherd, and make use of their milk and urine. They said: Yes. They set out and drank their (camels’) milk and urine and regained their health. They killed the shepherd and drove away the camels. This (news) reached Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and he sent them on their track and they were caught and brought to him (the Holy Prophet). He commanded about them, and (thus) their hands and feet were cut off and their eyes were gouged and then they were thrown in the sun, until they died.” (Sahih Muslim 4131)

Muhammad, according to Islamic tradition, didn’t just justify torture. He ordered it: “Kinana b. al-Rabi`, who had the custody of the treasure of B. al-Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came (T. was brought) to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, ‘Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?’ he said Yes. The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr b. al-Awwam, ‘Torture him until you extract what he has,’ so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud.” (Ibn Ishaq 515).

3. Rapist

Chaudhry laments: “The rape comment is just hateful. I don’t know what to do with that.” Says Snopes: “There are no known accounts of the Prophet committing rape — to the contrary, the image Muslims derive from the Koran is one of a compassionate person prone to mercy.”

No known accounts? Really? I know of a few. In two, Muhammad allows his followers to rape captive women: “The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) ‘And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.’” (Sunan Abu Dawud 2150; see also Sahih Muslim 3433)

“O Allah’s Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?” The Prophet said, “Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.” (Sahih Bukhari 34:432)

And in another hadith, Muhammad demands a captive girl for himself: “I drove them along until I brought them to Abu Bakr who bestowed that girl upon me as a prize. So we arrived in Medina. I had not yet disrobed her when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) met me in the street and said: ‘Give me that girl.’” (Sahih Muslim 4345)

4. 13 wives, 11 at a time

Says Snopes: “Muhammad was an influential political figure during his lifetime. All of his wives, except Aisha, were either divorcees or widows, which Suleiman said denotes the strategic nature of marriage in those times. Some were widows of his allies, and marriage prevented them from falling to the economic fringes of society. Chaudhry added that in an era when polygamy was commonplace, the Koran limited it to four wives.” (Suleiman is Omar Suleiman, Islamic Studies professor at Southern Methodist University.)

While all that may be true, it does not refute, or even attempt to refute, the charge made on the billboard.

5. Slave owner & dealer

Here again, Snopes retails falsehoods: “In terms of slavery, it was a reality throughout Muslim, Christian and Jewish communities during Muhammad’s lifetime. But tradition holds he purchased slaves for the purpose of liberating them. Suleiman told us Muhammad purchased 63 slaves in order to set them free, and at the time of his death he owned no slaves. Some of them were elevated to authoritative social roles. For example, Bilal ibn Rabah became a trusted companion of the Prophet, who was given the role of calling people to prayer.”

In reality, the Qur’an has Allah telling Muhammad that he has given him girls as sex slaves: “Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty.” (Qur’an 33:50)

Muhammad bought slaves: “Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) reported: There came a slave and pledged allegiance to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) on migration; he (the Holy Prophet) did not know that he was a slave. Then there came his master and demanded him back, whereupon Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Sell him to me. And he bought him for two black slaves, and he did not afterwards take allegiance from anyone until he had asked him whether he was a slave (or a free man).” (Muslim 3901)

Muhammad took female Infidel captives as slaves: “Narrated Anas: The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer near Khaibar when it was still dark and then said, ‘Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned.’ Then the inhabitants of Khaibar came out running on the roads. The Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya was amongst the captives. She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet. The Prophet made her manumission as her ‘Mahr.’” (Bukhari 5.59.512)

Mahr is bride price: Muhammad freed her and married her. But he didn’t do this to all his slaves: “Narrated Anas bin Malik: Allah’s Apostle was on a journey and he had a black slave called Anjasha, and he was driving the camels (very fast, and there were women riding on those camels). Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Waihaka (May Allah be merciful to you), O Anjasha! Drive slowly (the camels) with the glass vessels (women)!’” (Sahih Bukhari 8.73.182) There is no mention of Muhammad’s freeing Anjasha.

6. Beheaded 600 Jews in one day

Suleiman attempts to justify this, saying: “the bullet point that claims Muhammad ‘beheaded 600 Jews’ may well be an attempt to paint the prophet as an anti-Semite, but it is in regards to an incident known as the Battle of the Trench, which took place during a siege on Medina in 627. A number of Jewish tribes were allied with Muhammad’s forces — but one, Banu Qurayza, committed treason, allowing an attack to happen from the inside. An arbiter, Abdullah ibn Salam (who was a convert from Judaism to Islam) was selected to punish the tribe in keeping with the Torah — the men would be killed and women and children kept as captives.”

Once again, the incident is not disputed. Snopes does, however, dispute the number of Jews Muhammad killed: “But the number of men killed is again the subject of controversy. Suleiman said it may have been 100 to 200. Spellberg pointed to a source that said 400. Chaudhry said one prominent scholar,  Ibn Hajar, who died in 1449, doesn’t believe the executions took place at all. Again, Chaudhry cited the fact the account was collected 200 years after the fact: ‘Muslims early on were disagreeing whether that actually happened. This is a really contested issue. It’s not part of the [Muslim faith’s] narrative.’”

Note the irony: Chaudhry disputes the number based on the fact that the source it comes from was written 200 years after the incident, but Snopes has no trouble citing other accounts that were written over 800 years after the fact to dispute the incident.

That sums up the apologetic nature of Snopes’ “fact-checking.” This isn’t fact-checking, this is Islamic apologetics.

RELATED ARTICLES:

State of “collapse”: Italy overwhelmed as 13,500 African migrants arrive in past two days

UK: Muslim parents complain state-funded school’s headscarves not modest enough

Iran unveils countdown clock to Israel’s destruction, ‘Muslim world’s top priority’

Iran always couches its determination to destroy Israel in Islamic terms, based on the Qur’anic exhortation to “drive them out from where they drove you out” (2:191). Yet the Islamic motivation for the destruction of Israel is routinely discounted by Western analysts.

“Unveiling clock showing 8,411 days left for Israel, Iranians rage against Jewish state,” Times of Israel, June 23, 2017 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

TEHRAN — Iran held major anti-Israel rallies across the country Friday, with protesters chanting “Death to Israel” and declaring that destroying the Jewish state is “the Muslim world’s top priority.”

Iranians participating in Quds Day rallies also called for unity among pro-Palestinian groups against the “child-murdering” Israeli government, according to Iran’s Tasnim News Agency.

Marchers in Tehran headed from various points of the city to the Friday prayer ceremony at Tehran University. Similar demonstrations were held in other cities and towns in Iran.

Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guard used the demonstration in the capital’s Valiasr Square to showcase three surface-to-surface ballistic missiles, including the Zolfaghar — the type that Iran used this week to target the Islamic State group in Syria. The Guard said it fired six such missiles on Sunday at IS targets in the city of Deir el-Zour, more than 600 kilometers (370 miles) away. The Guard said the airstrike was in retaliation for an IS attack earlier in June on Iran’s parliament and a shrine in Tehran that killed 18 people and wounded more than 50.

Another missile on display at the Tehran rally was the Ghadr, with a range of 2,000 kilometers (1,250 miles) that can reach both Israel and US bases in the region.

Iran’s ballistic missile program has been the subject of persistent concern in Washington and the target of repeated US sanctions.

Iran claimed its missile strike on Sunday killed 360 Islamic State fighters. Israeli sources, by contrast, said the strike was a “flop,” that most of the six or seven missiles missed their targets, and that three of them fell to earth in Iraq and didn’t even reach Syria.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, in remarks carried by the official IRNA news agency, said Israel supports “terrorists in the region.”

Parliament speaker Ali Larijani, in a speech to Tehran demonstrators, called Israel the “mother of terrorism” and said that in the “20th century, there was no event more ominous than establishing the Zionist regime.”

The rally also inaugurated a huge digital countdown display at Tehran Palestine Square, showing that Israel will allegedly cease to exist in 8,411 days.

In 2015, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei predicted that after 25 years — by 2040 — there will no longer be a State of Israel.

“Death to the House of Saud and Daesh,” demonstrators chanted, using another name for the Islamic State. “Death to America”, “Death to Israel”, “Death to the UK.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

New documentary video: Halal Certification — The Unpalatable Facts

Ramadan finale in Indonesia: Muslims screaming “Allahu akbar” stab police officer to death

Sudan, Qatar and Iran accused of backing terrorism in Libya

Libyan National Army Spokesman, Col. Ahmed Mismari accuses Sudan, Qatar and Iran of backing terrorism in Libya.

A Libyan National Army (LNA) spokesperson, briefed the press in Benghazi yesterday on documents showing collusion by Sudan with Qatar and Iran supplying weapons to Libyan and other regional terrorist groups.

The weapons came from Sudan factories established by Iran prior to the breakoff in relations between Khartoum and Tehran in 2015.

LNA spokesman Col. Ahmed Mismari also accused Sudan and Qatar of backing Muslim Brotherhood opposition groups supporting violence in Libya.

Our colleague, Gen. Abakar Mahamat Abdallah has compiled information on Sudan weapons factories used to equip Rapid Support Force/ Janjaweed and foreign mujihadeen forces in Sudan as well as those in Libya.

Investigative journalist and best selling author in his 2014 book, “Dark Forces,”, noted Qatar intelligence and flights of weapons into Libya and surrounding African and Sahel states.

LNA’s Mismari accuses Sudan, Qatar and Iran of backing terrorism in Libya

Here is the Libya Herald report:

Libyan National Army spokesperson Col. Ahmed Mismari

The Libyan National Army’s chief spokesman, Colonel Ahmed Mismari, claims that the army has documentary evidence of Sudanese government collusion with Qatar and Iran in supporting terrorism in Libya.

“We have records of secret meetings of the Sudanese army leadership in the presence of [President Omar] Bashir [which show] a clear conspiracy with Qatar and Iran to support terrorism in Libya, Egypt [and] Saudi Arabia,” he reported on the LNA’s Facebook page

At a press conference last night in Benghazi, he gave details of the alleged Sudanese collaboration with Qatar and Iran, stating that the latter two had military factories in Sudan which were suppyling weapons and ammunition to terrorists both in Libya and elsewhere.

Like Qatar, he claimed, Sudan was actively supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya and Egypt. The two were also actively working alongside Turkey and Iran.

Evidence of Libyans working with Qatari intelligence had come from Qatar’s opposition leader Khalid Al-Hail, Mismari claimed.

Notwithstanding reports of Sudanese mercenaries fighting both for and against the LNA, relations between the eastern authorities and Khartoum have progressively worsened in recent weeks, in no small part to the presence of of Sudanese among militants fighting the LNA in Benghazi. Some 20 are reported to have died fighting in Libya. Tuesday’s suicide bomber in Sidra was also apparently a Sudani.

Two days ago, eight Sudanese children were flown to Khartoum from Libya Their parents had joined the so-calld Islamic State and were either dead or imprisoned. Four other children of Sudanese fighters are still awaiting repatriation from Misrata.

6th Muslim charged in Detroit vaginal mutilation case

The federal government has made another two arrests in the ever widening female genital mutilation prosecution case in Michigan bringing the number of Muslims charged to six.  With another half a million girls at risk of FGM, those charged should be in the tens of thousands.

And while six little girls have been identified as victims of vaginal mutilation in the government’s ongoing female genital mutilation probe, as many as 100 Muslim girls in the community may have been subjected to genital cutting. Two Oakland County mothers who subjected their daughters to the banned religious clitoris cutting ritual have been charged. What mother would subject her daughter to such savagery?  A devout Muslim who puts religion above all us.

The defendants have denied any wrongdoing  claiming female genital mutilation is a religious rite of passage. Indeed it is.

The mosque was paying for these barbaric Islamic procedures.

The government had asked the judge to place both women on home detention and prohibit them from visiting their local mosque, arguing obstructive activity that sought to derail investigators in this case occurred at the mosque and could happen again.

Defense attorney Margaret Raben argued on behalf of her client: “The mosque is her family.”

The Muslim doctors who will stand trial for cutting and mutilating the vaginas of little girls are staging a religious defense.

The number of women and girls at risk for female genital mutilation (FGM) in the United States has more than doubled in the past 10 years. More than half a million women and girls in the U.S. are at risk of undergoing FGM in the U.S. or abroad, or have already undergone the procedure, including 166,173 under the age of 18, according to the Population Reference Bureau (PRB).

Dissemblers and deceivers claim that FGM is cultural phenomenon, not religious. FGM is an Islamic cultural phenomenon. FGM is found only within and adjacent to Muslim communities. (source: Gerry Mackie, “Ending Footbinding and Infibulation: A Convention Account,” American Sociological Review).

Unlike male circumcision, female genital mutilation has no health benefits for girls and women.

Female genital mutilation (FGM) involves partial or total removal of the clitoris, causing injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.

Femal genital mutilation procedure has no health benefits for girls and women. It removes all possibility of sexual pleasure. It is the worst kind of misogyny.

Procedures can cause severe bleeding and problems urinating, and later cysts, infections, as well as complications in childbirth and increased risk of newborn deaths.

 More than 200 million girls and women alive today have been cut in 30 countries in Africa, the Middle East and Asia, where FGM is concentrated

FGM is mostly carried out on young girls between infancy and age 15.

FGM is a violation of the human rights of girls and women.

Unlike male circumcision, this procedure has no health benefits. It has one purpose and one purpose only, to remove the female’s most sensitive erogenous zone and the source of human female sexual pleasure. Chalk it up to another of Islam’s constitutions to [in]humanity.

TWO OAKLAND COUNTY MOMS CHARGED WITH SUBJECTING DAUGHTERS TO GENITAL CUTTING

Tresa Baldas, Detroit Free Press, June 21, 2017:

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS AMPED UP ITS FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION PROSECUTION, CHARGING TWO OAKLAND COUNTY MOTHERS WITH SUBJECTING THEIR DAUGHTERS TO THE BANNED RELIGIOUS CUTTING RITUAL THAT HAS NOW BEEN LINKED TO FOUR MICHIGAN GIRLS.

This brings the total number of identified victims to six — two from Minnesota, four from Michigan. And the number of defendants charged in the historic case is now up to six, including two doctors, a physician’s wife, two mothers and a sixth woman — all of them accused of participating in various degrees of subjecting young girls to genital cutting as part of a religious practice within their Indian Muslim sect.

The latest two defendants — both of them mothers and citizens of India who appeared in federal court Wednesday with their husbands — were released on bond by a federal judge Wednesday and ordered to wear tethers and surrender their Indian passports. The women have also been prohibited from talking to any of the alleged victims or witnesses in this case, except for their daughters, whom they are still allowed to live with.

The government had asked the judge to place both women on home detention and prohibit them from visiting their local mosque, arguing obstructive activity that sought to derail investigators in this case occurred at the mosque and could happen again.

U.S. District Judge Mona Majzoub denied the government’s requests after defense lawyers argued the mothers need to tend to the busy lives of their children, who have many activities planned for this summer, including camp, swimming, reading and technology lessons. They also argued that the defendants should be allowed to attend their religious services. As defense attorney Margaret Raben argued on behalf of her client: “The mosque is her family.”

Raben also described her client as being a proud member of the Dawoodi Bohra.

“That’s what got them into trouble here,” said Raben, who stood at the lecturn with her arm around her client’s shoulder, patting her at times for comfort.

The women were charged with conspiracy to commit female genital mutilation and one count of female genital mutilation.

A third woman, Tahera Shafiq of Wayne County, has also been indicted in the case for allegedly being present during some of the cutting procedures.

The new defendants were added to the original indictment that was handed up in April charging Dr. Jumana Nagarwala, a now-fired emergency room physician at Henry Ford, with performing the procedure on two Minnesota girls at a Livonia clinic in February. The clinic owner and his wife, Dr. Fakuruddin Attar and Farida Attar, have also been charged.

All six defendants are members of the Dawoodi Bohra — a small Indian Muslim sect with a mosque in Farmington Hills that practices female circumcision and believes it is a religious rite of passage.

According to the superseding or new indictment unsealed Wednesday, four Michigan girls have now been identified as victims of this practice, which is illegal in the U.S. and has been condemned worldwide.

Among those victims are an Oakland County girl who was subjected to a genital cutting procedure on May 30, 2015, at the Burhani Medical Clinic in Livonia. Prosecutors allege her mother brought her to the clinic, where Nagarwala allegedly performed a genital cutting procedure on the girl. The clinic owner’s wife, Farida Attar, also was there.

The other indicted mother is accused of bringing her daughter to the same clinic for the same procedure last year, sometime between June and Sept. 20, 2016. According to the indictment, Nagarwala performed that procedure as well and the victim’s mother lied to law enforcement when questioned about whether female genital mutilation procedures took place.

While the U.S. Attorneys office has identified six victims in the government’s ongoing female genital mutilation probe, it has claimed that as many as 100 Bohra girls may have been subjected to genital cutting over the last 12 years.

The defendants have denied any wrongdoing and maintain they were not involved in any cutting, but rather subjected the girls only to scraping procedures that they believe are a religious rite of pass

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Geller Report.

Canada: Dual citizens will no longer lose citizenship if convicted of terrorism

“Dual Canadian citizens will no longer lose citizenship if convicted of terrorism under new bill,” Canadian Press, June 15, 2017:

OTTAWA—A Liberal bill that would make it easier for people to become Canadian citizens has passed the Senate, after over a year of back-and-forth in Parliament.

Bill C-6 was designed to repeal many of the previous Conservative government’s changes to how people become citizens — and how they can lose that status.

Among other things, the legislation repeals a provision that strips dual citizens of their Canadian status if convicted of terrorism, treason or espionage.

But far more people lose their citizenship because it was obtained fraudulently and current law gives them no right to appeal, something not addressed in the Liberals’ original bill.

The Senate proposed adding such an appeal and the Liberals agreed to that and several other amendments late last week.

The bill went back to the Senate and after a brief debate, passed by a vote of 51-29….

RELATED ARTICLES:

London jihad murderer “was becoming more and more unyielding in his views on Islam”

Canada: Muslim migrants fight Canadians with rocks and bricks

Fighting jihad? No, UK police arrest a homeless man with a pencil

Police across Britain are ever vigilant when it comes to preventing an “Islamophobic” backlash after terror attacks.

Officers in Grimsby rushed to a mosque, where it was reported a suspect was threatening to stab someone.

They arrested a homeless man, Jake Jones, and charged him with possessing an offensive weapon.

The charge, which was subsequently dropped when it came to court this week, read: “At Grimsby in North East Lincolnshire, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, you had with you in a public place, namely Legsby Avenue, an offensive weapon, namely a sharply pointed pencil.”

When I read the address, I assumed this was a wind-up. Legsby Avenue?

’Ello, ’ello, ’ello. Legsby ’avin’ yew.

Nope, it really exists.

Deputy district judge Philip Houlden said that the whole purpose of having a pencil was “surely that it should actually have a sharp point” so that it could be used properly.

This is another one of those stories I don’t know whether to pencil in under Mind How You Go or You Couldn’t Make It Up.

AT LEAST TRUMP WOULD STOP A HAMAS HATE MOB MARCHING THE STREETS: AS SADIQ KHAN THREATENS TO BOYCOTT HIS STATE VISIT, RICHARD LITTLEJOHN SAYS IT’S A PITY THE LONDON MAYOR ISN’T SO FUSSY OVER THE COMPANY HE KEEPS

By Richard Littlejohn for the Daily Mail, 9 June 2017 (thanks to Inexion)

What especially infuriates Trump’s many sworn enemies and high-minded critics is that most of the time he’s absolutely right.

In the wake of Saturday’s terror attack at London Bridge, Trump tweeted: ‘At least seven dead and 48 wounded . . . and Mayor of London says there’s no reason to be alarmed.’ Cue bien-pensant outrage and a hissy fit from the mayor himself, Sadiq Khan, demanding that Trump’s proposed state visit to Britain should be cancelled, on the grounds that the President had insulted all Londoners.

No he hadn’t. He’d insulted Sadiq Khan, which is not the same thing at all. Those of you who read my column on Monday will be aware that I said almost exactly the same thing about Khan. Perhaps the mayor will retaliate by banning me from paying another state visit to Smith & Wollensky, the magnificent American steakhouse off the Strand.

For anyone who missed it, I monstered Khan for claiming that: ‘London is the safest city in the world, even while the body count was rising. With complacency like that, what chance have we got?’

Trump wasn’t insulting London, he was quite rightly criticising the typical knee-jerk ‘nothing to see here’ reaction of politicians unwilling to confront the clear and present danger we face from the nihilistic Islamist death cult in our midst.

No reason to be alarmed? This was the second murderous terrorist attack in London in a matter of weeks, coming as it did in the wake of the Manchester massacre.

No reason to be alarmed? Then why are the barricades going up all over London and the streets flooded with armed policemen?

If there was any insulting going on, it was Saddo Khan insulting our intelligence.

Saddo Khan has announced that if the President’s visit goes ahead, he will boycott the official state banquet. Pathetic

After mouthing the usual platitudes and pieties, it was back to parochial political business as usual for the mayor, who attempted to shift responsibility for the London Bridge atrocity on to ‘Tory cuts’ to police budgets.

Trump’s tweet gave the mayor another convenient excuse to change the subject, to summon up a wave of faux fury against one of the Left’s favourite bogeymen.

‘You’re not welcome in my city, Mr President,’ parroted one ‘respected’ commentator yesterday, repeating the fiction that Trump had insulted all Londoners. This from a former Moscow stooge who was an active Communist throughout the time the Soviet Union had hundreds of nuclear missiles pointed at Britain and was equally scathing about Ronald Reagan, the President who won the Cold War.

Like it or not, Trump is the democratically elected leader of our closest ally. As Randy Newman sang about another controversial U.S. politician: ‘He may be a fool, but he’s our fool.’

We are going to need him — and not just to prop up the Nato alliance at a time when Islamist nutjobs have declared war on the West.

Unlike some of our so-called international ‘partners’, Trump is an Anglophile who has said that Britain will receive favourable treatment when it comes to trade post-Brexit. That should be music to the ears of the mayor, who says he wants to protect London’s economy when we leave the EU. American investment is vital to ensure that happens.

New mobile phone footage shows him stop breathing and his legs twitch before he dies outside the Wheatsheaf pub near London Bridge

New mobile phone footage shows him stop breathing and his legs twitch before he dies outside the Wheatsheaf pub near London Bridge

Yet Saddo Khan has announced that if the President’s visit goes ahead, he will boycott the official state banquet.

Pathetic.

It’s a pity the mayor isn’t quite so fussy over some of the other company he keeps. In the past he’s shared a platform with Islamist rabble-rousers who would do us harm and campaigned against the deportation to America of a man who subsequently pleaded guilty to raising money for terrorists.

If he really wanted to keep undesirables off the streets of London, he might think twice about allowing the Al-Quds Day march through London to go ahead on June 18.

Ostensibly in support of Palestinians, this event is regularly infiltrated by anti-Semites, Islamists and terrorist cheerleaders.

Last year, demonstrators waved Hezbollah and Hamas flags. If this rabble tried marching through Trump’s New York they wouldn’t get more than five yards.

The timing is deliberate. Al-Quds Day is always held on the date chosen by the late Ayatollah Khomeini to call for Israel to be destroyed. No wonder London’s Jewish community is alarmed. It’s irresponsible madness to hold such a polarising, provocative march in the wake of a bloody attack by Islamist terrorists.

From left: London Bridge killers Khuram Shazad Butt, Rachid Redouane and Youssef Zaghba

From left: London Bridge killers Khuram Shazad Butt, Rachid Redouane and Youssef Zaghba.

But the authorities can always be relied upon to prostrate themselves before militant Islam.

Pity they’re not so obliging when it comes to others, especially supporters of the Jewish state.

Britain’s largest pro-Israel event, scheduled to be held in Westminster on June 22, has just been scrapped on the advice of ‘security’ experts. The organisers, Christians United for Israel, said it had been cancelled for the protection of the 1,000 people who had already bought tickets.

A statement explained: ‘Islamist extremists have called for specific targeting of Christians and Jews during Ramadan, when our event was due to take place.’ Chalk that up as another victory for the terrorists. If London really is ‘the safest city in the world’, as Saddo Khan claims, then why cancel it?

If defending freedom is paramount, then why not surround the venue with some of those armed officers to ensure the event can go ahead safely?

Curiously, another pro-Palestine event is being held in Westminster next month, free of any ‘security’ concerns. Still, no one is calling for the specific targeting of Muslims or Palestinians, are they? Only Jews and Christians.

It’s almost exactly ten years since I presented a Channel 4 documentary exposing the new virulent anti-Semitism being propagated by the unholy alliance of militant Islam and the hard Left.

This oldest of hatreds has now gone mainstream. Yesterday’s Mail featured a photo of a giant election poster portraying Theresa May in Star of David earrings, along with claims she was responsible for everything from NHS spending cuts to ‘causing Isis’.

I hadn’t realised until now that the Zionists were to blame for the wicked ‘Tory cuts’ to the health service. They get everywhere, don’t they?

The clowns behind this kind of poisonous propaganda are the terrorists’ useful idiots, along with politicians like Khan and his opportunist oppo in Manchester, who still claims the maniac who blew up the Ariana Grande pop concert ‘wasn’t a Muslim’.

At least Trump is prepared to identify the problem as ‘radical Islamist terrorism’. He took his message to the Middle East recently and, as a result, other Muslim states have now moved to isolate rich Qatar, which is a notorious state sponsor of terrorism.

No such luck here, where our politicians are desperate for Qatar’s billions. The scene of Saturday night’s carnage lies in the shadow of The Shard, London’s tallest tower, built with Qatari money.

It’s easy to mock Trump — I’ve done it myself. His proposed ‘Muslim travel ban’, however crass, provoked outrage. But when we learn two of the London killers were from Morocco and Pakistan and had been free to move around Europe and enter Britain unimpeded, are we really in any position to gainsay him?

Saddo Khan can stamp his little bootees and demand that Trump is banned from Britain, while simultaneously allowing Islamist terrorist cheerleaders and anti-Semites to march through London.

But what he can’t deny is that, much of the time, the Donald is dead right.

Police across Britain are ever vigilant when it comes to preventing an ‘Islamophobic’ backlash after terror attacks.

Officers in Grimsby rushed to a mosque, where it was reported a suspect was threatening to stab someone.

They arrested a homeless man, Jake Jones, and charged him with possessing an offensive weapon.

The charge, which was subsequently dropped when it came to court this week, read: ‘At Grimsby in North East Lincolnshire, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, you had with you in a public place, namely Legsby Avenue, an offensive weapon, namely a sharply pointed pencil.’

When I read the address, I assumed this was a wind-up. Legsby Avenue?

’Ello, ’ello, ’ello. Legsby ’avin’ yew.

Nope, it really exists.

Deputy district judge Philip Houlden said that the whole purpose of having a pencil was ‘surely that it should actually have a sharp point’ so that it could be used properly.

RELATED VIDEO: Sharia lawyer explains how Muslims in the West cover up honor killings

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Geller Report.