Saudis arrest Prince Alwaleed, benefactor of Georgetown’s ‘Islamophobia’ program

It’s hard to tell what exactly is happening in Saudi Arabia. The New York Times presents it as a genuine relaxation of Islamic strictures, which, as is clear from the Times article itself, is not the same thing as reform of Islam: Muslim clerics who know full well what the contents of Islamic law are regard the crackdown with extreme concern, precisely because they’re afraid that Muhammad bin Salman will transgress the bounds of Islam.

The arrest of Prince Alwaleed, in any case, is good news, but not for any reason that the establishment media will present. (The corruption charge in Saudi Arabia is as absurd as handing out speeding tickets at the Indianapolis 500.) Alwaleed is the chief financier of Georgetown’s Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, named for himself, one of the primary propaganda factories that perpetuate the “Islamophobia” myth in the United States. Within that Center is the Bridge Initiative, which purports to build bridges between Muslims and Christians but is actually devoted to smearing and defaming opponents of jihad terror and Sharia oppression.

If the Saudis are really committed to reform, let them close down their Georgetown “Islamophobia” propaganda mill. I won’t be holding my breath.

“Future Saudi king tightens grip on power with arrests including Prince Alwaleed,” by Stephen Kalin and Katie Paul, Reuters, November 5, 2017:

RIYADH (Reuters) – Saudi Arabia’s future king has tightened his grip on power through an anti-corruption purge by arresting royals, ministers and investors including billionaire Alwaleed bin Talal who is one of the kingdom’s most prominent businessmen.

Prince Alwaleed, a nephew of the king and owner of investment firm Kingdom Holding, invests in firms such as Citigroup and Twitter. He was among 11 princes, four ministers and tens of former ministers detained, three senior officials told Reuters on Sunday.

The purge against the kingdom’s political and business elite also targeted the head of the National Guard, Prince Miteb bin Abdullah, who was detained and replaced as minister of the powerful National Guard by Prince Khaled bin Ayyaf.

The allegations against Prince Alwaleed include money laundering, bribery and extorting officials, one official told Reuters, while Prince Miteb is accused of embezzlement, hiring ghost employees and awarding contracts to his own companies including a $10 billion deal for walkie talkies and bulletproof military gear worth billions of Saudi riyals.

The allegations could not be independently verified and members of the families of those detained could not be reached.

News of the purge came soon after King Salman decreed late on Saturday the creation of an anti-corruption committee chaired by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, his 32-year-old favorite son who has amassed power since rising from obscurity three years ago….

“Saudi Prince, Asserting Power, Brings Clerics to Heel,” by Ben Hubbard, New York Times, November 5, 2017 (thanks to Mike):

BURAIDA, Saudi Arabia — For decades, Saudi Arabia’s religious establishment wielded tremendous power, with bearded enforcers policing public behavior, prominent sheikhs defining right and wrong, and religious associations using the kingdom’s oil wealth to promote their intolerant interpretation of Islam around the world.

Now, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is curbing their power as part of his drive to impose his control on the kingdom and press for a more open brand of Islam.

Before the arrests on Saturday of his fellow royals and former ministers on corruption allegations, Prince Mohammed had stripped the religious police of their arrest powers and expanded the space for women in public life, including promising them the right to drive.

Dozens of hard-line clerics have been detained, while others were designated to speak publicly about respect for other religions, a topic once anathema to the kingdom’s religious apparatus.

If the changes take hold, they could mean a historic reordering of the Saudi state by diminishing the role of hard-line clerics in shaping policy. That shift could reverberate abroad by moderating the exportation of the kingdom’s uncompromising version of Islam, Wahhabism, which has been accused of fueling intolerance and terrorism.

Bringing the religious establishment to heel is also a crucial part of the prince’s efforts to take the traditional levers of Saudi power under his control. The arrests on Saturday appeared to cripple potential rivals within the royal family and send a warning to the business community to toe the line.

Prince Mohammed has taken control of the country’s three main security forces, and now is corralling the powerful religious establishment.

As evidence of that, the kingdom’s chief religious body, the Council of Senior Scholars, endorsed the arrests over the weekend, saying that Islamic law “instructs us to fight corruption and our national interest requires it.”

The 32-year-old crown prince outlined his religious goals at a recent investment conference in Riyadh, saying the kingdom needed a “moderate, balanced Islam that is open to the world and to all religions and all traditions and peoples.”

But such top-down changes will face huge challenges in a deeply conservative society steeped in the idea that Saudi Arabia’s religious strictures set it apart from the rest of the world as a land of unadulterated Islam. Enforcing those changes will also require overhauling the state’s sprawling religious bureaucracy, many of whose employees fear that the kingdom is forsaking its principles.

“For sure, it does not make me comfortable,” a government cleric in Buraida, a conservative city north of Riyadh, said of the new acceptance of gender mixing and music at public events. “Anything that has sin in it, anything that angers the Almighty — it’s a problem.”

The government has tried to silence such sentiments by arresting clerics and warning members of the religious police not to speak publicly about the loss of their powers, according to their relatives.

All clerics interviewed for this article spoke on condition of anonymity for fear that they, too, would be arrested for breaking with the government line….

Public observance of any religion other than Islam is banned, and clerics run the justice system, which hands down harsh punishments like floggings and prison for crimes like disobeying one’s father and apostasy.

Human rights groups say the kingdom’s textbooks still promote intolerance, and conservatives in the education ministry pass their views along to students.

While the prohibition on the mixing of unrelated men and women is starting to change, gender segregation remains the norm.

Crown Prince Mohammed, who rose to prominence after his father became king in 2015, has shown little deference to the traditional religious establishment while spearheading an unprecedented social opening.

When the government took arrest powers away from the religious police last year, many Saudis were so shocked that they suspected it was not real. That change paved the way for new entertainment options, including concerts and dance performances.

In addition to promising women the right to drive next June, the government has named women to high-profile jobs and announced that it would allow them to enter soccer stadiums, another blow to the ban on mixing of the sexes.

In pushing such reforms, Crown Prince Mohammed is betting the kingdom’s large youth population cares more about entertainment and economic opportunities than religious dogma.

Many young Saudis have cheered the new direction, and would love to see the clerics banished from public life. But the changes have shocked conservatives.

“Society in general at this time is very scared,” said another cleric in Buraida. “They feel that the issue is negative. It will push women into society. That is what is in their minds, that it is not right and that it will bring more corruption than benefits.”

Like other clerics, he saw no religious reason to bar women from driving but said he was against changing the status of women in ways that he said violated Islamic law.

“They want her to dance. They want her to go to the cinema. They want her to uncover her face. They want her to show her legs and thighs. That is liberal thought,” he said. “It is a corrupting ideology.”…

RELATED ARTICLE: UK: Muslim migrants granted permission to stay in Britain indefinitely, then form rape gang

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.


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.


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.

IRONIC: Salman Abedi called his teacher ‘Islamophobic’ for condemning suicide bombings

Considering the widespread atrocities going on in the Muslim world, there should be an outcry from Muslims condemning jihad/martyrdom suicide bombings in the name of their religion, as well as condemnation for the religiously sanctioned beating of wives, killing of gays, apostates, etc. Instead, the outcry is against anyone who speaks the truth about these atrocities committed in the name of Islam. Legitimate critics are deemed “Islamophobic,” with the ultimate goal of subjugating truth-tellers and the West under the sharia.

Map of radical Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe.

Little wonder that the budding jihadist Salman Abedi advocated for the use of the widely accepted yet still regrettable propaganda term “Islamophobia.”

Salman Abedi, Manchester suicide bomber.

“TWISTED LOGIC Salman Abedi reported teacher at his secondary school for being an Islamophobe because he condemned suicide bombers”, by Tom Michael, The Sun, May 26, 2017:

Abedi was part of an Arabic-speaking “clique” during his time at the school, The Times reports.

He is believed to have been part of a group of teens that became upset when one of their teachers brought up the topic of suicide attacks.

The teacher “asked what they thought of someone who would strap on a bomb and blow people up”, according to a source quoted by the paper.

The source said the boys then went to their RE teacher and lodged a complaint, telling them it was “Islamophobic”.

The source added: “[Abedi] was a silly boy, not very serious. He was not smart enough to be a mastermind of anything like that.”

A spokesperson for Burnage Academy said yesterday: “We feel the pain that Manchester feels. We stand shoulder to shoulder with our fellow Mancunians against terrorism in all forms.”

Pals of the evil killer yesterday revealed his wild youth of booze and drug-taking – and how he was nicknamed “Dumbo” because of his big ears.

Pictures show him grinning in a bar with three student friends and on a beach in Libya, before he is thought to have been indoctrinated.

Pals described the brainy Manchester United fan as “very jolly”.

But over the past two years he is said to have changed completely after a number of trips to Libya to visit his family.

His parents are even said to have confiscated his passport amid fears he was being radicalised.

This week it was claimed Abedi called his family in Tripoli 15 ­minutes before the attack.

His mother Samia Tabbal, 50, and father Ramadan, 51, a security officer, were born in the Libyan capital.

They emigrated to London before moving to Manchester.

Manchester-born Abedi is believed to have regularly travelled to see his family, who moved back to Tripoli following the fall of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in 2011.

One friend said: “He became silent and withdrawn after a trip a ­couple of years ago. Before then he was a happy-go-lucky kid and always did well in school.

“We used to party together. He loved being around his friends and wasn’t a strict Muslim at all.

“He even used to drink alcohol and loved smoking weed, he never mentioned religion.

“He was very jolly and happy. But over the past 18 months he became withdrawn and stopped hanging around with the people he used to.

“Before that he was so boisterous, always the joker.”

They added: “But as he started visiting Tripoli he was exposed to a lot of things. It’s enough to turn the ­purest person dark.

“And that’s what happened to a lot of young men. they were told it’s their religious obligation to step up and fight….


UK at war: Manchester neighborhood sealed off as bomb squad arrives and police search

Egypt strikes jihad bases Libya in retaliation for murder of 28 Coptic Christians

Death knell for Freedom of Speech as Canada’s House of Commons passes ‘anti-Islamophobia’ motion

Imagine if a “right-wing extremist,” say, a white supremacist, had killed three people in London yesterday. Do you think Canada would have today passed a motion condemning a “phobia” of white supremacists?

The supporters of the Canadian bill condemning “Islamophobia” insist that it will not restrict the freedom of speech, but interim Conservative Leader Rona Ambrose was more realistic: she said that she was concerned that charges of “Islamophobia” would be used “to intimidate rather than to inform,” and added: “I do worry that some of my work trying to empower women and girls in Muslim communities could be branded as ‘Islamophobic’ if I criticize practices that I believe are oppressive.”

Of course she is absolutely right. That is exactly what happened to Pamela Geller and me when we held a conference about honor killing, and when we tried to run ads in Edmonton offering help to women and girls who were threatened. This “non-binding” motion will have a chilling effect on speech, and will work toward intimidating into silence anyone who dares to speak out against Canada’s suicidal refugee policies, seditious activity in mosques, Sharia oppression of women taking place in Canada, and more. If it isn’t overturned, it will lead ultimately to new and binding laws that will be the end of Canada as a free society. Establishing a particular group as beyond criticism is laying the groundwork for tyranny.

“House of Commons passes anti-Islamophobia motion,” CBC News, March 23, 2017:

The House of Commons has passed M-103, a non-binding motion condemning Islamophobia and religious discrimination.

All NDP and nearly all Liberal MPs supported the motion, which passed 201-91. The majority of Conservative MPs voted against, with leadership candidate Michael Chong and Simcoe North MP Bruce Stanton voting in favour. Mississauga Liberal MP Gagan Sikand and Barrie Conservative MP Alex Nuttall both abstained.

The vote follows months of bitter debate and a series of protests and counter-protests across the country over whether the private member’s motion would limit free speech or single out Islam for special treatment in Canadian law.

It had additional symbolic significance in the emotional aftermath of the Jan. 29 mosque shooting in Quebec City, where six Muslim men were killed.

The motion was tabled by Mississauga-Erin Mills Liberal MP Iqra Khalid on Dec. 5, 2016. She spoke to reporters after the motion passed Thursday.

“I’m really happy that the vote today has shown positive support for this motion and I’m really looking forward to the committee taking on this study,” she said.

Khalid’s motion calls on the government to do three things:

Condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.
Quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear.
Compel the Commons heritage committee to develop a government-wide approach for reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination, including Islamophobia.

The latter would require the heritage committee to collect data on hate crime reports, conduct needs assessments for affected communities and present findings within eight months.

Liberals rejected an attempt by Saskatchewan Conservative MP David Anderson to remove the word “Islamophobia” from the motion and change the wording to “condemn all forms of systemic racism, religious intolerance and discrimination of Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus and other religious communities.

Anderson argued Islamophobia was not defined in Khalid’s motion, and that its inclusion contributed to widespread confusion and fears about the effect on freedom of speech….


The Muslim Brotherhood, Fountain of Islamist Violence – Middle East Quarterly

Italy: Muslim tries to run down police, then stabs officer

NBC reporter fears London jihad attack will “put wind in the sails” of the “right-wing movement”

VIDEO: Toronto anti-Islamophobia rally opposes war against ISIS

“No to war in Syria and Iraq” means no war to dislodge the Islamic State. It means allowing the Islamic State to continue to brutalize and oppress women, non-Muslims, and gays, and to incite jihad massacres in Europe and North America. Now we see that opposing even the bloodlust and aggression of the Islamic State is “Islamophobia.”

“Toronto pro Islam protest opposes the war on the Islamic State (ISIS),” by Jonathan D. Halevi, CIJ News, March 5, 2017:

The anti-Islamophobia, anti “white”-supremacy and anti Justin Trudeau protest at Toronto’s Nathan Philips Square on Saturday, March 4, 2017 highlighted also a message of opposition to the wars against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (aka ISIS, Daesh, Caliphate) and Yemen’s pro-Iranian militias.

A sign on the central stage read the following:

  • Refugees welcome
  • (Fascists not)
  • Yes to refugees
  • No to Islamophobia
  • No to war in Syria and Iraq

The first speaker on behalf the Organizing Committee Against Islamophobia (OCAI) accused Justin Trudeau Liberal government among other things of espousing white supremacist policy, committing ongoing “genocide” against the Indigenous people, arming the Islamic regime of Saudi Arabia that bombed Yemeni children and exploiting refugees and immigrants. She called the federal government to repeal the Barbaric Cultural Practices Act that criminalizes forced marriage and tackles ‘honour killings’. To read the transcript of her speech and watch the video click HERE.

The Canadian flag was not displayed and the National Anthem was not played at the protest. For a photo gallery from the event click HERE.

One of the speakers at the rally was Syed Hussan, who is affiliated with the organizations No One Is Illegal-Toronto, Toronto Community Mobilization Network and Migrant Workers Alliance for Change.

In his speech, Syed Hussan portrayed Canada as a rogue state accusing Justin Trudeau Liberal government of implementing a colonial policy, taking part in wars and criminally neglecting indigenous people. Hussan said that anti-islamophobia motion is not enough calling for an orchestrated popular struggle to make sure that “racists” cannot gather and to “cut off the head of racism.”

The following are excerpts from Syed Hussan’s speech:

Colonialism… continues on these lands…

We need to come to terms with the fact that we live in a country, we live in a society, we live in a community, that is racist (crowd: shame).

We live in a country, in a community in a society that goes to war (crowd: shame)…

We are not going to simply be ok with this motion to study the possible effects of Islamophobia and racism in this country. Are we? (crowd: no). We are not here to just defend a motion in Parliament by the same government that is breaking, that is breaking its promise to indigenous people, that sends more weapons to Yemen (sic. meant to Saudi Arabia)… that is not the government that we are supporting. This is not the policy that we can support…

[We gathered in a] symbolic protest to show that these racists cannot gather, will not gather. We need to commit to something more important, something more critical… if there is any work that you do, in your neighbourhood, in your community racism raises its ugly head and your job, our job is to find it and cut its head off….


Dubai: Man on trial for insulting Islam on Facebook

Oklahoma lawmaker gives questionnaire to Muslims, Hamas-linked CAIR enraged

Film on ex-Muslims facing threats and abuse denounced as ‘atheist Islamophobia”

“The documentary film featured the personal testimonies of ex-Muslims who have faced death threats, severe abuse and ostracization [sic] from their communities for leaving Islam….Some students found the event insensitive given the political climate, while others thought the event promoted discrimination. In the glass display case for Freethinkers, a note was left which read, ‘Atheist Islamophobia is not okay.’ Across campus, many flyers for the event were vandalized or torn down.”

The film is about Muslims being victimized, and the knee-jerk reaction of Leftist and Islamic supremacist students at Portland State University is that this makes Muslims victims. The plight of the ex-Muslims depicted in the film is lost in the brouhaha.

“In some traditional and conservative interpretations of Islam, death and imprisonment are punishments for apostasy.” Actually, the idea that apostates should be killed is the dominant mainstream in Islam, not just an idea held by those who favor “traditional and conservative interpretations.” The death penalty for apostasy is part of Islamic law. It’s based on the Qur’an: “They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.” (Qur’an 4:89)

A hadith depicts Muhammad saying:

“Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him” (Bukhari 9.84.57).

The death penalty for apostasy is part of Islamic law according to all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence.

This is still the position of all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence, both Sunni and Shi’ite. Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the most renowned and prominent Muslim cleric in the world, has stated: “The Muslim jurists are unanimous that apostates must be punished, yet they differ as to determining the kind of punishment to be inflicted upon them. The majority of them, including the four main schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali) as well as the other four schools of jurisprudence (the four Shiite schools of Az-Zaidiyyah, Al-Ithna-‘ashriyyah, Al-Ja’fariyyah, and Az-Zaheriyyah) agree that apostates must be executed.”

Qaradawi also once famously said: “If they had gotten rid of the apostasy punishment, Islam wouldn’t exist today.”

But at Portland State University, to quote such statements is “Islamophobia.” Incidentally, I spoke at Portland State University a few years ago. Just before I was about to start, I was told that the Muslim Students Association was having a meeting at that moment in the same building. I immediately went over to the MSA meeting and invited them to come to my event and engage in free discussion and/or debate. None of the Muslim students took me up on my offer.


“Documentary on ‘ex-Muslims’ sparks contentious debate at Portland State,” by Andy Ngo, The Ex-Muslim, November 25, 2016:

This is a guest post by Andy Ngo. He is a graduate student in political science at Portland State University. His academic interests include political Islam and secularism in the Middle East and North Africa. He can be reached on twitter at @MrAndyNgo and email at .

On Nov. 23, over 60 people attended the screening of Islam’s Non-Believers at Portland State University. The documentary film featured the personal testimonies of ex-Muslims who have faced death threats, severe abuse and ostracization [sic] from their communities for leaving Islam. The film’s director, Deeyah Khan, is a Muslim and human rights activist.

The event was hosted by secular humanist student group, Freethinkers of PSU.

Controversy surrounded the event in the weeks leading up to the screening. Some students found the event insensitive given the political climate, while others thought the event promoted discrimination. In the glass display case for Freethinkers, a note was left which read, “Atheist Islamophobia is not okay.” Across campus, many flyers for the event were vandalized or torn down.

In response to the backlash, two ex-Muslim women featured in the documentary issued statements which were read or shown at the screening. “I hope you realize that discriminating against ex-Muslims is not an excuse to validate your savior complex,” Rayhana said in a pre-recorded video message.

Sadia sent Freethinkers of PSU a written statement. It read in part, “Islam’s Non-Believers was such an important documentary because for the first time ex-Muslims have been given a face and a voice. It has made us human.”

Despite the controversy leading up to the event, the screening proceeded without any disruptions. Dr. Peter Boghossian, professor of philosophy at PSU, facilitated a group discussion after the film ended.

In attendance were ex-Muslims of Saudi Arabian, Pakistani, Egyptian, Jordanian and Iranian backgrounds. Some of them shared their thoughts with the diverse audience, which included practicing Muslims. Several ex-Muslims requested that video cameras be turned off due to fears they could be publicly outed as apostates and because of concerns for their physical safety.

Apostasy is the act of leaving one’s religion. In some traditional and conservative interpretations of Islam, death and imprisonment are punishments for apostasy.

One Muslim woman in attendance objected to the narrative presented in the film. “The punishment for apostasy in the Qur’an is not death,” she said. “The Qur’an is written in Arabic and most people from Bangladesh, India and other parts don’t speak Arabic.” Two native Arabic speakers later challenged this assertion when they recited several Qur’anic verses which can be interpreted as prescribing death for those who reject God.

At one point, Boghossian had to interject in the contentious discussion. “We could be here for weeks if we are going to engage in an exegetical debate about Islamic theology and interpretation,” Boghossian said.

Despite strong disagreements, the discussion remained civil and engaging throughout the evening. Toward the end of the discussion, an Arab student pleaded to the audience: “To the people who are afraid to criticize Islam … I implore you to think about the minority within the minority. [Religion] is defended every day. The minority with the minority does not have a voice.”…


UK: Teachers who Islamized state school back in classroom despite being banned

Life in the Islamic State: “If you don’t convert to Islam we will kill your son”

The ‘Islamophobia’ Lie by D.C. Watson

As we learned this past Saturday night of yet another violent attack perpetrated by a devout Muslim against innocent people, this time at a mall in St. Cloud, Minnesota, that left nine people with knife wounds, an appropriate question to ask might be… How much of this garbage is the American public supposed to put up with?

The answer is none. Is this what our troops have fought and died for? Is this what we pay our taxes for, so we can wonder if it’s safe to leave our homes and enjoy everything this country has to offer without getting caught in the middle of an onslaught being carried out by someone who chooses to adhere to the prescribed violence contained in the Qur’an, the Islamic book of scripture? No.

While watching the news on Sunday, a radio talk show host who was on a panel discussing the bombing in New York, which also happened this past weekend, said that the word “terrorism” should not be used because people will associate that with Islam, and we don’t want to offend an entire religion.

For anyone halfway paying attention, this should signal that if the majority of the public associates the word terrorism with Islam, then the lying, politically correct, culturally suicidal politicians and media in this country, despite their ongoing attempts to bamboozle and shame everyone into silence, have failed to cover up the truth.

“Islamophobia” is an illegitimate, made-up term often used by militant Islamic groups and parroted by elected officials and media personalities who have made the decision to forsake the American people and sell out the American way of life.

The purpose of this term is to embarrass and intimidate good people into thinking that they are in the wrong for questioning or challenging those who deny or act as apologists for what the world has seen from the Islamic belief system since its inception. Historical facts are historical facts, so the only chance these puppets have of forwarding their agenda is to attempt to revise history.

The truth is that no one who says something when they see something that doesn’t look right or something that looks like it could be a safety issue is a so-called “Islamophobe.” This is our country. Shari’ah law is a racist, sexist human rights violation that is completely at odds with the United States Constitution, and anyone living here who adheres to it and wants to replace our law of the land with it should relocate to a country that enforces it.

To see how witless immigration policies, coddling politicians, and overdone political correctness can ruin Western nations, just take a look at what a mess Europe has turned into.

Hundreds of jihadists and adherents to Shari’ah law in the United States have been arrested, convicted or killed. Included in this list are Muslims who have fabricated “anti-Muslim hate crimes.” While the entire Muslim community is certainly not at fault for this, and many themselves have been threatened and intimidated buy the Islamic militant bully boys who have set up shop here, there are entirely too many of these miscreants still running loose on our soil.

Looks like we will all have to continue to trust our instincts and the facts that have been relayed to us through sites like this one, and remember, the only people who throw out accusations of “Islamophobia” are those who want Islamic law to rule the planet, those who are too timid to confront them, and those who are so flat-out ignorant that they cannot see that although the crocodile may wait to eat them last, they, too, will be eaten.

With the aforementioned liars, bellyachers and fraidy-cats joining forces to push their poisonous array of disinformation about what we see with our own eyes, a refusal to be pushed around will continue to be a necessity.


NY jihad bomber asked Congressmen for help to bring wife to US; wife left country days before jihad bombing

Reality-resistant authorities probing New York jihad bomber’s motive

Salman Rushdie: ‘Today, I would be accused of Islamophobia and racism’

Indeed he would be. And he also says: “Instead of responding to attacks against freedom of expression, voices were raised to cry blasphemy and propose compromise with terrorism. There is no blasphemy in a democracy.” That’s right as well: as soon as blasphemy laws are enforced, democracy ceases to exist, for those groups that are protected by the blasphemy laws are a privileged class, with rights above and beyond those enjoyed by the rest of the population. Equality of rights under the law, a principal foundation of representative government, ceases to exist.


“Salman Rushdie: ‘Today, I would be accused of Islamophobia and racism,’” translation of “Salman Rushdie: «Aujourd’hui, on m’accuserait d’islamophobie et de racisme,»” by Thomas Romanacce, Le Figaro, September 5, 2016:

…According to the novelist, after the terrible attacks in the drafting of Charlie Hebdo, the French government has reacted badly. “Instead of responding to attacks against freedom of expression, voices were raised to cry blasphemy and propose compromise with terrorism. There is no blasphemy in a democracy,” he says.

For Rushdie, gradually our democracies have accepted the notion of compromise. The author believes that if he published The Satanic Verses today, it would not be supported as it was at the time. In this novel published in 1988, he made remarks deemed offensive against the Prophet Muhammad. “Today, I would be accused of Islamophobia and racism. Attacks against a cultural minority would be imputed to me,” says the writer. He defends freedom of thought and claims to have the right to say that religion is stupidity….

“Faced with the reality, we must call things as they are: Charlie Hebdo journalists were killed in the name of Allah and to avenge the Prophet,” says Rushdie.

Also according to the novelist, the Western governments seem to have difficulty to use the term “Islamic terrorism.” They prefer to speak of “the unbalanced” or “radical extremists”. “You French, use the Daesh label, which neutralizes things, while worldwide the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is called the Isis movement, to avoid hearing the word Islam,” laments Salman Rushdie.

Nor does he understand the stubbornness of Barack Obama in refusing to pronounce the word “Islam” in reacting to the attacks committed in its name. The author interprets this silence as an intention not to offend Muslims and African-Americans, who often rally to Islam. Finally, Salman Rushdie says that Daesh represents a form of Islam that most Muslims reject but that exists and grows. But the British writer wondered how can we fight cancer if we do not recognize that it is in the body?


As Muslim migrants riot in Calais, Paris mayor announces two refugee camps will open in Paris in October

UK jihad preacher Anjem Choudary gets 5 1/2 years for urging support of the Islamic State

Orlando Shooter Played the Islamophobia Card

Whenever Islamists are scrutinized, the first card they play is to shout “Islamophobia.” Orlando shooter Omar Mateen was no exception.

Whenever Islamists are scrutinized, the first card they play is to shout “Islamophobia.” Orlando shooter Omar Mateen was no exception. When he startled his coworkers by expressing his sympathy for terrorist groups, he explained that he didn’t really mean it — Islamophobia made him do it.

FBI Director James Comey’s official remarks included the following:

 “We first became aware of him in May of 2013. He was working as a contract security guard at a local court house. He made some statements that were inflammatory and contradictory that concerned his coworkers about terrorism. First, he claimed family connections to al Qaeda. He also said that he was a member of Hezbollah, which is a Shia terrorist organization that is bitter enemy of the so called Islamic State, ISIL. He said he hoped that law enforcement would raid his apartment and assault his wife and child so that he could martyr himself…

“…We then interviewed him twice. He admitted making the statements that his co-workers reported, but explained that he did it in anger because he thought his co-workers were discriminating against him and teasing him because he was Muslim.”

A coworker of Mateen’s at G4S Security says he complained to their boss about his incessant talk about killing people, racism, homophobia and stalking via text message. The colleague says he left his job because the boss was afraid to fire Mateen because he was a Muslim (the company’s screening procedures and employment of two other murderers is now under the microscope). The FBI Director’s statement above substantiates the coworker’s testimony.

False or exaggerated claims of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim persecution have been used since at least the 1980s. The Jamaat ul-Fuqra terrorist group used it in the 80s as well as later when their terrorist training compound was raided in Colorado in 1992.

After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, a prominent Islamist cleric in New York listed as a possible unindicted co-conspirator in the case claimed that the U.S. government was framing Muslims using “agent provocateurs” in mosques.

After 9/11, every single Muslim Brotherhood-linked group in America locked arms and played the Islamophobia card when one of their comrades was investigated by the authorities, such as during Operation Green Quest in 2002 or the prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for financing Hamas.

One such entity, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), jumps to portray terrorism suspects as victims at practically every opportunity, painting the Muslim-American community as essentially under siege by Islamophobes and U.S. government agencies hell-bent on oppressing Muslims and stripping them of civil liberties.

The “Islamophobia” slander works because it exploits genuine anti-Muslim sentiment to form a shield around anyone threatened by a discussing of Islamist extremism. It’s so over-the-top that some Muslim activists are complaining about the abuse of the term.

The success of the slanderous tactic has birthed a double-headed phenomenon of “Islamophobia-phobia.”

One aspect causes people to refrain from reporting suspicious behavior for fear of being called a bigot. The other is a fixation on stopping anti-Muslim prejudice that leads one to reflexively attack anyone discussing Islamism and bend over backwards to downplay, excuse or deny any connection between Islam and negativity.

Case in point: 41% of Americans view the Orlando attack more as an incident of domestic gun violence than Islamic terrorism.

Islamists and their allies in the “P.C. police” are trying to create a world where Islamist extremism doesn’t exist; where there’s only false accusations of extremism by Islamophobes and real extremism provoked by Islamophobes.


Ryan Mauro is’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.


What Good Does Hurling Insults at Someone Accomplish?

CAIR: Supporters of Gun Control Bill Are Anti-Muslim

GOP Leaders Stall Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Act

Number of Refugees Arrested for Terror Higher than Reported

VIDEO: Bigot, Racist, Hater, Islamophobe — Insults of the Ignorant

When my talk was announced recently, the “virtuous” progressives fired off their usual smear tactics. They did not produce a single fact about me, but said that a leftist group claimed that I was one of the chief Muslim bashers. Which is very odd since I don’t talk about Muslims, just Mohammed and Allah. I am an opponent of political Islam, not Muslims.

They charge me with presenting a “slanted” view of Islam, which is true. All views of Islam can be shown when Mohammed beheaded 800 Jews. Muslims see it as a day of victory; apologists see it as just another historic event. My view is that of a Kafir – beheading the Jews because they said that Mohammed was not a prophet – was an evil act. If you speak about Islamic political doctrine the apologists say you are a bigot.

A clergyman weighed in to say that I do not appreciate the vibrancy of Muslim culture. He is right. I only care about political Islam. I would hope that he would care about the brutality of Islam about Christians in Africa and the Middle East, but he is silent about that evil.

A community college president said that I should be forbidden to speak. This is symptomatic about schools becoming centers of ideology, not fact-based reasoning.

Why all of the insults? It is the only weapon of the ignorant.