Why do we treat all Islamic abuse as a mental Illness? Are we saying you have to be deranged to follow Islam?

Germany: Muslim migrant strikes woman in the face, has “obvious mental illness,” is admitted to psychiatric clinic


This Muslim migrant “struck a nearby woman in the face with his fist, saying the words, ‘That comes from Satan.’”

What could this possibly be but more of the global outbreak of mental illness? No doubt German authorities are confused by the fact that the man said, “That comes from Satan.” Is he a Satanist? No. He is a Muslim who is an executor of the wrath of Allah, as specified in the Qur’an: “Fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands…” He was rebuking the woman for being, in his view, under the power of Satan, and bringing Allah’s punishment to her. But German authorities would dismiss such an analysis as “Islamophobic.” He’s “obviously” mentally ill. Go back to sleep.

“That comes from Satan 18-year-old mentally ill Afghan abruptly strikes woman in the face of a woman on the train,” translated from “Das kommt von Satan 18-jähriger psychisch kranker Afghane schlägt Frau im Zug unvermittelt ins Gesicht,” Presse Portal, September 21, 2018 (thanks to Searchlight Germany):

Münster Hamm (ots) – Shortly before the Eurobahn RE 10626 stop yesterday at 3:35PM in the Hamm / W station, an Afghan citizen got up from his seat and struck a nearby woman in the face with his fist, saying the words, “That comes from Satan.”

The Afghani, who was already known to the police for similar offenses, was arrested by federal police officers at the Hamm / W station. Due to his obvious mental illness, the 18-year-old Afghan was given medical treatment and then admitted to a psychiatric clinic in Hamm….

Australia: Muslim who advocated murder of Jews found not guilty because he’s a paranoid schizophrenic


This man said: “When you come to a Jew, any Jew, even an old one who looks humble, pretending to be humble … strike him in the head, when you strike him in the head, he will not even sneeze, he will die.”

The Qur’an says: “When you meet the unbelievers, strike the necks…” (47:4)

And: “You will surely find the most intense of the people in animosity toward the believers to be the Jews…” (Qur’an 5:82)

But of course, what else could this be but more of the global outbreak of mental illness?

The Australian media is withholding this man’s name and pixelating out his face; protecting the perpetrator is their top priority.

“Man who encouraged killing of Jewish people on Facebook suffered paranoid schizophrenia,” by Rebecca Opie, ABC.net.au, September 24, 2018 (thanks to Jill):

An Adelaide man who posted videos on Facebook encouraging the killing of Jewish people has been found not guilty because he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia at the time.

The 52-year-old man from Flinders Park in Adelaide’s west, whose name was suppressed, became the first Australian to be charged with advocating terrorism in December 2016….

The charges related to four videos the man posted on Facebook between July 2015 and January 2016, where he encouraged others to kill Israeli soldiers and Jewish people.

During the videos he speaks in Arabic, referring to himself as a commander with Hezbollah and can be seen brandishing a large kitchen knife and a tomahawk.

In one of the videos, which had been viewed more than 19,000 times, he calls for Jewish people to be attacked with knives.

“When you come to a Jew, any Jew, even an old one who looks humble, pretending to be humble … strike him in the head, when you strike him in the head, he will not even sneeze, he will die.”

In another video he calls for the death of the president of the Palestinian National Authority, Mahmoud Abbas.

Police seized the knife, tomahawk and a chainsaw from his home.

The jury was told there was no dispute between the prosecution and defence that the man advocated terrorism and they agreed he was mentally impaired at the time….

Defence lawyer Edward Jolly said the two forensic psychiatrists who assessed his client agreed he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia at the time….

Sweden: Muslim migrant cuts man’s throat, stabs him 13 times, brags about it, has gotten psychiatric treatment

“When you meet the unbelievers, strike the necks…” (Qur’an 47:4)

“But despite his continued crimes, Suleman has never ended up in prison. In several cases, the courts have judged that what is required instead is ‘an ambitious treatment’ – which basically means probation with a special psychiatric and social-orientated treatment plan.”

Of course. What else could account for Suleman’s crimes other than the global outbreak of mental illness?

“Migrant cuts throat of Swedish student and stabs him 13 times – brags to friends about it,” Voice of Europe, October 5, 2018:

Last week the Umeå District Court sentenced Sudanese/Egyptian Suleman Suleman to 17 years in prison for a brutal murder on 27 April this year.

A student was murdered with thirteen stab wounds and also had his throat cut. The man bled to death in his apartment. “I would have done it again”, the killer bragged to his friends.

Suleman is described as a violent career criminal. In several cases, however, he has not received any prison sentences – courts have judged that “an ambitious treatment” is needed instead of imprisonment.

The day of the murder 30-year-old Suleman and a friend went to 28-year-old student Albin’s apartment to buy drugs from him.

In the judgment, Albin is described as follows: “As for Albin’s person, he pursued his studies in a very good way, and he was a very caring, appreciated and generally popular person. Shortly after he died he would have finished his master’s degree.”…

The friends pushed themselves into Albin’s apartment. Suleman wanted drugs, but Albin refused to sell anything to him. Suleman then got angry and attacked Albin. During the assault, Suleman pulled out a knife and slashed his thighs. The cuts injured his arteries, which led to severe bleeding. Shortly thereafter, he cut Albin’s throat.

The friend panicked and ran out of the Room. Suleman left the apartment shortly thereafter.

Later, he put pressure on his friend and threatened him: “We forget this day”, he told him according to the police investigation.

But to his other friends he bragged about what he had done. “I cut his throat, and I would have done it again,” he told one of his closest friends….

But despite his continued crimes, Suleman has never ended up in prison. In several cases, the courts have judged that what is required instead is “an ambitious treatment” – which basically means probation with a special psychiatric and social-orientated treatment plan.

However, the ambitious treatment has clearly not helped the man – since within a year he had commit similar crimes. If the latest judgement stands in the supreme court, Suleman will be released again in 11 years.



Ex-Muslim asks Muslims if Islam can be criticized, is told “There are only two choices, Islam or death”

Video: Ex-Muslim asks Muslims if Islam can be criticized, is told “There are only two choices, Islam or death”

This happened in Australia. What are the odds that the people interviewed in this video will become loyal, productive members of Australian society, upholding the freedom of speech as the foundation of a free society?

“‘There are only two choices, Islam or death’: Ex-Muslim walks through Lakemba asking locals if it’s OK to criticise their religion – and gets some VERY strong responses,” by Laura Hedges, Daily Mail Australia, September 19, 2018 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

A former Muslim has taken to the multicultural streets of Lakemba in Sydney’s west to ask local believers whether it is okay for people to criticise their religion.

Iranian-born author Armin Navabi visited Lakemba – considered Australia’s unofficial Muslim capital – to act out the controversial social experiment.

Mr Navabi, an ex-Muslim now living in Canada, was told by one man that non-believers faced ‘Islam or death’ – while another Muslim said police should ‘attack’ those who mock their faith.

Others interviewed said they encouraged discussions about their Muslim faith, but stressed the importance of approaching the topic with the ‘utmost respect’….

Many of the locals interviewed in the video took the stance that they were open to discussion and dialogue around their faith.

‘We live in a democratic country. We criticise other people when they do the wrong thing. Why are we immune from that?’ one person said.

The majority stressed it was important for any criticism or questions to be posed with the utmost respect.

‘Everything is criticisable, with respect,’ another man said.

‘Especially because religion is a sensitive topic for everyone.’

After further questioning of one man, Mr Navabi was told he believes the Muslim community eventually wants Sharia Law to be established worldwide.

‘100 per cent that is my goal – and every Muslim’s goal. To establish Sharia law on earth,’ the man claimed.

Mr Navabi questioned whether this meant ‘somebody like me’ who had turned his back on Islam would be ‘killed’ if Sharia law was in place.

‘That’s Sharia law, that’s what I believe in,’ the man stated.

‘There’s two choices, Islam or death.’

Another man said that anyone who criticised Islam should be attacked by police.

‘If people criticise then it’s bad yeah, and the police need to attack them,’ the man said.

Mr Navabi also spoke with a local sheikh who said he was open to questions about Islam as he hoped it would help answer any misconceptions people have.

But when Mr Navabi asked if it was okay to ‘mock’ Islam, the sheikh’s response took a turn.

‘When somebody comes and mocks any religion and they say that my intention inside was a good thing, there’s not one scenario in the entire globe where you mock somebody for the sake of goodness,’ he said.

He said that anyone who finds it normal to mock and laugh at other people have ‘lost human morality’ and ‘lost all senses of being a human’.

When Mr Navabi then stated his own opinion that mocking somebody formed part of freedom of expression, the sheikh called it ‘most disgusting’….



Australia: Muslima who stabbed sleeping man in neck while screaming “Allahu akbar” pleads guilty

“When you meet the unbelievers, strike the necks” — Qur’an 47:4

“I just felt obligated, and it was like a burden on me. Yeah, I just had to do it.”

Yes, it was a religious obligations, but law enforcement, intelligence, and governmental authorities in Australia and elsewhere will continue to ignore the implications of that.

“Student admits Melbourne terrorist act,” by Melissa Iaria, Australian Associated Press, September 20, 2018:

A Bangladeshi student who plunged a knife into the neck of her Melbourne homestay host has pleaded guilty to engaging in a terrorist act in the name of violent jihad.

Momena Shoma, 25, entered the plea to a single charge during a brief Victorian Supreme Court hearing on Thursday.

The diminutive woman came to Australia under the guise of a student visa and had been in Australia a week when she allegedly took a 25cm kitchen knife to Roger Singaravelu’s neck as he dozed beside his five-year-old daughter.

By her plea, Shoma admitted the act at the Mill Park house last February was done with the intention of “advancing a political, religious or ideological cause, namely violent jihad”….

Shoma was enrolled in a masters of linguistics course at La Trobe University but had been looking for a moment to attack someone since arriving in Australia.

She told police she had been practising by stabbing a pillow during her stay with a different family earlier in the week but chose to attack Mr Singaravelu because, as he was sleeping, he was “very vulnerable”.

Shoma had been staying with his family 48 hours and he had barely spoken 50 words to her when he woke up to “excruciating” neck pain.

“I saw (her) right next to me. She was on her knees with both of her hands on a knife that was in my neck,” he said in his statement.

Mr Singaravelu said Shoma was repeating the words “allah akbar”.

He pushed her away, pulled the knife from his neck and fled with his daughter.

Shoma told police Islamic State had been encouraging women to carry out jihadist attacks in the West and most of her interaction with the group was via Facebook.

“I just felt obligated, and it was like a burden on me. Yeah, I just had to do it.”…


‘Major SIN’ for a wife to refuse her husband’s demands for sex

‘He’s preaching something that’s illegal’: Outrage at Muslim preacher’s ‘repugnant’ views that it’s a ‘major SIN’ for a wife to refuse her husband’s demands for sex

  • Muslim fundamentalist preacher in Sydney said husband could demand sex
  • Nassim Abdi described a wife’s refusal to get intimate with spouse as ‘major sin’
  • Feminists Eva Cox and Catharine Lumby condemned Sunni religious sermon
  • New South Wales Attorney-General Mark Speakman said his views ‘repugnant’

Feminists and the NSW Attorney General have expressed concern after a Sydney Muslim preacher declared it was a ‘major sin’ for a wife to refuse sex with her husband.

Nassim Abdi, a fundamentalist Sunni, told an Auburn mosque in the city’s west a woman would be ‘cursed’ by angels for withholding marital intimacy.

‘If the husband calls the wife to be intimate and there’s no legitimate reason for the woman to say no, then she must answer the call of her husband,’ he said on Friday night.

‘She must answer the call of her husband and if not she has committed a major sin.

Watch the video

Nassim Abdi, a fundamentalist Sunni at an Auburn mosque in Sydney’s west, said it was a ‘major sin’ for a wife to refuse a husband’s demand for sex .The preacher from the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah Association, which calls for a return to seventh century Islam, said the angels would ‘curse’ a woman who refused to have sex.

‘If the man calls the wife to bed and she refuses, the angels curse this woman and he sleeps with her whilst he’s angry, the angels curse her until she wakes up.’

Nassim Abdi has previously declared it sinful for Muslim women to show their ears under their hijabs in public and for parents to allow their children to listen to music in the car

Mr Abdi preaches a seventh-century fundamentalist version of Salafist Islam from Saudi Arabia with the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah Association, which also advocates aspects of Sharia law.

Long-time feminist Eva Cox described him as a ‘nutter’, while stressing Islam was not the only religion with fundamentalists who disrespected women’s rights.

‘Somebody needs to inform the preacher that he’s preaching something which is illegal,’ she told Daily Mail Australia.

‘Preaching something which is illegal maybe should be banned.

‘I’m sorry we’ve got these nutters.’

Macquarie University research professor Catharine Lumby, a gender adviser with the National Rugby League, described the sermon as ‘hate speech’.

‘That kind of speech should be investigated. I believe in freedom of speech but I believe in limits to freedom of speech where violence is being advocated,’ she said.

Catharine Lumby said the sermon was 'hate speech' 

Catharine Lumby said the sermon was ‘hate speech’

‘It is absolutely against the law in this country what he’s advocating.

‘It’s a form of hate speech.’

Both feminists from an academic background stressed that fundamentalist Christians, too, had described women as the sexual property of men and said the sermon was not a reflection on all Australian Muslims.

Mr Abdi has previously declared it sinful for Muslim women to show their ears under their hijabs in public and for parents to allow their children to listen to music in the car.

Professor Lumby said Mr Abdi’s sermon could encourage Muslim men to commit domestic violence.

‘I would say it’s incitement to commit a criminal offence: if your wife doesn’t submit, then you still have the right to take her. That is a crime under Australian law,’ she said.

‘Shocking. The more I think about what this fundamentalist preacher said, in a way he’s advocating a form of domestic violence.’

Long-time feminist and women's rights activist Eva Cox said the preacher was a 'nutter'

Long-time feminist and women’s rights activist Eva Cox said the preacher was a ‘nutter’

New South Wales amended the Crimes Act this year to give three-year jail terms for inciting violence based on race, religion or sexuality.

However, it didn’t specifically target the comments of religious preachers.

Attorney-General Mark Speakman said Mr Abdi’s remarks were a matter for police.

‘Non-consensual sex is a serious crime which should be reported to the police,’ he told Daily Mail Australia today.

Attorney-General Mark Speakman said his views were 'repugnant' to Australian values of respecting women 

Attorney-General Mark Speakman said his views were ‘repugnant’ to Australian values of respecting women

‘Respect for all women is a central value of Australian society.

‘The views expressed by this preacher are repugnant to those values.’

Daily Mail Australia has sought a right of reply from the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah Association at Auburn.

The group removed the video from YouTube after a series of questions were emailed to them.

It was titled: ‘Prohibitions regarding intimacy in marriage.’ Marital rape didn’t become a crime across Australia until 1994, with South Australia in 1976 becoming the first state to criminalise sexual assault in a marriage.


Canada: Muslim cleric says husband has right to “intimacy” whenever he likes and may strike his wife

Azhar Nasser is no “extremist.” Islam justifies what he says here.

A hadith depicts Muhammad saying: “If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relation] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning” (Bukhari 4.54.460).

Another hadith attributes this to Muhammad: “By him in Whose Hand lies my life, a woman can not carry out the right of her Lord, till she carries out the right of her husband. And if he asks her to surrender herself [to him for sexual intercourse] she should not refuse him even if she is on a camel’s saddle” (Ibn Majah 1854).

The Qur’an teaches that Infidel women can be lawfully taken for sexual use (cf. its allowance for a man to take “captives of the right hand,” 4:3, 4:24, 23:1-6, 33:50, 70:30). The Qur’an says: “O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.” (33:59) The implication there is that if women do not cover themselves adequately with their outer garments, they may be abused, and that such abuse would be justified.

As as for wife-beating: “Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them.” — Qur’an 4:34

Muhammad “struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?” — Aisha (Sahih Muslim 2127)


“Canadian-American Cleric Azhar Nasser: Husband Has Right to ‘Intimacy’ Whenever He Likes and May Strike His Wife ‘to Salvage the Marriage,’” MEMRI, September 15, 2018:

During a September 15 lesson at Az-Zahraa Islamic Centre in Richmond, British Columbia, American Shiite cleric Azhar Nasser discussed the “wife-beating verse” in the Quran. He said that because a man provides for his wife, he has the right to “intimacy” whenever he pleases, and that some sources say that the wife is forbidden from denying or delaying intimacy lest “the angels ask Allah to deprive her of His mercy.” He also said that according to some scholars, a woman cannot leave the house without her husband’s permission because he might desire her while she is away. During his lecture, titled “Battered & Bruised,” Nasser said that in “extreme cases,” when the wife is “immodest,” the man must first admonish her, and if that does not work he must separate the beds to “show his discontent.” Then, if he feels that it may “rectify the problem and salvage the marriage,” he may strike his wife. Azhar Nasser, born and raised in Michigan and a graduate of the University of Michigan, currently resides in Richmond, B.C., Canada. The address was an installment in a series of lectures at Az-Zahraa Islamic Centre and was posted on its YouTube and Facebook pages.

Following are excerpts:

Cleric Azhar Nasser: We go to the verse, the verse that has been called the “wife-beating verse.” If you guys have a Quran app on your phone I want you to follow along.


From the beginning, Allah calls the husband “the guardian of the women.” Allah has given certain privileges to men, and He has given certain privileges to women. They have different rights. The right of the wife is that she has the right to be maintained.


The husband, because you maintain her, because you are providing shelter and food, and you are taking on financial responsibility… Because you’re fulfilling this responsibility, Allah gives you a right. What is that right? The right to enjoy pleasure. There are two rights that are mentioned by the legal scholars, the first is that you have a right to intimacy.


The one right that Allah has given to the man is that when he desires intimacy with his wife, she cannot deny him.


In fact, we have narrations that say the wife should not even delay intimacy if the husband desires.


This is a woman who, when her husband calls her, to have intimacy with her, she tells him “later, later, later” until he falls asleep, meaning she delays that conjugal right. The Holy Prophet says that such a woman, the angels ask Allah to deprive her of His mercy.


He can give her commands from dawn till dusk, the only command that she has to respond to Islamically is if he calls her to be with her – intimacy. And some legal scholars say she cannot leave the house without his permission, and some legal scholars have said that second right is also related to the first, because he might desire her and if she’s away, it’s going to be problematic.


We’re talking about a very extreme case where she’s not righteous, she’s disobedient to God, and she’s not guarding her modesty, that the husband is afraid, he’s becoming suspicious, there are signs of infidelity.


Allah says, you’re not allowed to strike them, first, admonish them. Talk. If you have some suspicions, if you’re uncomfortable with the way she’s behaving, if you feel that she’s not guarding her chastity, admonish them. This is number one. If that doesn’t work, separate the beds to express your discontent. If that doesn’t work, this is when the verse says, “strike them.” Scholars say, you only escalate it to the third, strike them… and there are some conditions to this. You only do it if you feel that it may rectify the problem. The hitting here is not with the intention of punishing. It’s to discipline and to rectify the problem, and salvage the marriage.


Imam Al-Bakr says, “You shall strike them with a siwak.” You know miswaks? The twig that is used for dental hygiene? You strike them with something like that.

Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi Caliphate – War on the Western World

This report explores the ISIS reign of terror in Syria.

Iraq Raqqa  the capital of the Caliphate

As war between the West and Islamic State escalates, little is known of IS leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi. Is destroying Al-Baghdadi the key to defeating terror? This report explores the ISIS reign of terror in Syria.

“Al-Baghdadi has only appeared in public once, and after that never again”, describes Hani. Like so many Syrians, Hani fled from the brutality of the Islamic State after they captured his hometown of Raqqa. It is not only in Raqqa that the lives of citizens are in danger. While Sinjar is one of the first major cities that ISIS has had to give up, after their retreat the horrendous consequences of their reign of terror became clear. Mass open graves filled with bodies revealed the remains of anyone who did not share their beliefs. Captured by US forces in Iraq in 2004 and detained at Camp Bucca, Baghdadi has gone on to build a powerful and remorseless caliphate intent on world Jihad. “Al-Baghdadi wants to be portrayed as the religious leader of this new nation. But he wants to be invisible. This only increases his appeal”, explains an expert. In response to their growing strength, Western powers have increased military retaliation in Syria, but this war cannot be fought with weapons alone; it is far more complex. As one expert describes, “you can’t bomb an ideology…if you try to bomb an ideology you will only reinforce it”.

ISIS leader al-Baghdadi and Saudi Crown Prince bin Nayef







The Pope has embraced jihad denialism at the historical moment that jihadists have declared war on Christianity.

The Pope has embraced jihad denialism at the historical moment that jihadists have declared war on Christianity. His recent denial that jihadism is rooted in Islamist theology, his selective criticism of Western secure border policy and his belief that the celebration of European Christianity amounts to colonialism have many Catholics wondering whether he is capable of protecting the church in a time of crisis.

The jihadist murder of Jacques Hamel marked the end of innocence in the 21st-century Christian West. It is the first time Islamic State jihadists have entered a Western church to kill a priest. Following the attack, the Pope said the world was at war, but he denied its roots were religious. Instead, he ascribed jihadism to a battle over resources and money.

Empirical evidence suggests the Pope is wrong ­— gravely so. The murder of Hamel was inspired by Islamism, motivated by hatred of Christians, enacted by jihadists and claimed by Islamic State. In its propaganda mag Dabiq, Islamic State vowed that Christians “will not have safety, even in your dreams, until you embrace Islam. We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women.”

Normandy’s Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray church was one of several Catholic churches found on an Islamic State hit list. L’Express magazine reported that one of the Rouen jihadists, Adel Kermiche, explained in advance his plan to attack Christians as they prayed: “You take a knife, you go into a church. Bam!” What part of jihadism does the Pope not understand?

The jihadists smiled after slitting Hamel’s throat and desecrating the altar before turning on nuns and parishioners. Consistent with jihadist trial by ideology, they investigated the nuns for Koranic compliance. After one nun, Helene Decaux, attested to reading several surahs and offered respect for the Koran, the Islamists denied Christ, stating: “Jesus cannot be God and a man.”

Islamists are monotheistic and deny the triune God of Christianity to the degree that some Islamic countries codify the submission of Christians by prescribing them second-class citizen status under sharia law. However, Pope Francis appears unable or unwilling to grasp the connection between political Islam, anti-Christian oppression and jihadism.

In a press conference, a journalist asked why he hadn’t referred to Islamic terrorism or fundamentalism when speaking about the jihadist killing of Hamel. In his reply, the Pope indulged in base cultural relativism by comparing the system of transnational jihadism with individual instances of domestic violence.

The latest issue of Dabiq offers a timely corrective to the Pope’s loose grasp on the reality of jihadism. Titled “Break the Cross”, its cover depicts a jihadist desecrating a church by destroying the cross on its steeple. Its authors urge Muslims to subjugate Christians and kill those who refuse to submit. Subjugation takes the form of cultural genocide. In the caliphate, Christians are banned from building or rebuilding churches, wearing the cross and openly practising their faith. They are required to “make room for Muslims and stand for them when they want to sit”. And they are forced to pay Muslims a hate tax, jizya, simply for being Christian. As the jihadists state, the purpose of the tax is to elevate Muslims over Christians and Jews.

Despite the increasing frequency of Islamist terror attacks on Western citizens, political and religious leaders commonly lapse into what I would describe as jihadist denialism. The constitution of jihadist denialism is: the creation of a false distinction between Islamic scripture and Islamist terrorism; a form of cultural relativism that holds Christians and Jews equally responsible for modern terrorism as jihadists; a sole focus on the militant expression of jihadism while ignoring its political form; and the omission that codified inequality is a political fact of many Islamic states under sharia law. Jihadist denialists often omit the influence of Christianity in the formation of the secular state, the idea of free will and free choice, the abolition of slavery, the recognition of formal equality and universal human rights.

Jihadist denialism minimises both the deleterious effect of political Islam and the positive legacy of Christianity. It is a dual fallacy.

The confusion that besets Western political and religious leaders when faced with jihadism is a luxury that persecuted Christians in Islamic nations cannot afford. Several organisations such as Open Doors and the Pew Research Centre have produced research showing Christians are the most persecuted religious group worldwide. The primary persecutors of Christians are Islamist and communist regimes. There is no equivalent persecution of Muslims in the Christian-majority nations of the West.

Reverend Majed el-Shafie is a refugee who fled the Islamic world after being imprisoned and tortured by the Egyptian government for converting from Islam to Christianity. In the wake of Hamel’s murder, el-Shafie explained its cause to British newspaper SundayExpress with a clarity that appears to have eluded the Pope: “I believe Christians are a main target just like we used to be. This has been happening to Christians in the Middle East for hundreds of years.” Islamic State is simply the latest iteration of jihadism whose global organisations include al-Qa’ida, Hezbollah and Hamas. As el-Shafie stresses: “The problem is the ideology of the extremists.”

The principal aim of jihadists is to impose a global caliphate governed by sharia law. To achieve it, they must destroy liberal democracy, Judeo-Christianity and all of the West’s attendant freedoms.

Our response to jihadism should not be appeasement born of denial and fear, but the courage to think free thoughts, speak freely and pray to the god of our belief, or observe no god at all. If the West is to survive the 21st-century war with Islamist terror, we must adopt a zero-tolerance policy towards jihadists and their ideology. That means supporting persecuted Christians by doing what jihadists loathe: rebuilding the churches they destroy, supporting the communities they persecute, giving shelter to Christian refugees, letting the church bells ring out and wearing the cross with honour.




ISIS to Christians: Convert or “live under the authority of Islam in humiliation,”

 or “only thing between you and us is the sword”

Note first that this jihadi’s explanation for his actions in becoming a terrorist begins and ends with Islam. He doesn’t talk about poverty or lack of opportunity. Then note his theological critique of Christianity: Muslims proselytize among young Christians worldwide using arguments like the ones below, and the various churches have nowhere bothered to help their youth formulate responses to these arguments. Finally, note that everything Abu Sa’d at-Trinidadi says about how the Christians will be treated is based upon the Qur’an: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).

“Trini ISIS sniper: All Christians must die,”
“Trini ISIS sniper: All Christians must die,”


ISLAMIC State’s most recent edition of its online propaganda magazine, which calls on Jihadists to destroy Christianity, features an extensive interview with a Trinidadian fighting with the terror group. He says Christians should die by the sword.

Named in the article as Abu Sa’d at-Trinidadi, he said Christians are legitimate targets “due to their mere disbelief,” and “for this reason, amongst others, the Islamic State leadership emphasised the importance not to differentiate between disbelieving soldiers and their so-called ‘civilians.’”…

Dabiq: When did you become a Muslim and how did it happen?

Abu Sa’d at-Trinidadi: All praise is due to Allah. May blessings and peace be upon Allah’s Messenger.

I come from a family of Baptist Christians, so from a very young age they would send my cousin and me to Sunday school. There I would learn about the Bible, parts of which I even memorized, and also learn about the prophets. My journey towards Islam began when I was around 7 or 8 years old. My mother would take me to church on Sundays. While attending service one day as the members of the congregation were singing and dancing, I took a look around at the pictures they claimed to be of Jesus, angels, and others, as well as the crosses. I said to myself, “Something is wrong here,” because I remembered that the first two commandments were, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” and “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,” as I had been taught in Sunday school.

So this had an affect on me as well as the fact that I used to see the pastor – who was married with children – coming next door to commit adultery. I would wonder how this man could lead me when he himself didn’t follow the Bible. I told my mother that I didn’t want to go back to church, and I would pray on my own based on what I’d learned from the Bible. Years later, my grandmother bought me a silver chain with a cross pendant. When I would wear the chain I would think to myself, “This pendant is an idol.” So I took it off and kept the chain. My knowledge of only the first two commandments gave me the understanding that what they were practicing was not in line with the truth. At this point, I didn’t consider myself part of any of the Christian denominations, but that was as far as I got.

In school, I was exposed to all the various religions but I remained upon what I knew. When I was around twenty years old, I would come to accept the religion of truth, Islam. I was working at a call center and got to know a Muslim co-worker there. We happened to share many of the same worldly interests, and for this reason, I would spend much time with him. I used to ask him many questions about the religion. In our conversations I would ask him about the beliefs of Muslims, and would also ask him about Jesus and Muhammad, and everything he told me made sense to me and was in line with what I remembered of the first two commandments, so I quickly gravitated towards Islam and soon found myself debating Christians because I knew their beliefs were corrupt.

Sometimes, because I was drawn to Islam, when I saw him praying, I would pray like him, and when I did, I would feel very calm afterwards. I accompanied him to the Friday sermon a couple of times to see what it was about, and then became certain that this was the true religion – the religion of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. In the last conversation we had before I embraced Islam, I told him that I was planning on selling drugs to support my family. He said that this was wrong and that the ends don’t justify the kill people but I can’t sell drugs to feed my family?”

He then began explaining to me the ultimate purpose of jihad as well as enlightening me concerning some of the Muslims’ plights, and after the conversation, I was settled. So I declared the testimony of faith and became a Muslim.

Dabiq: How did you find the da’wah to jihad?

Abu Sa’d at-Trinidadi: There was a faction of Muslims in Trinidad that was known for “militancy.” Its members attempted to overthrow the disbelieving government but quickly surrendered, apostatized, and participated in the religion of democracy, demonstrating that they weren’t upon the correct methodology of West, the da’wah to jihad took hold of me through the lectures of Shaykh Anwar al-‘Awlaqi . After listening to his various lectures repeatedly, I gained a firmer understanding of what we as Muslims were supposed to be doing.

I listened to his lecture series titled “Constants on the Path of Jihad” and his lecture series on “The Book of Jihad.” By Allah’s grace, there was a man of sound knowledge who I was able to refer to and who would answer any questions I had. His name was Shaykh Ashmead Choate and he had studied hadith and graduated from one of the Islamic colleges in the Middle martyrdom fighting in Ramadi.

Dabiq: Tell us about your jihad endeavor in Trinidad and Tobago.

Abu Sa’d at-Trinidadi: I, along with my brothers in Christian paganism is widespread in Trinidad and Tobago Islam Abu ‘Abdillah (another convert from Christianity), Abu ‘Isa, and a number of other brothers from Trinidad that later made hijrah after us formed a group and would deal with some of the issues of the Muslims that people were afraid to deal with. One of our goals was to eventually make hijrah – when we had the ability to do so – and join the mujahidin striving to cleanse the Muslims’ usurped lands of all apostate regimes, and as a result, I would keep myself up to date on all the latest news around the Muslim world and the jihad fronts. We would weigh all of our options as we awaited our opportunity for hijrah. At the same time, we knew that we couldn’t just sit and dream while doing nothing, so whenever the disbelievers in Trinidad would kill or harm a Muslim, we would take revenge. We would work to accumulate money in order to buy weapons and ammo. Alhamdulillah, we were successful in many operations, and this was only by Allah’s grace.

Abu ‘Abdillah, my wife, and I were arrested at one point, but the police weren’t able to make a case against us. We were nonetheless charged for possessing guns and ammunition. They seized my computer and phones and found the videos, books, and lectures on jihad. The taghut government of Trinidad then plotted against us, claiming that we were planning on assassinating the prime minister and a number of other ministers in order to cause chaos and panic in the country. That would have been an honor for us to attempt, but the reality of our operations was much smaller, as I described before. We were imprisoned for terrorism along with some Muslims who merely knew us as well as others whom we had never even met before. Alhamdulillah, they planned and plotted but Allah is the best of planners. They were unable to make a case against us and we were freed, by Allah’s permission, and despite being placed under surveillance, we went back to doing what we knew we had to do, commanding the good and prohibiting the evil….

Dabiq: How did your family react when they found out you became a Muslim?Abu Sa’d at-Trinidadi: When I became a Muslim, my mother told me that she respected my decision.

Alhamdulillah, she too embraced Islam, a few years after me. She loved Islam so much that she would later say she wished that she had learned of Islam long before so she could have embraced it earlier. Alhamdulillah, one of my brothers also began practicing Islam. As for the rest of my family, I ask Allah to guide them.

Dabiq: How did your family react when they found out you became a soldier of the Islamic State?

Abu Sa’d at-Trinidadi: Some of my disbelieving Christian relatives have used the fact that I am a soldier of the Islamic State in their quarrels with others. They’ve said, for example, “My relative is an ISIS terrorist, so you better watch out!” Subhanallah, when it comes to the honor that Allah has granted the Caliphate, we even see many disbelievers recognizing it….

Dabiq: As a convert from Christianity, what message would you like to direct to Christians?Abu Sa’d at-Trinidadi: To the Christians I say, you know that you have strayed far away from the true teachings of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. Your book was corrupted long ago by your leaders. I call on you to remember the first two commandments, for they are what led me to Islam and to the true teachings of all the prophets. Submit to the one who created you and do not differentiate between the prophets, for they all came with the same message. Follow the final messenger, Muhammad, for in doing so you will be following all of the prophets. If you refuse, then we offer you the option to pay jizyah and live under the authority of Islam in humiliation. If you refuse, then the only thing between you and us is the sword.

Eight arguments we use to excuse terrorism

The media are starting to get it – finally.

Our discourse on terrorism is a bad record that has been stuck on repeat for decades. And it won’t matter whether I write this today, in a week, a month, or a year. Because with each new attack, the dialogue is only pushed deeper into discord and away from examining terror.

Rather than terror attacks inciting a more thorough and informed understanding of terrorism, there is a predictable tsunami of excuse-making, victim-blaming and sidestepping of the actual issue.

While it’s great that some people believe sharia law can be interpreted in a positive way, or that Muslim people are their best friends, this is not actually addressing terrorism. This political pointscoring is increasingly blocking the public from developing better understandings of, and solutions to, terrorism.

Argument 1: Islam has nothing to do with terrorism

This kind of denial relies on the public to ignore all data on terror: the imams who preach hate, the holy texts that demand it, the statistics that show fairly significant portions of Islamic nations support terrorism, and the lists of registered terrorist groups wherein the vast majority are Islamic.

Instead, this argument relies on the theologians who insist that on some intellectual or spiritual level, their interpretation of Islam reflects peace. Certainly, that may well be their interpretation. But unfortunately that is not the reality for all followers.

Full article


Hazara refugee community mourning the death of 85

Here at Federation Square Melbourne in solidarity with the Hazara refugee community mourning the death of 85 of their countrymen killed in Kabul on Saturday during a peaceful protest presumably by IS. Over 300 wounded by the bomb blasts. You may not have heard about it because apparently Muslim people in the Middle East don’t matter as much as Europeans or Americans.

Image and comment provided by Rob Kosh

Melbourne:federation square mourn 85 killed in kabul
Melbourne:federation square mourn 85 killed in kabul

When It Comes to Islam, Western Leaders Are Liars or Idiots

This guy Raymond Ibrahim says it all, Not only are the Leaders so stupid but they have the media locked down as well – reporting only what is Politically Correct.

Obama Mirkel Islam
leadership and authority in the West are either liars or fools

When it comes to the connection between Islam and violence against non-Muslims, one fact must be embraced: the majority of those in positions of leadership and authority in the West are either liars or fools, or both.

No other alternative exists.

The reason for this uncharitable assertion is simple: If Islam was once a faraway, exotic religion, today we hear calls for, and see acts of, violence committed in its name—or the name of its deity “Allahu Akbar!”—practically every day.  And many of us still have “ears that hear and eyes that see.”

It’s no secret: Muslims from all around the world and from all walks of life—not just “terrorists” or “ISIS”—unequivocally and unapologetically proclaim that Islam commands them to hate, subjugate or kill all who resist it, including all non-Muslim “infidels.”

This is the official position of several Muslim governments, including America’s closest “friends and allies,” like Saudi Arabia and Qatar; it’s the official position of Islamic institutions of lower and higher learning—from Bangladeshi high schools to Egypt’s Al Azhar, the world’s most prestigious Islamic university; and it’s the official position broadcast in numerous languages on Islamic satellite stations that air into Muslim homes around the world.

In short, there’s no excuse today for ignorance about Islam—especially for those in positions of leadership or authority.  Yet it is precisely they who most vehemently deny any connection between Islam and violence.


The most recent example (as of this writing, that is) took place on July 18 in Germany. An axe-waving Muslim refugee attacked a number of train passengers and critically injured three.   Although an ISIS flag was found in his room, although he called for the slaughter of any Muslim who dares leave Islam, although he yelled “Allahu Akbar”—Islam’s unequivocal war cry—authorities  claimed “it was too early to speculate about the motives of the attacker.”

Catholic Bishop Friedhelm Hofmann of Wuerzburg, where the axe attack took place, wasbewildered: “One is speechless at such a moment. This fact can not be understood.”  Instead of being vigilant around Muslim migrants, he suggested “Maybe we need to help the unaccompanied young refugees even more and help them to overcome their own traumas.”

About a month earlier in Germany, this same scene played itself over: while screaming “Allahu Akbar” and “infidels must die,” another Muslim man in another train station stabbed to death one man and injured three others.   Still, German authorities “found no evidence of Islamist motive.”

In neighboring France—which has “Europe’s largest Muslim minority” and is also (coincidentally?) the “most threatened country”—this sequence of events (a Muslim attacks in the name of Islam, authorities claim difficulty in finding “motive”) is becoming endemic.  On July 19, a Muslim man vacationing with his pregnant wife and children stabbed a neighboring woman and her three daughters for being “scantily dressed.”  The youngest girl, 8, was in critical condition with a punctured lung.

Although this is a common occurrence throughout the Muslim world—many Muslim women don the hijab precisely because they know the consequences of not doing so in public—and although French television was bold enough to say that the man, named Mohamed B, 37, “may have acted out of religious motives,” local mayor, Edmond Francou, said he preferred “not to speculate about the motive of the attack.”

A few days earlier another “Allahu Akbar” screaming Muslim killed 84 people in Nice.  Yetaccording to French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve, the killer’s “motives [were] not yet established.”  Asked if he could at least confirm the attacker’s motives were linked to jihadism, he said, “No.”  Reuters went so far as to write an article blaming France for its own terrorization.

Turning to the United States, one finds the same pattern at work, most recently when a Muslim man went into a homosexual nightclub in Orlando and killed 49.  Despite the fact that ISIS regularly kills homosexuals and that the killer—who “recited prayers to Allah during the attack”—pledged his allegiance to the group, “Attorney General Loretta Lynchsaid that the investigation is still ongoing, and a motive has yet to be established,”  while “the FBI was confused about Mateen’s motive.”

Earlier this year, Edward Archer, a convert to Islam, shot and wounded Philadelphia police officer Jesse Hartnett.  He later explained his motive: “I follow Allah. I pledge my allegiance to the Islamic state. That is why I did what I did.”

Yet after showing a surveillance video of Archer in Islamic dress shooting at Hartnett, Philadelphia mayor Jim Kenney emphatically declared:

In no way shape or form does anyone in this room believe that Islam or the teaching of Islam has anything to do with what you’ve seen on the screen….It is abhorrent. It is terrible and it does not represent the religion or any of its teachings. This is a criminal with a stolen gun who tried to kill one of our officers. It has nothing to do with being a Muslim or following the Islamic faith.

One can go on and on.  From California alone:

  • Despite the evidence that the Muslim couple that massacred 14 people in San Bernardino was motivated by Islamic teachings of jihad against the hated “infidel,” Obama claimed “We do not know their motivations.” Chris Hayes and MSNBC were also “baffled” in their search for a motive.
  • Despite the many indicators that the Muslim student who went on a stabbing spree in UC Merced was described as a “devout Muslim,” had an ISIS flag, and praised Allah in his manifesto—“local and federal authorities insisted that Faisal Mohammad, 18, carried out the vicious attack because he’d been banished from a study group.”
  • Despite the fact that a man named “Jihad” went to an El Monte police station, wherehe “used the word ‘jihad’ several times” while making a bomb threat, police “so far don’t have a motive.”

Most politicians—practically every democrat but also a majority of republicans, with the notable exception of Donald Trump—make the same claims.  This begins with U.S. President Obama who insists  that the Islamic State “is not Islamic,” calls for the “rejection by non-Muslims of the ignorance that equates Islam with terror,” and classified the Fort Hood massacre as “workplace violence,” despite the overwhelming evidence that it was jihad.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton admonished us to bear in mind that “Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”  Republican leaders like John McCain gush about how “unequivocally, without a doubt, the religion of Islam is an honorable and reasonable religion.  ISIS has nothing to do with the reality of Islam.”  “Conservative” talking heads like Bill O’Reilly flippantly dismiss jihad as “a perversion of Islam, we all know that.”

What is to be made of all these claims from our “leaders” that fly in the face of reality?  Only immensely deranged or immensely deceitful people can claim that a Muslim who cites the Koran and calls on Allah is not acting in the name of Islam.

Take your pick, but there are no other alternatives.  (Note: When I make this argument, some rebut by saying that there are other alternatives—that such people are too craven, that they’ve been bought and paid for, etc.  All these are different motivations that nonetheless fall under the lying category.)

Regardless of the source of the narrative that defends Islam—stupidity or deceitfulness—the same damage is done.  Remember, Islam is not threatening the West due to its own innate capabilities, but because the West allows it to.

Thus the real battle revolves around getting the West to see reality—a battle which involves rooting out the liars and fools from government, media, education, and other positions of influence—an admittedly herculean task, considering that the lie is now the narrative and truth is evil.