Islam Rejoices

Click to expand

The main concern of American MSM is the "backlash" that Muslims will endure.
Riiiight. Why don't the Muslims just stop doing this??

Americans Ignore This Because: Narrative (Muslims are Nice Neighbors)

'Pinkwashing' populism: Gay voters embrace French far-right

Tomorrow's Map, Today

A Note For Wymyn's Day

Never a day off for Islamic women

But It's OK, He's A Donk; In Fact, Head Donk

New DNC Chair Tom Perez Has Problems W/ Email, Ethics, Racism and Perjury

Lying and thorough corruption is a Donk expectation - Hillary proved that. And Muslim Keith Ellison is junior head Donk. Nothing is too absurd for the Donkey Party.

Why Islamic Slavery is A-OK

Georgetown Prof Defends Islamic Slavery

Islamic slavery is not like western slavery which was racial. Racial slavery is evil, of course. But Islamic slavery is equal opportunity, and anyone can qualify to be an Islamic slave.

News that Jonathan Brown, a tenured Georgetown professor and holder of the Al-Waleed bin Talal Chair in Islamic Civilization at Georgetown University, has delivered a lecture defending slavery and rape non-consensual sex. Umar Lee, a Muslim who heard the lecture and was offended by it, posted about it here. He wrote:

While the lecture was supposed to be about slavery in Islam Brown spent the majority of the lecture talking about slavery in the United States, the United Kingdom and China. When discussing slavery in these societies Brown painted slavery as brutal and violent (which it certainly was). When the conversation would briefly flip to historic slavery in the Arab and Turkish would slavery was described by Brown in glowing terms. Indeed, according to Brown, slaves in the Muslim World lived a pretty good life.

I thought the Muslim community was done with this dishonest North Korean style of propaganda. Obviously not. Brown went on to discuss the injustices of prison labor in America and a myriad of other social-ills. Absent from his talk (until challenged) was any recognition of the rampant abuse of workers in the Gulf, the thousands of workers in the Gulf dying on construction sites, the South Asian child camel-jockeys imported into the United Arab Emirates to race camels under harsh conditions, or the horrific conditions of prisoners in the Muslim World (the latest news being 13,000 prisoners executed in Syria).

Brown constructs a world where the wrongs of the West excuse any wrongs (if he believes there are any) in the Muslim World.

“Slavery wasn’t racialized” in Muslim societies, Brown stated. That would be believable if it weren’t well-known black people in the Arab World and African-Americans in this country weren’t constantly referred to as abeed (slaves) simply because the color of the skin.

Brown described slavery in the Muslim World as kinder and gentler. The Arab poet who wrote “before you buy the slave buy the stick… for he is nejas (impure)” is perhaps a better description of Arab slavery than what Brown offered.
“Slaves were protected by shariah (Islamic Law)” Brown stated with no recognition of the idealized legal version of slavery and slavery as it was practiced. In this version of slavery there is an omission of kidnappings, harems, armies of eunuchs, and other atrocities.

Which brings to mind the Fascist slavery and work-to-death policies of the Third Reich. Not to mention the WWII Japanese.

None Dare Say "Islam"

Hence, the Scott Adams Challenge: How many deaths is Obama willing to accept in order to preserve his Islamophilia stance? [NOTE 1]

The Road to Orlando
"There’s the rub. In 21st-century America, we have created a perverse incentive structure where fear of accusations of Islamophobia and/or racism takes priority over anything else, even preventing violence. While nobody could have foreseen the exact attack that Omar Mateen perpetrated, it’s abundantly clear that he was on track to do something awful, including murder. Yet nothing was done, even though warnings were abundant. Simply put, any American today who is accused of Islamophobia faces a ruined life with loss of employment and social stigma. Whereas the cost of not preventing mass murder is merely hurt feelings and regret.

In such an era, it’s difficult to find too much fault with the FBI. Per the cliché, they were only following orders. All the same, it bears asking why the Bureau went for the direct approach, bringing Mateen in for questioning, instead of watching him from a distance. Any time you bring a possible suspect in for interrogation, you’re showing your hand—which isn’t always wise. Particularly given Mateen’s known ties to a notorious Orlando jailbird-turned-radical-imam, there were investigative avenues of approach here that were apparently not taken, with fateful consequences.

However, the FBI was following the lead of its political masters. It’s hardly a big secret that President Obama from the moment he arrived at the White House put the kibosh on any discussion of radical Islam as a security problem, even in classified channels. In 2009, the administration banned politically loaded words like “jihad” even in classified Intelligence Community assessments discussing terrorism – a message that was received loud and clear in the counterterrorism community. Missing the next 9/11 could be survived, career-wise, while accusations of Islamophobia would not be with Barack Obama in the White House.

During Mr. Obama’s first term, there was a thorough purge of personnel in the Intelligence Community and the Defense Department who were unwilling to follow the new party line. People were mysteriously reassigned, contracts were suddenly cancelled, meetings were delayed never to be rescheduled. The message was obvious to counterterrorism professionals. As someone who has tried for years to walk a fine line on jihadism—we must be able to discuss political Islam and terrorism without stigmatizing all Muslims—I witnessed this happen, and it was tragically clear what the long-term consequences of this institutionalized unreality would be.

Now the much-feared mass-casualty jihadist attack on American soil, by a native-born American Muslim no less, has happened. President Obama, who is deeply invested in the unreality he has foisted on our security services, cannot be expected to reassess his errors in the last months of his second term. Every terrorist attack features what-ifs, missed off-ramps, and roads not taken. Our self-imposed blinders are causing us to miss these, hindering counterterrorism at home and abroad. As long as we value political correctness over the safety of Americans, innocent people will continue to die violently."

NOTES:
1. Answer: There is no limit. Not even for Gays or Blacks or any Protected Class. Because the Narrative is the highest of all priorities.

It's IslamoRealism; Not a Phobia.

The Left makes up terminology to defame others all the time. They use that to instill fear of approbation, instead of logical analysis of their current Progressive attack on sanity. That fear, of approbation and loss of membership in the Leftist Tribe, now forces the Left to choose Islam over Gays. This is done silently, by ignoring the content of actual Islam. The result will continue to be felt, because Islam is not called out for what it actually is.

Do you remember this:

Islamic Speaker Admits: Killing Gays is a Belief Held by ‘Moderate Muslims’
Yet the regressive left STILL defends Islam

"In light of the massacre of dozens of people at a gay club in Orlando, it’s worth re-visiting the comments of Islamic speaker Fahad Qureshi, who admitted that the desire to see homosexuals killed was a belief held by so-called “moderate” Muslims.

During a conference held in May 2013, Qureshi complained that the media often frames views such as “the death penalty for homosexuals” or the subjugation of women as only being held by radical Muslims.



“I always try to tell them that….these are general views that every Muslim actually has….every Muslim believes in these things,” says Qureshi.

Qureshi then asks the audience of Muslim attendees – black, white and Arab – to raise their hands if they agree with gender segregation and stoning women for adultery, as taught by the Koran.

Virtually every single ‘moderate’ Muslim in the room raises their hand to agree with these positions.

Qureshi then asks the audience if they go to “normal Sunni mosques in Norway.” Virtually everyone raises their hand in agreement once again.

“What are the politicians going to say now? What is the media going to say now? That we are all extremists? That we are all radicals? That we need to deport all of us from this country?” states Qureshi.

The chillingly ironic thing is of course that in trying to argue that most Muslims are not ‘radical extremists’, Qureshi only proves the point that so-called “moderate” Muslims do in fact hold radical, violent and extreme views about the treatment of women and homosexuals.

The clip attests to the fact that intolerant and hateful viewpoints are not just held by a tiny minority of “radical” Muslims, they are held by most Muslims period, and they’re taken directly from the Koran.

If such views were espoused by extreme right-wingers, liberals would be up in arms, but because Muslims rank far higher in the ‘oppression olympics’ table, so-called “progressives” are frightened to criticize Islam for fear of being labeled politically incorrect or racist (despite the fact that Islam is not a race).

It has also been confirmed that just weeks before Omar Mateen’s rampage, Muslim cleric Sheikh Farrokh Sekaleshfar called for gays to be executed during a sermon at an Orlando-area mosque.

Sekaleshfar also called for homosexuals to be killed “out of compassion”.

“Death is the sentence. There’s nothing to be embarrassed about this. Death is the sentence,” Sekaleshfar said during a 2013 sermon at the University of Michigan.

With many gay people in America now asserting that they will switch their vote to Trump in light of Saturday night’s massacre, it is imperative for the LGBT community to understand that the regressive left has chosen Islam over gay rights.

Leftists would rather justify and act as apologists for a religion that openly encourages the slaughter of homosexuals than stand up and defend the lives of gay people."
[All emphasis added]

In Which The Problem Becomes Obvious

Gelzinis: Barney Frank; Donald Trump’s right... on one point

"Trump delivered one of the reddest of his red-meat speeches yesterday, and [Barney] Frank was in meetings in Washington and did not see a rant that was anchored around Sunday morning’s massacre in Orlando, Fla. So, I quoted the following passage:

“But the Muslims have to work with us. They know what’s going on. They have to cooperate with law enforcement and turn in the people they know are bad.

“They know that he (Mateen) was bad. They knew the people in San Bernardino were bad, but you know what … they didn’t turn them in.”

“Well,” Barney sighed,

“I gotta say Trump’s argument on this particular issue is legitimate. There is a small tragic sliver that is consumed with hate that has to be focused on with greater intensity. And enlisting other Muslims to help in that effort, whether it’s with law enforcement that can go undercover, is something that has to be looked at seriously.”

For Barney Frank, the slaughter inside Pulse nightclub was personal.
“It could have been me,” said the former 16-term congressman, who stepped out of the closet more than three decades ago to earn the respect of colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
Okay, so maybe he’s not ready to join Trump’s Rainbow Coalition, but the fact that Trump is saying things that even Barney Frank agrees with, but that nobody “responsible” will say explains why Trump is doing so well."

What this actually explains, and explains very well, is that the Left just doesn't care about anybody but themselves. Frank and the Leftists couldn't care less about doing anything substantive, until it affects them, personally. That is a feature of the Class Warrior, who thinks of humans only in terms of their class membership. As class members they are accorded certain features, and those features define them completely as far as Class Warriors are concerned. I, as an example, am a flyover/clinger. That makes me inconsequential in the rankings of assigned class membership. Thus, my death, and the deaths of those like me, can be "absorbed".

Muslim Immigrants in Germany: Country Must Assimilate Into Them

Political Correctness makes many bad assumptions. One of the worst has been that all people agree with the politically correct principles and that Muslims, for example, actually want to be German, in the sense of changing into good German beliefs and behaviors. But Islam, when taken as the Prophet directed, is pure mind poison.

VIDEO=> Muslim Migrants in Germany Chant “Adolf Hitler” and Allahu Akbar”

Angela Merkel welcomed one million third world migrants to Germany in 2015.
Germany is expecting another million this year.

Muslims in Germany held a protest recently.

The video was posted on April 9, 2016.

The migrants were chanting “Adolf Hitler” and “Allahu Akbar” as they waved the Palestinian flag.

They ought to make great citizens.

Silencing Dom

Consulting the One True Islamist

Assimilation in Action

Muslims March in Germany Chanting “With Allah’s Help, We Shall Conquer You” (VIDEO)

When a narrative is necessary to the essence of a worldview, no facts will change it. Therefore, change will be a surprise when it comes.

The Third Choice: White Flight

...to New Zealand, or Mars.

After Brussels: Open Borders? Or a Police State? Europe Must Now Choose

Actually this might be the desired consequent of Cloward-Piven. The destruction of the (faux) democracy systems subject to the EU dictatorship has been the goal of Leftists/Progressives/Socialists from the beginning. Hatred of the west and Christianity, coupled with love for Islam and Muslims, has produced the effect the Left desired and which they now live with. So those subjected to the unrelenting EU totalitarian PC have the further option of fleeing. Maybe Viet Nam? Where can they flee to?

IS trains 400 fighters to attack Europe in wave of bloodshed

Is it "Who ya gonna call?" Or "Where ya gonna run to"? Of course, 400 jihadis would statistically kill only 8,000 to 12,000 people; so your likelihood is... well, you know, worth it to the Islamophiles.

And Back in Germany...

German feminist welcomes refugees: ‘Better rapists than racists’

She'll find out that they are both, not either/or. I doubt she'll be so smug after the gang rape/beating she's inviting.

The Narrative Is Safe With Hillary

"Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism."
Hillary Clinton

The Beloved Migrant's Victimhhood Class and the Beloved Principle of Multiculturalism are in Drect Conflict with the Beloved Women’s Victimhood Status.

Taharrush Comes To the EU
The principle of Taharrush is becoming a household word, like jihad and takiyya. Takharrush is now known as sexual abuse against women by groups of men. It is an Arabic cultural phenomenon which grew out of the use of the word to describe sexual abuse of children, and is now expanded to include sexual abuse and rape of women.

I have found two studies on the subject of taharrush. This practice of a group of men surrounding a woman and assaulting her by word and hand groping of “all orifices” and sometimes rape began apparently in Egypt.

The rationale is this: The original culture of female dominance in the home and male dominance in supplying the home with financial stability and physical protection has become damaged. During the 20th century, modernization came to Egypt under both Nasser’s socialism, and Sadat’s reforms. Most notably, females were made equal to men, and men lost jobs (to women and other modern reasons).

The hyper masculine culture could not withstand the reduction of masculinity, especially in the lower classes, where males experienced high unemployment. The males, still operating under the traditional form of masculinity, gathered daily in the streets, especially in Cairo. They began to reassert their masculine dominance of women, who they still considered chattel under Islamic law. The ability to attack the women seems enhanced by the concept of sex with slave girls, even if the slavery is temporary, say for minutes.

Thus as displays of masculinity, primarily to impress their compatriots, men would form a wall around any woman, any age, any nationality including tourists, and then would sexually fondle the woman, taunt her, and sometimes rape her, right there in the street in broad daylight. Apparently this restored the masculinity of the men, at least in the eyes of the other men at the scene, and self-image was restored. At least to the attacker. [Note 1]

Thought of the woman, her feelings and rights, never enters their minds. The woman is fair game under the principles of Islam.

This is the concept of Taharrush. If this constitutes an understanding of it, it certainly does not constitute approval of it in the minutest. Taharrush is barbaric, it is based in the cruelties of a barbaric worldview which degrades both men and women, and yet is a worldwide system which generates violent adherents intent on conquest.

If you have seen the videos on YouTube of the refugees trying to mount trucks going under the channel to England, you know that they are almost all young adult males with nothing, many not even with backpacks. According to the studies, these are the exact demographic which uses Taharrush to bolster their self-esteem. If this is the case, and it is, then the mass molestations and rapes are an expectation, not a deviation. And it explains the high number of rapes suffered by Muslim women in the river of refugees, as well.

Leftist Conundrum
It also explains why the government and police have been burying the news, much less statistics, regarding the epidemic of attacks both on European women and on refugee women. Taharrush reflects badly on multiculturalism. Apparently multiculturalism is a higher priority than the safety of the Victimhood Classes of women attacked under the culture of Taharrush. That had been a closely held secret, until the New Year’s Eve attacks in Cologne. Now the news is out, and the existence of Taharrush is now known across a wide swath of Europe. But many women had to be attacked before the authorities admitted the problem.

Europe’s response has been to a) blame women; b) assert aggressive gun control; c) claim a need for “education” of refugee men; d) fear for the safety of the refugees due to reprisals.

Let’s analyze just a bit. a) it is not women’s fault; b) gun control is to protect the refugee barbarians, not to stop the attacks; c) educating several millennia of acculturation out of these men is not likely. These men already espouse a hatred of their new countries, shouting Fuck [everything]. They have been taught barbarism since childhood and now they are reduced to barbarous conditions where they are subservient to everyone, including anyone who helps them. This will not be easily remedied, especially not with Leftist dream-tropes. And d), fear for the safety of the migrants is a valid concern, if not the most pressing. It will become more urgent as the EU fumbles and fails to deal properly with the influx of barbarism into itself.

The Multicultural Paradox
The gap of cultures between barbarism and women’s rights is a formidable chasm. The Merkel style of fawning support for it fails to acknowledge the inherent paradox, the internal contradiction which infects multiculturalism. It is this: Multiculturalism assumes that all cultures are like the culture of the multiculturist in that all cultures actually want to coexist in a western cultural fashion.

But multiculturalism cannot accommodate any culture which does not want to coexist with western culture. This obvious truth is highly visible in major portions of the world, from the Atheist countries of China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba to the Islamic countries around the world from Malaysia to North Africa and the entire Middle East.

Under strict politically correct multiculturalism, all of these who want to destroy the western cultures must be allowed into the west, even illegally. The presupposition of assimilation is understood, if not stated. But it cannot happen. Multiculturalism depends on the cultures being alike in their fundamental concepts, not differing radically, as do Atheist Communism, Atheist Fascism and Qur'anic Islam.

So multiculturalism cannot be very “multi”; it must restrict itself to cultures which are already very much like itself. If it is truly “multi”, then it will kill itself with death by immigrant. So true multiculturism cannot ever be true multiculturism, and that is a logical paradox.

Back in the USA
The rapes of many if not most of the females who are attempting to enter the US illegally from the border with Mexico represents a similar problem for multiculturalism. Entering also are the rapists, along with people who want the largesse of US government handouts (which are now considerable). Undoubtedly many will work. Undoubtedly many will be satisfied with their new-found taxpayer support.

Sources:
1. Street Harassment in Cairo: A Symptom of Disintegrating Social Structures

2. Reconceptualizing Sexual Harassment in Egypt:
A Longitudinal Assessment of el-Taharrush el-Ginsy in Arabic Online Forums and Anti-Sexual Harassment Activism

3. Clouds in Egypt's Sky; Sexual Harassment: From Verbal Harassment To Rape


Notes:
1. From source 3:

Chapter IV: Men and Sexual Harassment

• Results show that the vast majority - 62.4%
of the male audience surveyed - confirmed
that they have perpetrated and/or continue to
perpetrate one or more of the forms of
harassment. 49.8% being ogling women’s
bodies, 27.7% whistling and shouting
comments, 15.9% shouting sexually explicit
comments, 15.4% phone harassment, 13.4
unwanted touching of women’s bodies,
12.2% following and stalking, 4.3% exposed
or pointed out his penis.

• Results confirmed that the majority of these
incidences take place in public places: 69%
on the streets, 49.1% on public
transportation, 42.4% in parks and coffee
shops, 29% in educational institutions,
19.8% on beaches, and 6.2% in the
workplace.

• Most participants stated they prefer to harass
in the evening, followed by mid-day, no
specific time, morning, and after midnight.

• Regarding frequency of harassing behavior,
the vast majority of male participants stated
they harassed women approximately once a
day, while others stated they did so more
than once a day. The minority harassed
weekly and then monthly.

• Regarding reasons for the harassing
behavior, results show that the vast majority
of harassers 41.8% believe that harassing
behavior works to satisfy their repressed
sexual desires, perhaps confirming the above
classification of the “bull harasser” who
indiscriminantly looks to satisfy his sexual
desire at any time or place with any females
he sees.

• 23.1% of the men surveyed reported that
harassing women made them feel more
masculine, more confident, stronger in
relation to women, powerful. 13.9%
considered harassing degrading and
humiliating to women, and agreed with the
conclusion that sexual harassment enhances
the already existing culture of male
hegemony through acts of violence by men
against women.

• 19.3% said that they experience no positive
or negative feelings when they harass
women because they are accustomed to
doing it since they were young.

• Results indicate that 53.8% of men blame
men’s sexual harassment of women on the
women. They interpret the cause of sexual
harassment primarily as a result of women
dressing indecently (unveiled). However,
our study shows that most victims of
harassment wear headscarves, illustrating
the falseness of this claim. 42.4% of men
also attributed harassment to women’s
beauty. One of the interviewees said that
when he sees a beautiful woman he tries to
harass her verbally first and then sees how it
might develop further. Others said that they
harass women because women enjoy it.
27.7% reported that they harass women to
satisfy their sexual desire, or to pass the
time, or to increase self-confidence. When
we analyzed these responses, we found that
all reflect the idea of masculine hegemony.
Usually men blame women, not themselves,
describing her appearance as inappropriate
or saying that she initiated it or likes to be
harassed.

Questions

Assume that there is a set of principles, [X], which are grounded absolutes.

Conditions:

Party A believes in, and lives by, all the principles of [X].

Party B believes in some of, but not all, the principles of [X], and claims that major portions of [X] must evolve due to the cultural advancement of humans.

Questions:

Which party deserves the title "Xist", who believes in "Xism"?

Which party deserves the title, "radical"? Or "apostate"? Or "heretic"?

Now refer to the prior article, just below. Then return for the rest here (or just read on, as you choose).

If "peaceful Muslims" dishonor Islam, then why are they NOT the radicals, rather than the 100% faithful Islamists? Of course, they are, but in the parlance of the Leftist accommodationists, inversion of terminology is frequently necessary in order to further the cause, the Leftist Narrative.

A prime example of that is the new use of the term, "anti-Islamic", for actions of the actual adherents of the grounded rules of Islam. Only the passionate adherents of a Narrative, taken over truth and common sense, would do such a thing.

Plus, it is the Party B, above, which more closely matches the approach of the Left, in the practice of modifying rules and morals to match whichever way the culture goes. Or more specifically, how any person chooses to "reinterpret" or even reject rules at any given moment. In other words it is intellectual and moral anarchy.

Given the obvious worldview anarchy of those in Party B as well as the Left, they all should be called Atheist. They reject any grounded "revealed" and absolute values which they don't like at a particular moment. They place themselves and their own desires and authority higher than anyone else.

They are the Radicals.