Qur’an cold calling

This evening I received a phone call from a number that seemed very strange to me.  While I was in the kitchen preparing our dinner for the evening I thought I had heard my phone ring. My wife and one of my daughters were sitting in the lounge room where my phone was but they were watching the television and there was an advert on that had a phone ringing and they thought that is what the noise was.
Anyway I came in to the lounge room to check my phone and indeed someone had called. I checked the number on the internet as it seemed weird as it was 0923158629876 and the search came up that 09231 was a German number. So I thought nothing of it and went back to what I was doing.
Suddenly my phone rang again so I answered it and it was a lady from either Pakistan or India. I immediately thought ‘Great another telemarketer’. It then hit me because I knew exactly who it was and why they were calling. On the weekend a friend had told me that she had had a phone call from someone trying to sell a program of learning about this religion online over a 3 month period. She said she wasn’t interested but new of someone that would be more than happy to talk to them, i.e. me.
So back to tonight and the phone call. The lady was telling me about this great offer where I could learn the Qur’an via an online course over a 3 month period, I acted like I had no idea what was going on, and that the classes were 3 a week 1 hour each. I replied to her that this is great that they are offering this for free to people and she was confused and said pardon, I repeated what I had said and she rather obviously said that no there was a fee for the course. I asked why were they charging people a fee for this and is there anything different that they can show me that I am not able to learn in my own version of the Qur’an. She had no answer at all for that.
Moving on to the main subject of the course, the Qur’an. I asked which version of the Qur’an they were going to teach me and again she was confused so I replied with ‘which version of the Qur’an was going to be taught to me, Sufi, Sunni, Shiite, Sunni Wahabi, Zaydis, Zaydis and so on” This really confused her and she replied with “Sunni” So I asked which branch of Islam and the Qur’an were they going to teach me then as again with Sunni there are different sects. At this I then heard a muffled male voice talking to her and her to him then all of a sudden she hung up on me.
So the point of this is that this is really rude that these people are phoning people to try and covert them. Okay they had been given my number by my friend but my friend was a random call. I find it also rude when people of any religion come to my door or phone me to try and get me to join their fairytale party.




The Quran: Multiple Authors and Multiple Languages

BY · MAY 7, 2015


Unlike the hadith collections, which were subjected to thorough scientific scrutiny by different scholars in different places and at different times, the Muslims never subjected the Quran to any form of scientific examination. On the contrary, they downloadare warned against it because scientific studies are based on doubts, which is unacceptable to Muslims who are not supposed to have any doubts about the Quran. It is essential in Islam not to doubt the divine origin of the Quran and its preservation by Allah himself. To boost their confidence, Muslims learn to recite this verse as evidence of Allah’s promise to protect his book from corruption:

Q. 15:9 “it is We who sent down the Qur’an and indeed, We will be its guardian”

Different authors of the Meccan and Medina verses

The Quranic verses are divided into two distinct groups: The Meccan verses, which were revealed over thirteen years when Mohammed was in Mecca, and the Medina verses, which were revealed in the last ten years of Mohammed’s life in Medina. The difference between the two groups is so obvious and striking in both contents and style; the Meccan verses are remarkably shorter and tend to contain more unfamiliar words. As Muslims start to learn the Quran, they are told from the beginning about the differences between the two groups. They are also given an explanation for this observation: The Arabs of Medina were less eloquent than those of Mecca, so Allah lowered the level of the Quran to match their level of understanding. I accepted this explanation for decades without questioning its logic but looking at it from where I stand today it does look a very naive justification.

The Arabs in Medina spoke the same language as those in Mecca and there is no reason to believe they would have had problems in understanding the Meccan style. Besides, they were still required to learn the Meccan verses anyway just like all Muslims do. Although not convincing, the above explanation makes a good point; it would be really nice if Allah speaks to people in languages they can understand.

There is no acceptable Islamic explanation for the striking change in style between the Meccan and Medina verses. But there must be one, and I believe it is the usual explanation behind any change of style, which is change of author. The Quran had at least two different authors but probably more. The differences between the Meccan and Medina verses are glaring enough to suggest they were even authored in different time periods. Indeed, there are indications that the Quran evolved over a long period of time that could have started before Islam.

The Quran was not preserved

Muslims claim the Quran has been preserved in the Muslims’s chests and in writing; which is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Mohammed died without collecting the Quran in a proper way, which is why some verses were missing. This is a failure worthy of attention, especially that the supposed purpose of his existence was to deliver Allah’s words to mankind, which he didn’t. The task of collecting the Quran and looking after it should have been Mohammed’s priority but obviously it wasn’t because he knew it wasn’t from Allah.

It is ridiculous to say that the Quran was preserved in the Muslims’ chests. Today’s Muslims think of Mohammed’s companions as flawless perfect human beings but they were not. Mohammed’s companions were corrupt people who sinned, cheated and committed atrocities, even against each other. Of course, they were just as vulnerable to forget as any other human being, if not even more forgetful. It is claimed that the person who was in charge of collecting the Quran, Zayd Ibn Thabit, set out a rule that rejected any verse not testified as correct by two Muslims. That rule proves to us that preservation in the chest was not trusted even by the very Muslims who collected the Quran. It was possible, despite the rule, that some of the rejected verses were correct and should have been included. Equally true, it was possible that some of the included verses were not correct and should have been rejected.

The Muslims also claim that the Quran was written by selected Muslim scribes soon after its revelation. This claim has long been accepted as a fact and taken for granted by Muslims. Although Mohammed had the resources to employ scribes in Medina, it is doubtful that such service was readily available to him in Mecca. Even if the Meccan verses were scribed, there are doubts about their safe storage, especially if those claims about his oppression by the Meccans were true. We know at least of one of the scribes ( Abdulla Ibn Abi Sarh), who admitted to have cheated by inserting some of his own words in the Quran, but we don’t know all the verses that were affected. Interestingly, when Mohammed’s forces arrested Ibn Abi Sarh after conquering Mecca, Mohammed didn’t ask the man which words he inserted in the Quran. He didn’t because he wasn’t interested as he knew it didn’t matter, since all the words weren’t from Allah.

Apparently the revealed verses were scribed by different people but the different texts didn’t match. It was this discrepancy between the various texts that prompted Uthman to order the writing of one official versionof the Qur’an and destroy all the other versions that didn’t match. Many fellow Muslims were outraged by Uthman’s decision and refused to recognize his ‘official’ version in favor of their own. Needless to say that writing material used by the scribes, such as animal skin, bones, and palm leaves were not durable. I am afraid the Quran was not preserved even in writing.

QuranThe Quran was not in Arabic

It is a historical fact that the Arabic language in the seventh century was only a spoken language. Arabia didn’t have philosophers or authors to spark off enough intellectual demand to devise a written Arabic script. Poetry was common but the Arabs kept it to where they thought it belonged – to the oral tradition. We know that the dots and diacritical marks were added to the primitive Arabic script long after Mohammed’s death. It took even longer for the idea to catch on and the system to be established as a recognized standard. Any Arab knows that the Arabic script without the dots is both meaningless and useless, because reading the text becomes an unpleasant guessing exercise. The earliest available Quranic scripts, the Sana’a manuscripts, which date back to the eight century, were without dots and almost unreadable; it took the German experts years of hard work to solve their mystery.

We must keep in mind the circumstances of the time; the slow communication and the general slow pace of life. There were no conferences or meetings between the scribes to decide and agree on the new script format. The Quran was the Arabs’ first encounter with writing and the process must have gone through a long teething period. There were no schools and no unified education system and no ‘universally’ accepted standards for the new script. It is possible that the early scribes used different script formats borrowed from different languages depending on where they learned their skills.

The early ‘Arabic script’ was not Arabic

Muslim historians tell us that the early Arabic script was without the dots, which were added generations after Mohammed’s death. Removing the dots from the Arabic script is equal to removing about half of the Arabic alphabets. The text becomes meaningless and using it turns to a pointless waste of time. Imagine an English article where A and B share the same appearance; C and D share the same appearance and so on. Why would anyone write anything using such a useless script?

It is more plausible that the early Quranic scripts were in other languages such as the Aramaic/Syriac language, from which Arabic has evolved. All those languages are Semitic, just like Hebrew, and have much in common. Syriac (a form of Aramaic) was the ‘international’ language of the region that was used for communication between various tribes in Mesopotamia and large parts of Arabia, and some Arabs learned its script for trade purposes. The Arab scribes who were available to Mohammed must have learned the Syriac script and not the Arabic script, which didn’t exist, and would have been useless anyway. The notion that anyone would use the Arabic script without the dots is too ludicrous to believe.

Muslims believe that the early Arabic script was of the Kufi style which has a similar look to the naturally dots-free Syriac script. It appears that the Muslims who were faced with the Quran’s manuscripts, centuries after Mohammed, assumed it was written in the Arabic Kufi script. To add to the confusion, it is also possible that the later parts of the Quran were indeed in Arabic script ( Arabic script has become available by the time the later verses were added). The situation was made worse when those early Muslims added dots to the Syriac script, thinking it was Arabic, to render it readable. Syriac and Arabic have many words in common which could have convinced the Muslims even further that they were dealing with an Arabic text.

It is known that the Quran contains a large number of foreign words of Aramaic, Hebrow, Persian or other origins. Some of those words have been integrated into Arabic while others remained foreign and caused problems to the authors of the early interpretation books. The use of some words remains a mystery because of the existence of Arabic equivalents, like the Syriac words sirat ( tareeq), meaning road and asfar (kutub), meaning books. Why would a writer in Arabic resorts to the use of foreign words in the presence of Arabic equivalents?

Nearly every page in the Quran contains what looks like writing errors that have always been an enigma to Muslims. Muslim scholars explained them on the basis of keeping with tradition “it has been written this way from the beginning”. There was no time when the Arabs wrote such words as they appeared in the Quran; we only need to look at the original manuscripts (makhtutat) of the early Arabic books. The following words are examples of what we mean: صلوت ـ صلاه saloot (for salat – meaning “prayer”), زكوت ـ زكاه zakoot (for zakat, “equivalent to ‘tithes’”), حيوت ـ حياه hayuoot (for hayat, meaning “life”), all of which are proper Syriac words written in an error-free Syriac script.

The above conclusions are based on logical analysis supported by evidence. Some scholarly works on this subject have already been published by western scholars. Some of those works are recent and generated the usual outrage from the Muslim scholars and organizations, which is why they didn’t receive the attention they deserved.

Muslims are incapable of studying the Quran

Muslim scholars do not feel comfortable to see non-Muslims examining Islam or writing about it, except to praise it. Orientalists are looked at with suspicion and generally regarded as spies or cultural crusaders with hostile agenda. Muslims scholars regard the field of Islamic studies as their private territory that should be shielded against strangers. Their slogan is: if you want to know about Islam, ask the Muslims, not the non-Muslims. This slogan looks perfectly reasonable from the outside but it hides a deeply rooted phobia – they can’t put up with the sight of emerging results that do not match their established beliefs.

While rejecting any outside examination of the Quran, Muslim scholars are incapable of studying the Quran themselves. It is a requirement of their faith to believe in some assumptions that make up the foundations of Islam, which they call ‘thawabit’ (fixations or fixed dogmas), or the established facts. As far as the Quran is concerned, all of the following are ‘established facts’:

It is the word of Allah revealed to Mohammed.
It is preserved; didn’t change in the past and will never do in the future.
It is in perfect Arabic and is free from any errors.
Mankind cannot produce a chapter like the Quran, even if they seek the help of Jinn (mythical beings)

With minds restrained by the above ‘established facts’,Muslim can’t examine the Quran with any degree of objectivity. Their minds are disabled even further by the protocols surrounding the looks of the Quran, its handling and its reading. Such rituals are designed to prepare the Muslim to enter into a special state of mind for the extraordinary experience of reading Allah’s words. While in such state of mind, a Muslim may notice that the book looks to him disorganized, but it can’t be because it is from Allah. He may notice what looks to him like errors, but they are not errors, because Allah is infallible. And he can only be stunned by the writing style which, on the surface, may look weak and unintelligible, but deep down it, it harbors strength and miracles, as all scholars agree. Such crippled thinking explains why all those errors and contradictions never sounded any alarms to the Muslim readers, despite reading the book hundreds of times. Muslims are confident that all of what looks like errors have been addressed and fully clarified by scholars, even though they may not grasp the clarifications themselves.

Historical Manuscripts and Language analysis

The study of the Sana’a manuscripts is of extraordinary significance. Given the attention it deserves, it should have the potential of far reaching consequences, yet not many Muslims heard of the manuscripts, let alone of the study. The Sana’a manuscripts were discovered in 1972 and were dated to about eighty years after Mohammed’s death, making them the oldest surviving Quranic scripts. They were studied by German experts, who recognized some differences between the scripts and the current Quran and found that some words were added, missing or rearranged. The German team concluded that the Quran’s text evolved over a long period of time (centuries).

Another German study looked at the Syro-Aramaic influence on the Quran and was published in the year 2000 by C. Luxenberg. The study was rejected by Muslims who considered it an attack on Islam, which is why the author used a pen name and remains in hiding. In 2006, a book published by Gabriel Soma, who is an American of Lebanese origin and speaks Arabic and Syriac fluently, reached to similar conclusions.

More recently, the celebrated British historian Tom Holland, published a book about the origin of Islam. He also produced a TV documentary about the subject that was aired on channel 4 and generated a considerable amount of complaints and threats against the author, by Muslims. In his book, Holland casts a great deal of doubt on the validity of the early Islamic history as told by Muslim scholars.

The above studies, as well as many others critical of Islam, did not get the publicity they deserved. Needless to say that such books do not get translated into Arabic or other languages spoken by Muslims. At the same time, such books do not get refuted in a scholarly manner by Muslim scholars. Muslim scholars have the nasty habit of not reading books that have the reputation of being critical of Islam, which is why they cannot critique them, but still can attack them, and believe they are justified in doing so.

The Muslims intolerance to anything critical of Islam is well known. Any idea should be open for discussion by all, especially if it interferes with the lives of people around the globe. Westerners get killed because of Islam. The West has every right to subject the Quran to even more scientific examination without any outside pressure. The results should be discussed openly in the academic circles as well as in the media for all to know without fear or intimidation. The truth must reach all, and there are millions of Muslims who search for it every day. Academic freedom is part of the dearly held value of freedom of speech and must be protected at all cost.

BY · MAY 7, 2015 source



The first alleged member of the Islamic State returns to Australia

The first alleged member of the Islamic State to return to Australia was being escorted by authorities into Sydney on Friday after giving himself up to Australian Federal Police in Turkey.1437682840538

Fairfax Media can also reveal that police and security agencies have been sharing information about Adam Brookman’s activities in the Middle East with a view to charging the Melbourne nurse with serious criminal offences.

Mr Brookman has been in Syria since early last year, including in territory controlled by the terrorist organisation. He claims he was forced to work with IS after he travelled to Syria to do humanitarian work, and insists he never carried out an act of violence.

He revealed in May to Fairfax Media that he had fled IS, was hiding out in Turkey and wanted to come home.

He claims he was forced to join the terrorist group after being injured in an air strike and sent to a hospital that was under IS control.

However, Australian authorities are sceptical of some of Mr Brookman’s claims and will question him with a view to charging him under terrorist legislation that prohibits travelling to “declared areas,” or giving aid to terrorism.

Authorities consider Mr Brookman to be a supporter of extremist causes, including the creation of an Islamic caliphate, although gathering hard evidence about his activities abroad will be challenging for the AFP.

Fairfax Media can reveal that the deal Mr Brookman struck with authorities involved him handing himself in to authorities in Turkey and being arrested as he landed in Sydney.

In return, the Australian Federal Police agreed to facilitate his return to Australia, travelling with him on a plane and escorting him to AFP headquarters in Sydney upon his arrival.

Police will interview him in an attempt to gain evidence about his activities overseas and test his claims that he was an unwilling IS conscript.

It is likely police will also examine information gathered by Western intelligence agencies about Mr Brookman’s travel, associates, financial activity, communications and any conflict-related activities.

The return raises legal issues under Australia’s anti-terror laws, where the onus of proof has been reversed: if you have been in a declared area, you must prove that you were not fighting with Islamic State.

Monash University anti-terror expert Professor Greg Barton said if Brookman “comes clean” and hands over all his communications, Australian authorities “may well say that on balance of probability, his story is plausible, and we won’t prosecute”.

However, the issue is likely to become a political firestorm, with Prime Minister Tony Abbott saying in May that returnees should be feel the full force of the law.

“If you go and you seek to come back, as far as this government is concerned you will be arrested, you will be prosecuted and you will be jailed,” he said.

However, police may find it difficult to secure a prosecution. A well placed security source told Fairfax Media: “The problem is getting evidence to support our suspicions”.

It is understood Mr Brookman met radical Islamic figures during his travels in the Middle East. He appears to have avoided discussing his activities online, creating one Facebook page using an alias that described his location as Antarctica.

In a statement given exclusively to Fairfax Media, the AFP’s national manager for counter-terrorism Neil Gaughan said Mr Brookman was “subject to ongoing investigations” and that “at this stage” had not been charged.

“If there is evidence an Australian has committed a criminal offence under Australia law while involved in the conflict in Syria and Iraq, they will be charged and put before the courts.”

Mr Brookman’s AFP-facilitated return is likely to be welcomed by family members of the wife and children of Australia’s most notorious fighter, Khaled Sharrouf. They are attempting to negotiate with Australian authorities to return to Australia.

Mr Sharrouf was reportedly killed along with his friend, Mohamed Elomar, in a recent coalition air strike, although authorities have not been able to confirm his death.

In an exclusive interview with Fairfax Media in May, Mr Brookman, a father of five, denounced the slaughter of innocent civilians, including by crucifixion, in the war zone in Syria.

“I don’t agree with what they do at all,” he said at the time.

“I don’t agree with their kidnapping, with their dealings with other Muslim groups, and especially after they started executing journalists and other innocent civilians.”

“I never went there to fight, I went there as a nurse. I support the struggle of the Syrian people.”

Mr Brookman said he had no choice but to join IS after he was sent to a hospital under the control of the group.

“After I recovered they wouldn’t let me leave,” he said, saying the group’s members were suspicious of him until he resumed his medical work. “One you work, you get trusted,” he said.

Mr Brookman has insisted he never personally committed an act of violence, saying he avoided  undertaking military training.

He said he had witnessed the aftermath of a crucifixion of a man suspected of spying for Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.

He said he “did not necessarily” oppose the punishment, saying his concern was whether the man was guilty.

“I agree with capital punishment . . . I don’t agree with innocent people being executed.”

Security sources are sceptical of aspects Mr Brookman’s story. Several other Melbourne men who travelled to Syria in 2012 and 2013 also claim to have been providing aid, but were lauded as fighters on online jihadist forums after their deaths. Some of these men had attended Preston mosque, and at least one visited a gym owned by relative of Mr Brookman.

The sources also say that by providing medical attention to wounded fighters, he may have been aiding terrorist groups.

Returning jihadists could face up to 25 years in prison if they have been found to have been fighting with a terror group, or found to have been in areas of Syria and Iraq banned under new anti-terror laws.

Mr Brookman was raised in regional Victoria and is a convert to Islam. He married into a devout Muslim family based in Melbourne’s northern suburbs and has several children.

He worked as a nurse in Victoria, and provided humanitarian aid, including at an Indonesian orphanage, before going to Syria.

His wife, who did not wish to be identified, said in May that her children needed their father, and she wanted him to return home.




How Islam fascinates the West

Or: How the West is duped by “The Religion of Peace”

Written by BY

To allow one group of people to create conditions whereby the rest of a population are made nervous, and then to allow them with impunity to accuse that remainder of paranoia, is a denial of reality. People who are forced to live under this double bind — that they will be damned if they speak out against this erosion of culture and free speech and damned again if they do not — have a third oppression added to their existence — they are forced to live with the consequences of not speaking out.

The reaction of this and previous UK governments to Islamist demands and threats of violence reminds me of parents who are terrified of their toddlers’ tantrums and, being incapable of providing appropriate boundaries, end up raising thugs who cannot create boundaries for themselves and wreak havoc if they are ever thwarted. The UK and other western governments make the same mistakes again and again: instead of trying to apprehend the influence of Islamism from within its own world view and in terms of how it perceives “the kuffar” or non-believers, and reacting accordingly, they persist in superimposing a western, liberal, inclusive veneer upon Islamism’s motives. Perhaps they believe that if they do this often enough and for long enough they will turn this magical and woefully misguided interpretation into reality; perhaps they lack the moral courage to confront the dangers Islamism presents to western values of pluralism; perhaps they are criminally ignorant of those dangers; perhaps all of the foregoing or none of them.

Be that as it may, the reader may agree that the western sense of the reality of Islamism has been consistently and deliberately warped by Muslim spokesmen (and they are invariably men). Islam is a supremacist religion. Its self-declared aim[1] is to rule the world. Below I shall explore the mechanism whereby, I believe, Islam deliberately fascinates its host countries in the West.

I use “fascinates” in its psychological sense — for I believe that the West has fallen under the spell of the notion of a mythical, peaceful Islam in its midst, deliberately promoted by its spokesmen.

The West’s only salvation is to act to literally break that spell. True, there may be individual Muslims in the West who merely want a quiet life, to practise their faith in peace and not to impose their ideas on their neighbours, but their voice, where they use it at all, is drowned out by that of the vociferous, confrontational minority who would impose Islamism upon us all and drag their peaceful but apathetic co-religionists along in their wake.

I have taken the concept of “fascination” from hypnotherapy, where it was originally employed byFranz Anton Mesmer (1734-1815) a physician. Originally the fascination process was thought to be dependent upon gaze, but currently mesmerism (as it came to be called) may be used interchangeably with hypnotism to refer to an altered state of consciousness and on occasion the hypnotic trance which the latter induces.

I do not argue that Muslim spokesmen deliberately set out to alter the consciousness of non-Muslims in the West in such a scientific fashion. However, there is frequent reiteration to the wider public of what are said to be core Muslim beliefs. One is that Islam is a “religion of peace”, for example, when more terror attacks[2] are perpetrated by Muslims than by any other faith system.

There are also sundry other statements regarding Islam’s being-in-the-world, all of which are deliberately aimed at mollifying rather than being totally honest about Muslim intentions. These, I would argue, have a very similar effect.

There is also the deliberate use of Tawriya, Kitman and Taqiyya,[3] dissimulation and sometimes outright lying sanctioned by Islam for Muslims in their dealings with non-believers when they believes themselves to be under threat. (The reader should note that whether or not the perceivedthreat is real is beside the point for the user of taqiyya. In his mind, if he believes himself to be under threat even where there is no evidence, he is permitted to lie or use other forms of deceit).

Most ordinary people in western cultures hold truth-telling to be sacrosanct and, because it is natural to assume that the other person is also telling the truth, we are all too easily fooled by those who, for example, avow the peaceable nature of Islam even shortly after innocents have been killed in its name. Even when some brave soul confronts a Muslim spokesman with the fact that he has lied or is lying, the spokesman will persist in such claims, invariably trying to deflect responsibility; he will change the subject, play the victim,[4] play semantics, and use other deceits. For the listener, to have to deal with the cognitive dissonance[5] brought about by regular exposure to taqiyya, let alone the other challenges presented by Islamism, is to be made psychologically vulnerable.

In short, just as mesmeric fascination is supposed to be brought about by eye contact and gaze, I suggest that a similar process obtains with the repeated use of words and phrases in both mollifying and furious tones, as well as the unique importance Islamism places upon taqiyya and lying to unbelievers. Below I shall explore how Islamism might affect Joe and Jane Public, typical Western people who know little about Islam.


The Fascination Process

In order for a person to become fascinated in the sense in which I mean, there have to be circumstances which predispose him/her to be so. To call this assault on reality “brainwashing” may seem a little extreme (see Barker, 1984)[6], but nevertheless the ideological and literal offensive undertaken by Islamism in the West has elements of brainwashing within it.

Thus the fascination process may begin with an assault on the target’s identity.

We are being told about the rootlessness of the Western psyche by our more thoughtful spiritual leaders as well as intelligent thinkers. Melanie Phillips[7], in particular, inveighs against the mismatch where, in an age of reason, we are behaving increasingly irrationally and she argues that the basic cause of this explosion of irrationality is the slow but steady marginalization of religion. In an age where we tell ourselves that faith and reason are incompatible, the opposite is the case. Phillips argues that without its religious traditions, the West has drifted into mass derangement where truth and lies, right and wrong, victim and aggressor are all turned upside down. Israel is demonised, and the US is vilified over the war on terror — all on the basis of blatant falsehoods and obscene propaganda. This abandonment of rationality, Phillips says, leaves the West vulnerable to real threats. Faced with the genuine challenges of spiralling demographics and violent, confrontational Islamism, the West is no longer willing or able to defend the modernity and rationalism that it once brought into being.

I believe that the assault on Western identity by Islamism takes advantage of the profound cognitive dissonance[8] which has come about as a result of the conflicted reactions to Islamist behaviour towards Westerners in the societies into which it has been invited: Western values are pluralistic and inclusive and tend, for the most part, to be tolerant of difference, provided that the difference is not imposed upon them in an aggressive way. In the UK, for example, wave after wave of immigrants have been absorbed, although often with reservation, into the fabric of our society.

Islam, however, has kept itself apart and, moreover, has insisted that it be awarded special privileges and that notice be taken of its hair trigger sense of grievance. Alongside this it conveys a sense of menace about what might happen if its grievances are not taken on board and changes made to accommodate them. When Geert Wilders was invited to the UK House of Lords in 2009, for example,Lord Ahmed, a Muslim peer, threatened to mobilise[9] 10,000 Muslims to prevent Wilders from entering Parliament if the visit was allowed. The British police had had experience of dealing with violent Muslims in the protests against the Danish Embassy[10] in London in 2006 as a result of the Mohammed cartoons, and Wilders was made persona non grata in the UK in 2009 because the UK did not want a repeat performance. The ensuing outcry led to Wilders visit being cancelled. He visited subsequently, however, and without significant incident.

Let us see how Islam’s propensity to stand reason on its head plays out in the lives of a mythical couple, Joe and Jane Public:

Islamists, whilst condemning western democratic processes on the one hand, on the other never hesitate to use them against those whom they perceive to be acting against Islamist interests. Each Islamist protest against real or imagined infringements of Muslim human rights (human rights which, under sharia law, would be dispensed with in a flash for Joe and Jane Public) comes with a reminder that although Joe and Jane Public may resent such behaviour, for them to show their resentment openly would mean that they do not support those human rights for Muslims. Joe and Jane want to perceive themselves as decent human beings, and may define “decent” in pluralistic, inclusive, “live and let live” terms. At the same time, however, they recognise the unfairness and manipulativeness of Islamism’s demand to be treated as a special case and to be allowed to impose more and more of its values on them, and they deeply resent it. However, if they express that resentment they are manipulated into believing that they have betrayed their “politically correct” values. In the face of the cognitive dissonance this creates in them, they are either forced into silence or they overreact to try to relieve it.

Joe and Jane Public’s identity having been undermined by the combination of marginalisation from their roots and cognitive dissonance, Islamism then plays on whatever guilt may be there, and the psychologically weakening nature of guilt further “softens up” the subjects for the next stage of the fascination process.

At this stage Islamism, usually so adept at obfuscation and refusing to name what is actually going on, now works hard at exacerbating the discomfort. The Islamist knows that Joe and Jane Public resent, even hate, what he stands for, and maybe even hate him, but he also knows that their western pluralistic value system and political correctness, together with their fear of his possible opting for violence, prevents them from naming that deep resentment for what it is, much less from acting on it. Joe and Jane have fallen from their own grace even by feeling it and of course they feel guilty. They may even compensate for the harm they imagine themselves to have done by over-identifying with those they perceive to be the underdogs. Perceived through this lens, “We are all Hamas now!” becomes rather more than a mere statement of solidarity.

Having crossed the Rubicon and admitted their identification with Hamas (or Hezbollah or any other Islamist cause) Joe and Jane cannot now turn back. The next stage of the fascination process for them is public self-betrayal. They have betrayed whatever roots they had by their association with Islamists and betraying Islamists in turn would cause them yet more cognitive dissonance. Their only recourse is to become more Islamist than Islamists. You might find them alongside other dislocated souls at rallies denouncing the West for holding the “wrong” value system and for supporting Jews and Zionists and for its betrayal of Islamism, the Palestinians or whomever. At this stage Joe and Jane are still capable of feeling ashamed that they have betrayed their roots but so caught up are they in the group-think of other fellow travellers with Islamism that they dare not acknowledge that guilt, much less blame themselves or take responsibility to act to change it. Rather, they displace their guilt and shame onto “Zionists,” “Jews,” “Western colonialists” and others who, they have come to believe, are the root cause of their discontent.

The next stage, the end game, consolidates Islamism’s hold over Joe and Jane as it makes them into the creatures of its drive to power. It is to start asking “Who am I, what am I supposed to do?” and it heralds the almost complete inability of Joe and Jane Public to be insightful and capable of objective analysis of what is happening to them. Although they can look after themselves, even hold jobs, their perceptions have been so narrowed that only political messages which chime with their acquired world view will get through. Joe’s and Jane’s value systems have become so degraded that they can no longer be as they once were. They can ignore the excesses of Islamism, its treatment of gays and women because these get in the way of their support for, for example, the “oppressed Palestinians.” They are focused, obsessed even, with the ‘wrongs’ perpetrated against Palestinians for which only Israel and America are to blame. They are instruments of and useful idiots for Islamism, alongside the more famous useful idiots such as George Galloway, whose vainglory actually had him funding terrorism,[11] and Lauren Booth,[12] who even converted to Islam. Joe and Jane Public are two of hundreds, perhaps thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands of politically immature naifs who are ignorant of the true nature of what they support so totally. And Islamism uses them as it uses everyone and everything it thinks can help it dominate the rest of us.


Can the fascination trance by Islamism be broken?

It can at an individual level.

Islamism is cult-like in that it demands complete and mindless agreement from Muslims and Islamism’s fellow travellers also offer this to it. Where Islamism succeeds it is because it keeps on hammering home its message and continues to exacerbate cognitive dissonance and, importantly, uses the threat of violence if it does not get its way.

Consonance (the opposite of dissonance) can be achieved by learning to sit with the discomfort of that dissonance so that the listener will not acquiesce in whatever seems to be offered as an instant cure for it. He/she may indeed be a Western liberal who is respectful of all difference, but why should one respect a faith system which rubbishes everyone else and wants to bend people to its will rather than respect their beliefs? And why should people resort to such a belief simply to end the discomfort of not being able to respect it?

The most important defence is to recognise when Islamist spokesmen are trying to fascinate. People need to become more aware of their different states of consciousness, and to work out how to ground themselves in the here and now and use that grounding. They need to build up resistance to repetitive messages, particularly if they are delivered using identical words. They need to actively cease listening or, if they know enough about Islam, actively challenge Islamists and watch their reactions. An example of a good challenge to Islamist purveyors of hatred can be found here[13] on CiF Watch.[14] Note that the person did not rise to their bait. Those Islamists lost the argument then and subsequently because they became angry.

People also need to learn as much as they can about Islamism from as many sources as possible. In particular, they should try to find out about what makes people leave Islam (good sources are here[15] and here[16]). Notable authors who have left Islam are Walid Shoebat[17] and Dr Wafa Sultan.[18] No faith or belief system should be immune to criticism and anyone who insists that Islam is perfect is lying. A good way to reality test whether Islam really is the peaceful religion it claims is to find out about dissident groups in Islamic societies and how they are treated.

Unfortunately, the task becomes harder at a collective level. Western governments have been successfully entranced by a combination of cognitive dissonance and preoccupation with self-interest when they deal with Islamism, and its purveyors know this. Western leaders will do almost anything to be seen to be “nice people” in their attitude to Islamists so as not to incite riots among their Muslim populations and to get more Muslim votes.

European governments in particular carry with them folk memories of two world wars and their impact. This has led to an inclination towards appeasement, a belief that anything is better than fighting (literally) for what is right, and the adoption of “multiculturalism” as a foolish attempt to co-opt those who would destroy Europe, rather than opposing them.

People like us elect those governments. We need to tell our government representatives how we feel and not shrink from naming the dangers of Islamism as we perceive them, providing proof. We need to break the trance of Islamism before we are engulfed by it. We can do this by naming its excesses for what they are, by flagging up every human rights infringement, by naming and shaming our governments every time they give in to demands by Muslims for special treatment, by insisting that Islam receives no more and no less respect than any other faith, by insisting that it respects all other faiths as it demands to be respected.

We need to protest loudly and publicly whenever Islamists are scornful of our beliefs and values. We need to defang Islamism by naming the dangers of believing without proof anything it offers, by demanding that proof and pointing out any evasions, lies or failures to provide it. There are many decent Muslims in the West who are tainted and made fearful by the growth of violent Islamist extremism. We need to help them to be heard and to stand up for themselves without fear.

full article



Honor Killing is about Islam

Honor killing happens in all Islamic counties, and thanks to the immigration of Muslims it has now spread to Europe, America, Australia and also Canada. Honor killing is neither in the Quran nor in the hadith. However, it is the logical consequence of the Islamic misogyny and upbringing.

Here is an article written by by Dr. Ali Sina in 2010. It is even more relevant 5 years later. 

Turkish police recovered the body of Medine Memi, a 16-year-old girl who was buried alive by her father and grandfather in an “honor” killing carried out as punishment for talking to boys.

She was found in a sitting position with her hands tied, in a two-meter hole dug under a chicken pen outside her home in Kahta, in the south-eastern province of Adiyaman.

Medine had been abused and beaten by her father and grandfather several times and she had sought help from Police three times, only to be sent back to her home.

Medine’s father had told relatives he was unhappy that his daughter – one of nine children – was talking to boys.

Official figures indicate that more than 200 such killings take place each year, accounting for around half of all murders in Turkey.

What makes this case particularly disturbing is its gruesomeness. A postmortem examination revealed large amounts of soil in Medine’s lungs and stomach, indicating that she had been alive and conscious while being buried. Her body showed no signs of bruising.

Honor killing happens in all Islamic counties, and thanks to the immigration of Muslims it has now spread to Europe, America, Australia and also Canada.

Governments in Islamic countries claim to do their best to put an end to this evil practice. Then why it cannot be stopped and why it is spreading?

Honor KillingsTo find an answer we must understand where the problem is originated. Honor killing is neither in the Quran nor in the hadith. However, it is the logical consequence of the Islamic misogyny and upbringing.
Women in Islam are seen as sexual beings. Every part of their body is thought to be erotic. Every square inch of her, is sexual. She must cover from head to toe, because her entire body is perceived to be private parts.

In Pakistan, women are called awra. Awra or aurat means the part of the body that has to be covered. Exposing the Awra is unlawful in Islam and is regarded as sin. Etymologically, the term Awra derives from the root ‘a-w-r which means “defectiveness”, “imperfection”, “blemish” or “weakness” – however the most common English translation is “nakedness”. The Islamic regime of Iran calls women zaifeh. It’s the feminine for “weak.” This implies also mental weakness since according to Muhammad women are deficient in intelligence. This sums up the status of woman in Islam. You can’t be more explicit than this.

In a society that women are seen as weak, defective, blemished and private part, any contact that they may have with men is deemed to be sexual and unlawful.

Women in Muslim countries are segregated. From the very childhood boys and girls are kept apart. They don’t play with each other, don’t go to school with each other, don’t ride on the same bus, and don’t shake hand or have eye contact. Any contact with women can arouse the pious Muslim men sexually, which would not only cause him to sin, but also would dishonor her male relatives.

The Quran (4:34) says men are in charge of women. The same verse also says “good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded.”

The secret is their awra. Since in Islam the woman’s whole body is considered to be sexual, they must cover every part of their body and avoid contact with stranger men. Verse 24:31 says believing women must lower their gaze, be modest and they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty to strangers.

In the west, one can shake hand with a woman, dance with her and even kiss her on the cheek, and none of that is considered to be sexual. But one must not touch her in her crotch. That is private part.

A Muslim woman’s entire body is private part. So if you shake hand with her it is the same as touching her crotch. If she displays her hair, it is as exposing her pubic hair. Everything in her is sexual and private part.
In Islam women are the namoos (ناموس) of their male relatives. Namoos can be roughly translated as honor, but with a sexual connotation. The namoos of a Muslim hinges on protecting his female kin from prying eyes. If a woman displays her beauty or talks to a stranger man, the namoos of all her male relatives is injured. The only way to redeem an injured namoos is to wash the stain with blood.

Patriarchal societies produce men with devalued sense of self. Therefore, a Muslim man’s “honor,” depends almost entirely on how he can keep his female dependants under leash. Should he fail to do that he is shamed. He knows that everyone will be talking about him and laughing at him behind his back.
He can restore his namoos by killing the woman that has been “defiled.” The Islamic society does not look down at such a man, but rather he is lionized as having ghairat (pride, sense of honor).1356651918_6457_qamargul_afghan_woman

The question is how to stop this insanity. Now that we know the root cause of this problem the answer is obvious. The problem is Islamic misogyny. We can’t expect more from a society that treats its women as deficient in intelligence, defective, weak and something to be covered. Where women are dehumanized and sexualized honor killing is the outcome.

Honor killing is not the only problem affecting Islamic countries. Dictatorship, violence, terrorism, poverty, human rights abuses, and a host of other problems that are endemic in Muslim countries are all due to teachings of Islam.

There is one obvious solution for all these problems, but it is politically incorrect to say it. The problem is Islam, and the solution is to get rid of it. This required telling the truth about this faith and criticizing it in the same way that Christianity and all other faiths have been criticized. However, while it is okay to criticize every other faith, criticizing Islam is taboo – in Europe, it is illegal.

The Dutch government is prosecuting a member of their parliament (Geert Wilders) for telling the truth about Islam. His prosecutor has said it clearly that it does not matter whether Wilders has told the truth, because it was illegal to say it.

Telling the truth is illegal. But only truth can set us free. Meanwhile, thousands of innocent girls like Medine, thousands of victims of terrorism, and thousands of victims of religious violence will meet their death every year in the hands of devout Muslims who just want to practice their faith, faithfully. Even these murderers are victims of a lie.

There is no end to these senseless killings until Islam is criticized in the same way that other faiths have been criticized. Until then more lives will be lost.

Ali Sina is the author of Understanding Muhammad: a Psychobiography of Allah’s Prophet;and a founder of the movement of ex-Muslims, Faithfreedom International (www.faithfreedom.org)



Former Muslim; If you convert you die.

nonie_darwishBy Nonie Darwish

If you convert you die.

Few Americans know what is going on inside the Muslim world and what it portends for them. The fact is that, most Americans are subjected to much of the same misinformation with regard to Islam that I grew up with inside the Muslim world. Thus Americans are in the dark attempting to formulate their strategy to defend themselves against the threat of terror, domestic jihad and Sharia. While they get ridiculed for being ‘Islamophobes’, the Muslim world itself is undergoing a huge and painful awakening.

For instance, a prominent Egyptian lawyer and women’s rights activist Nagla Al Imam recently announced her conversion to Christianity in Cairo, Egypt. The announcement brought shock waves in and beyond Egypt. This is perhaps the first case ever of its kind where a Muslim woman, who is also a Sharia expert, has openly challenged Islamic apostasy laws.

Ms. Al Imam’s incredible courage was on display in an internet chat room, where she announced that she is not afraid, will stand up for the human rights of apostates and refused to leave her homeland, Egypt. This was immediately followed by attacks and calls for death of the 36 year-old graduate of Al Azhar Islamic University. Egyptian media not only reported the threat but actually participated in the attacks. Ms. Al Imam was literally lured by a TV station ‘Al Mihwar’ with the pretext of inviting her for an interview. Upon arrival to the studio she was told the show she was to appear on was cancelled. She was then taken forcibly to a room where she was held against her will for hours inside the studio. She was assaulted, threatened and insulted by several people. She was able to escape, and went to her internet chat room telling the world what happened and said she will demand protection from the Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

Such actions are common not only against apostates but also against Arab reformists, journalists, intellectuals and feminists who are critical of the oppression of Sharia. They are often intimidated, threatened or even killed for the slightest independent views using the apostasy card to keep them quiet. Journalist Farag Foda, accused of apostasy for advocating women’s rights, was gunned down in 1991 in front of his home in Cairo.

Another recent case in Egypt is that of a brilliant intellectual by the name of Sayed Mahmoud El Qemany. He was recently accused of apostasy even though he denied it on TV and insisted he is still a Muslim. That did not stop several fatwas of death from being issued against him. Mr. El Qemany reported 9 threats on his life and pleaded to the world when he wrote the following:

“I call upon the conscience of all humanity in the free world to come to me and my children’s rescue by providing moral support and the condemnation and denunciation of the radical thinking with quick solutions to save us from the danger that is luring around us. This is a distress call to all bodies and individuals. A call to the consciences of every free individual in the world. Signed: Sayed Mahmoud El Qemany- Researcher”

The relatively few number of Muslims who dare to convert to Christianity do that in extreme secrecy. That is because the penalty for leaving Islam is death in all schools of Sharia, both Sunni and Shiite. Those who wrote Sharia centuries ago knew that keeping Muslims in total submission would be very difficult to maintain, and thus they established barbaric laws condemning Muslims to death for exercising their basic human rights to choose their religion. Sharia never entrusted its enforcement only to the formal legal system. Islam promises heavenly rewards to individual Muslims who take the law into their own hands. Sharia states that the killers of apostates and adulterers are not to be punished as murderers. That is why, for Islam to achieve 100% compliance to Sharia enforcement, Muslim individuals were told they must be Allah’s enforces of Sharia on earth if the government fails to do so. That is the reason honor killing and killing of apostates happen in the West.

The end result is a chaotic society where everything happens behind closed doors but at a very heavy price to Muslim society and interpersonal relationships. Fear and distrust of others exist in all Muslim society. Muslims are not just distrustful of the West, but they are distrustful of one another. People are often more afraid of their neighbors and family members than the police. Thus we see husbands or father pressured to apply Sharia by killing an adulterous wife or daughter, or a perfect stranger participate in killing of an apostate in the public square. Very few get arrested or punished for such crimes across the Muslim world. The ingenious Sharia uses vigilante street justice to bring about Islamic submission. That is why civil unrest, assassinations, coups, and honor crimes go where ever Islam goes. The power of Islam comes from turning Muslim against Muslim with a reward in heaven.

But the 21st century has brought major change to the Muslim world. This is perhaps the first time in the history of Islam that Muslims finally have access to the truth about their own religion, thanks to the Internet and satellite dishes (invented by infidels). There are daily news reports of heart-broken Muslims who say they cannot believe what is written in Muslim scriptures and say that Muslims have been living under the greatest lie in human history, others simply deny the undeniable saying that it can’t be. While Saudi Arabia is spending billions to Islamize the West, many Muslim prisoners of Islamic law are dying or leaving the religion quietly.

Islamic tyranny is encapsulated in a law (Sharia) where many Muslims escaped from when they moved to America. But some Muslims claim it to be their religious right in America. Many American citizens who left Islam are living in constant fear from Islamist individuals and groups right here, in the land of the free and home of the brave. I am one of them.

source; http://formermuslimsunited.org/apostasy-from-islam/



Islam – Insane Fatawah and Islamic Law

The Little Green Book is a collection of fatawah handed down by the most prominent and arguably one of the most influential Muslim clerics in modern history; the Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Ruhollah Mosavi Khomeini, commonly known as the Ayatollah Khomeini. Fatawah (the plural of fatwah) are Islamic religious decrees sent down by Muslim religious leaders. Since Islam demands that Muslims abide by Sharia – Islamic law as individuals and as a society, these fatawah are not simply religious insights or advice. They are legal pronouncements, and define the law of the land in an Islamic country. In his unrivaled role as Iran’s Supreme Leader and the highest-ranking cleric for Shi’a Muslims, the Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatawah guided the lives of more Shi’a Muslims than did any other Islamic leader throughout history.”


Some of the fatawah that have been declared by the Ayatollah Khomeini include but are not limited to;

 ‘Guidelines for having sex with animals.’

“ A man can have sex with sheep, cows and camels – however, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm, He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village,” – “ However, selling the meat to the next door village should be fine.”

“ If one commits the act of sodomy with a cow, a ewe or a camel,…their urine and their excrement become impure and even their milk may no longer be consumed.” – “ The animal must then be killed and as quickly as possible and burned.”

Islamic teachings on sex with infants

“A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. If he penetrates and the child is harmed then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however, would not count as one of his (4) permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl’s sister.”

Non Muslims are “impure”

“Every part of the body of a non-Muslim individual is impure, even the hair on his hand and his body hair, his nails, and all the secretions of the body. Any man or woman who denies the existence of Allah, or believes in His partners [the Christian Trinity], or else does not believe in His Prophet Muhammad, is impure (in the same way as are excrement, urine, dog, and wine). He is so even if he doubts any one of these principles. A child who has not reached puberty is impure if his parents and grandparents are not Muslims, but if he has one Muslim in his ancestry he is pure.
One must avoid giving the Qur’an to an infidel; it is even recommended that it be forcibly taken away from him if he already has it in his hands. ”


“A father or a paternal grandfather has the right to marry off a child who is insane or who has not reached puberty by acting as its representative. The child may not annul such a marriage after reaching puberty or regaining his sanity, unless the marriage is to his manifest disadvantage. ”

“A man who has committed adultery with his aunt must not marry her daughters, that is to say, his first cousins. If a man who has married his first cousin commits adultery with her mother, the marriage is not thereby annulled. If a man commits adultery with a woman other than his aunt, it is highly recommended that he not marry the daughter of that woman. If he marries a woman, consummates the marriage, and then commits adultery with her mother, the marriage is not thereby annulled. Nor is it automatically annulled in the case of his having committed such adultery before the marriage was consummated, but in that case it is better if the husband voluntarily annuls the marriage. A Muslim woman may not marry a non-Muslim man; nor may a Muslim man marry a non-Muslim woman in continuing marriage, but he may take a Jewish or Christian woman in temporary marriage. ”

Read more – http://islammonitor.org/uploads/docs/greenbook.pdf



UK’s First Female Sharia Judge: ‘We Can’t Ask Muslims Not to Have More Than One Wife’

Britain’s first female Sharia law judge has issued a brazen warning that flies in the face of UK law, stating that the “government cannot ask Muslims not to have more than one wife”.

The news comes on the back of a report by the Times newspaper which claims that Britain is experiencing a “surge” in Sharia marriages, as young British Muslims adopt a more hard line religious stance than their parents.

The Times reports:

“As many as 100,000 couples are living in such marriages, which are not valid under UK law, experts said. Ministers have raised fears that women can be left without the right to a fair share of assets if the relationship ends, while others are forced to return to abusive “husbands”.”

A leading Islamic family lawyer warned that the increase in Sharia ceremonies among the 2.7 million-strong Muslim population in Britain was also behind a growth in “secret polygamy”.

“Probably a quarter of all couples I see involve polygamy issues,” Aina Khan told The Times. “There has been a huge rise in recent years because people can have a secretnikah [Islamic marriage] and no one will know about it.”

The growth in a parallel marriage system that bypassed the register office was being driven by Muslims aged below 30, who were becoming more religious, she said. Other factors include finding a way around the expectation of no sex before marriage and a fear of British family courts, which presume that assets should be split equally.

184Muslim Arbitration Tribunals, colloquially known as Sharia courts, have existed in the United Kingdom since 1996, when the Arbitration Act began to allow for different religious laws to be applied in cases such as divorce.

While the tribunals are supposed to work within UK law, recent reports suggest that young Muslims are not registering their marriages with the government under UK civil law, instead simply using nikha ceremonies, which can lead to men having a number of wives, and none of the legal responsibility towards them usually afforded to spouses under the 1949 Marriage Act.

Now, Amra Bone, who is the UK’s first female Sharia council judge, has said that “the government cannot — ask Muslims not to have more than one wife. People have a right to decide for themselves,” implying that British Muslims are free to operate outside UK law, as a rule unto themselves and the Sharia courts they feel are legitimate.

Muslim women who enter into marriage in Islamic ceremonies are often duped into thinking that the marriage under Islamic law is enough to protect them under UK law. As such, they receive none of the usual protections under UK law, such as assets being divided in cases of divorce.

Raheem Kassam is editor-in-chief of BreitbartLondon.com and a fellow at Middle East Forum.



We as a country must not let this happen again to any human.

So Bad So Good's photo.

In Australia, until the 1960s, Aborigines came under the ‘Flora & Fauna Act’, which classified them as animals, not human beings.

This was just shocking and disgusting that fellow human beings were treated like this. This is exactly what is happening in the Middle East by Muslims. This is exactly why I am so against Islam. I am not Islamaphobic. I am not racist nor am I a bigot. I just don’t want to see this kind of behaviour appearing in Australia again. With the way the Australian Labor and the Greens with Sarah Hanson Young having an open door policy to absolutely everyone, there is a clear and present danger of this very act being allowed here.
This action from the ALP and Greens needs to be blocked right now. I am not saying this to block immigrants because my wife and children are immigrants as are a lot of my friends. I am not saying we should stop letting in asylum seekers because there are many millions that really do need help. What we need to join together and act as one is stopping this.
There many ways to stop this and the first is becoming educated in all of these subjects. This may not happen in our life time but it could likely happen in our children’s lifetime. Look at Europe, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Israel, France, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and so on. What makes Australia any different? Nothing. Absolutely nothing at all. We are a small nation on the grand scheme of things in the world and we do have an extremely small impact on the world and we are being forced by the UN to just take anyone. We cannot let that happen. We want and need people that want to come to Australia that wish to become a part of Australia and our values. Listen to David Cameron’s speech from the yesterday the 20/07, it is on Youtube and I very rarely agree with him but this is one thing i really do. Just as it is important to be a unite Britain we need to be doing exactly the same thing here. The Australian Parliament is not doing enough to achieve this and is in fact driving a wedge in the community. Multiculturalism does not work but multi-ethnicity will work if we as a nation want it to work.
The only way to stop this is take action right now and unite as one, people from all different walks of life need to do this now for out countries future. The spread of Islam and Islamism is a real, serious threat not just to Europe and America but to every country in the world.

Craig Robinson




David Cameron speech on plans to combat extremism

I don’t often agree with David Cameron but this is the first Prime Minister or President of ANY Western Nation to speak out about some of the very issues we are striving to have all governments to start implementing. It won’t be easy and also needs to be paid for somehow but it is great to see a start and shows that even though the Western Australian government is going to do a campaign it shows they aren’t doing enough still to tackle the real issues that we as a nation face from within the Muslim community.

The speech starts from around the 36 minute mark.