- ‘None of Wilders’s speeches incites violence against anyone; the violence that
surrounds him is directed only at him. - The only person talking about these problems is Geert Wilders. Dutch political leaders and most journalists seemingly prefer to claim that Geert Wilders is the problem; that if he were not there, these problems would not exist.
- What adherents of this view, that the West is guilty, “forget” is that Islam long oppressed the West: Muslim armies conquered Persia, the Christian Byzantine Empire, North Africa and the Middle East, Spain, Greece, Hungary, Serbia and the Balkans, and virtually all of Eastern Europe. The Muslim armies were a constant threat until the marauding Ottoman troops were finally turned away at the Gates of Vienna in 1683.’ https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10179/geert-wilders-suicide-europe
Lest we forget!
Islam
All posts tagged Islam
Here is what Chuck Balwin thinks about the recent attacks by the USA on Assad.
‘My comments on Trump’s missile attack against Syria:
No evidence has been presented proving that the Assad government launched chemical weapons against its own people. NONE. But there are plenty of independent sources that 
say that the chemical weapons were brought into Syria by rebels, aka CIA-supported terror groups.
In my humble opinion, one would have to be an idiot to think that President Assad would be stupid enough to use chemical weapons when he knows that the the U.S. is just looking for any excuse to bomb his government, invade his capital, and even remove him from office–meaning KILL him.
This is shades of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya all over again.
FYI, who is it that has protected the Christians in Syria? Not Trump. Not Obama. Not Bush. Assad, that’s who. And which country’s population supports its president by a whopping 80%. Not Great Britain. Not the United States. Syria, that’s who.
Donald Trump is quickly living up to my worst fears about his presidency: he is escalating war all over the world. Think about it: the U.S. military launched at least 50 missiles into Syria. 50!!! When did Congress declare war against Syria? What gives a U.S. President the right to launch missiles against a foreign country without a Declaration of War from Congress? Now, we are hearing rumors that Trump is about to launch missiles into North Korea.
Read my columns. This has been my concern about Trump from Day One. Goodness gracious! The man has barely learned his way around the White House and he has sent troops (or increased troop strength) into several foreign countries (including Syria); given the CIA the power to launch drone attacks at will; given the Pentagon broad authority to use military force at its own discretion; launched 50 missiles into a country that is absolutely NO threat to the United States; and is threatening to attack more nations–and soon.
Donald Trump is G.W. Bush on steroids. I said earlier that Trump might take us into WW III before he ends his first term. But at this rate, we might be in WW III before he reaches the 100-day mark.’ https://www.facebook.com/ChuckBaldwinMT/posts/1499344543409798
I agree with Chuck Baldwin. This action will probably escalate into something worse and become another long drawn out no-win war or the end of America as it once was. Has anyone thought who takes Assad’s place if he is ousted? What is Trump’s plan, if any? As I see it, this is another excuse for more Islamic attacks on Westerners.
- ‘Can you imagine making a joke and facing death as a result?
- “During his interrogation, Sina was told that if he signed a confession and repented, he would be pardoned and let go,” said the source in an interview with CHRI on March 21, 2017. “Unfortunately, he made a childish decision and accepted the charges. Then they sentenced him to death.” “Later he admitted that he signed the confession hoping to get freed,” said the source. “Apparently the authorities also got him to confess in front of a camera as well.” — Center for Human Rights in Iran (CHRI).
- When the Islamists gain power, they immediately create their own “judiciary system” in order to “legitimize” their implementation of sharia law. In fact, the judiciary system is used less as a tool for bringing people to justice, and more as a tool to suppress freedom of speech and of the press.’ https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10170/iran-insulting-islam
‘Sina Dehghan, 21, has been sentenced to death in Iran for “insulting Islam”. There are many people like him in Iran who are currently imprisoned, tortured on a daily basis, or awaiting their execution for “insulting Islam”, “insulting the prophet”, “insulting the Supreme Leader” — the examples are endless. (Image source: Center for Human Rights in Iran)’
Australia has a couple of Muslims in government now. What does the future hold? Read again what is taking place in Iran, lest you forget.
In Australia the left leaning ABC’s ‘…Q&A panellists launched into an emotive discussion around freedom of speech, largely powered by the absence of controversial anti-Islamic activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali who was due to appear as a member of Monday night’s panel.
While the exact “security concerns”, among other reasons, that led to Ms Hirsi Ali’s 
cancelled Australian tour remain unconfirmed, Federal Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg blamed it on the need to reform Section 18C to “protect and promote freedom of speech”.
“It is very regrettable people have sought to prevent her coming to Australia because they see her as the enemy of tolerance. I see her as an enemy of intolerance,” Mr Frydenberg said.
“Personally I don’t agree with everything that she has said about Islam but … she sends a very powerful message as well about how secular laws should be above Sharia law.
“My view is she would have received a lot of support here in Australia for airing what are somewhat controversial views. And she should be allowed to speak her mind and people who disagree with her should be able to challenge that. That’s the point of a free country like Australia.”
But Q&A host Tony Jones suggested the security concerns were exaggerated, citing a petition which expressed “disappointment” in response to Ms Hirsi Ali’s Australian tour that attracted fewer than 400 signatories.
Mr Frydenberg said he was “shocked” that the petition had garnered the support of psychologists, doctors, lawyers and community activists; all in agreement that she should not visit Australia and speak her mind.
Shadow Human Rights Minister Linda Burney said she found Mr Frydenberg’s comments “ironic”.
“It seems a little ironic that the party that was arguing against freedom of speech would propose it here tonight,” she said.
The Australian editor-at-large Paul Kelly agreed Ms Hirsi Ali’s absence was “a great shame”.
“I do think that the overwhelming majority of the Australian people would have been prepared to welcome her to this country. I am disturbed at the fact we have a petition signed by about 400 people, some of them quite prominent, suggesting that she should not come to this country.
“I think this is contrary to the fundamental values of Australian democracy.
“This is a courageous and inspiring woman. Now I don’t agree with all her positions, but she certainly raised fundamental questions about Islam which we should be prepared to debate as a society, debate and confront frankly.”
Former Danish prime minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt said freedom of speech should have no limits.
“Of course she should have the right to come to Australia to put her points of view across,” she said.
“This is what democracy is all about.”
While Nobel Peace Prize winner and social entrepreneur Muhammad Yunus said he agreed that everyone had the right to speak freely, he moved that there should be limitation when opinions were reduced to insults.
“You can come up with your opinion about certain aspects of Islam and so on. But that should not go into a level of inciting people, and kind of bringing intolerance into the discussion. The key thing is intolerance … You do it in a friendly way.
“Freedom of speech doesn’t give you the licence to insult somebody, cut down the respect and the feelings of other people.”
Ms Thorning-Schmidt argued that if freedom of speech was limited, it could silence people trying to bring about important social change.
“When women were fighting for their rights in the ’60s and ’70s, I think a lots of people thought they had a very insulting tone to some of the men they were fighting against,” she said.
“I think you have to use a language — not an insulting language if you can avoid it — but you can’t limit freedom of speech. But you can be responsible for how you use it … That’s what is lacking in the world.”’ http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2017/04/03/ayaan-hirsi-alis-absence-freedom-speech/?utm_source=Responsys&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20170404_TND
Is Ayaan Ali anti-Islam as much as she is pro-free speech and women’s rights? Australia has a very small percentage of Muslims but they carry a lot of clout and therefore people such as Ali and Gert Wilder receive death threats and much opposition when they come to Australia. So much for freedom of speech!
- ‘British multiculturalists are feeding Islamic fundamentalism. Muslims do not need to become the majority in the UK; they just need gradually to Islamize the most important cities. The change is already taking place.
- British personalities keep opening the door to introducing Islamic sharia law. One of the leading British judges, Sir James Munby, said that Christianity no longer influences the courts and these must be multicultural, which means more Islamic. Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, and Chief Justice Lord Phillips, also suggested that the English law should “incorporate” elements of sharia law.
- British universities are also advancing Islamic law. The academic guidelines, “External speakers in higher education institutions”, provide that “orthodox religious groups” may separate men and women during events. At the Queen Mary University of London, women have had to use a separate entrance and were forced to sit in a room without being able to ask questions or raise their hands, just as in Riyadh or Tehran.’ https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10124/london-mosques-churches
Islamic prayers in Birmingham, England (2016)
There is always a price to be paid for standing for truth!
‘No government entity has the authority to license, commission, accredit, and certify any Christian ministry–unless said groups go hat in hand asking for state or federal funds. A license is permission to do what would be illegal without it. No preacher should ever permit the government to license his work. Even in other professions, a license does not guarantee quality but does provide control and income for the government. In some states, a license is required to use your truck to haul dirt, rocks, etc.; to shampoo hair in a beauty shop; to own a gun; to teach school, and on and on and on.
It is obvious that a medical doctor’s license does not protect patients from sexual abuse or unnecessary medical procedures; nor protect students from incompetent or predatory teachers; nor guarantee a reasonable-looking haircut from barbers; nor assure a fair, reasonable defense by attorneys; nor, but then you get the idea.
In the mid-400s, Theodosius II, Eastern Roman Emperor from 408 to 450, made it a punitive offense for a man to teach the public without a state license; and soon such licenses were given only to “Christians.” Now that the Church was in control, they decided to keep the unbelievers out of teaching by requiring permission from the church-controlled government.
As early as 1534, the English clergy were forbidden to preach without a government license and John Bunyan got caught up in government machinery that tried to control preachers and teachers.
John Bunyan has been one of my major heroes all my adult life. But, I recently discovered that 
John, after spending more than 12 years in jail for preaching the Gospel, finally accepted a license to preach! While that was wrong in my opinion, it does not diminish Bunyan’s courageous stand against King Charles II and the king’s demand that John and other dissidents (those who disagree) not preach the Gospel. Preaching the Gospel was very costly to all except the Church of England preachers and even they did not have total freedom of conscience since they had to obey the King and Parliament regarding religious matters.
In the seventeenth century, all religious groups hated the Roman Catholics who like all dissidents met in homes. Everyone in England and Europe remembered the Inquisition where “the papists” mangled, mauled, and murdered hundreds of thousands of “heretics.” All the dissidents and the Church of England preachers agreed–“No popery, no popery!” Of course, everyone should have had freedom of conscience–Catholics, Anglicans, Quakers, Baptists, Presbyterians, and even the religious weirdos. Moreover, all the groups were against the Baptists because of their insistence on baptism by emersion of only those who had trusted Christ as Savior. No babies under any circumstance.
King Charles I had feuded, fussed, and fought with Parliament and ended up being beheaded in 1649 followed by Oliver Cromwell becoming Lord Protector until his death in 1658. Although a strict Puritan, Cromwell provided religious freedom for everyone. Into this religious mix, mess, and maelstrom walked two men who would make their mark on English history–a preacher and a king.
When Charles II restored the monarchy in 1660, he reneged on his promise of religious freedom he had made in his Declaration of Breda a few weeks earlier (a mistake I hope Trump does not make). The people had experienced about twenty years of freedom of worship but now nonconformist (Baptist, Presbyterian, Independent, etc.) services were banned, and ministers were rounded up and arrested. The major hero in this religious mix was a born-again tinker, a Baptist preacher named John Bunyan. The resultant clash was titanic.
Soon after his conversion, Bunyan began preaching in 1655 and was arrested in 1660 while preaching in an unapproved religious meeting (conventicle). He served a prison stretch until 1672 when he was released with other dissidents. He was jailed again for a few months in 1675.
The Act of Uniformity 1662 required every preacher to adhere to and accept the doctrine of the Church of England or leave the country. That included all preachers of the Church of England (many of them Puritans) and all the various independent groups. Everyone had to attend the Church of England regularly with fines, banishment, and then hanging for a third offense. (That would sure help one decide whether or not to sleep in on Sunday morning!) The act required all clergymen to use the Book of Common Prayer; consequently, about 2,000 Puritan clergymen were forced to resign. Some of them recanted while others became dissident preachers, others got other employment.
As to unbiblical ceremonies in the Church of England, Puritans (and all dissidents) objected to kneeling during the Lord’s Supper, the observation of holy days, the use of the surplice (outer garment worn by priests), and the signing of the cross in baptism.
The noose got tighter when the Conventicle Act 1664 became law forbidding more than five people, not members of the same family, to meet for worship. This was followed the next year by the Five Mile Act that forbade any preacher from coming within five miles of any incorporated town or their former place of abode. The noose was now tight and the preachers were standing on a very fragile, shaky platform.
The Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and other dissidents from the Church of England continued to meet surreptitiously in homes, barns, and abandoned buildings while the Quakers very bravely continued to meet openly. This was a time of persecution without parallel as Protestants (Anglicans) persecuted Protestants (Puritans and dissidents).
However, Charles and the Anglicans did not have it easy in hounding, hunting, and harassing the dissidents. In 1668, the Bawdy House Riots proved that sane citizens recognized the insanity of persecution of decent people. London crowds attacked brothels as they protested against a government which had tolerated prostitution while persecuting devout, principled preachers!
Present day parallels are numerous as the state asserts its authority to control religious colleges, license Christian counsellors, certify Christian teachers, regulate school curriculum, prohibit anti-homosexual regulations, restrict military chaplains, etc.
The modern state is as arrogant, asinine, and aggressive as King Charles II was and it’s time for principled Christians to resist to the point of jail.’ http://donboys.cstnews.com/government-cannot-license-a-ministry-john-bunyan-was-wrong
The following is thought provoking so some may find it hard to read just as they find thinking hard!
‘The United States has become a cesspool as it relates to the covering of women. However, the nakedness of women seems also to be a symbol of Americanism today as much as apple pie, kind of like the following, “Our women take their clothes off, and we’re proud of it.” As this relates to Islam, we’re not like those nasty Moslem countries that force their women to cover themselves either with the burqa or the hijab. The hijab brings an American gag reflex and the burqa induces all out vomiting. On the other hand, flag waving and the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue now parallel one another. The patriotism of this goes back to wartime pinups of women, I guess, to motivate these men to sacrifice themselves or at least to provide distraction from their fears or anxieties.
The hijab and burqa are distinguishing garments in Islam. They reflect Moslem teaching on 
modesty for women. They don’t have identical rules for men, because they distinguish between men and women. Is this good? It’s not wrong for sure. You could argue from the Bible that it is right to do so.
As I think about what scripture says about female dress, the following is how I see these two articles of clothing. One, the Bible doesn’t require the hijab or the burqa. Two, the Bible doesn’t say that a woman would be 
superior or a better person or more moral because she wore a hijab or a burqa. Three, the Bible doesn’t forbid the hijab or the burqa. Four, there are similar principles in the Bible for the hijab or the burqa as there are in Islam. Five, the biblical principles themselves don’t require a hijab or burqa, but they do require something for women similar to the hijab or burqa.
I’m saying here that the hijab or burqa are not a good argument against Islam by Americans, either liberal or conservative. Neither of these are forbidden in the United States. Women can wear them if they want. Men
can’t force women to wear them in the United States. However, in European countries, those bastions of freedom and expression, that’s what they want to outlaw. They don’t want the burqa or the burqini, the Moslem beachwear.
Permit me to digress for a moment. I don’t like the burqa as apparel. It reflects a perverted belief and culture. As a result, I attach the hijab to the burqa, because they both come from the same source. I get a feeling of repulsion, looking at them, because I know from which they come. If I can separate myself from the religious aspect, the hijab can look nice, feminine and modest. As I tamp down the religious repulsion, as an item, I see it in a good way, because of the distinguishing nature of it. The hijab looks attractive to me when I get past what I see it represent. On the other hand, the burqa looks like something Cousin It would wear in the Addams Family. It would look stylish maybe on a weeble. I’m not for a hazmat suit as regular apparel.
I don’t think that Muslim covering on women should enter the argument against Islam. Why is it used? There’s nothing wrong with it. You shouldn’t use what’s not wrong as an argument. It presents a weak argument. There is something right about it’s underlying philosophy, distinction and modesty. I believe it is used as an argument because it’s emotional. Women will feel emotional about it. Men want to look at women’s bodies, so it works for them too. If the burqa took off as a fashion, men wouldn’t see anything except in the bedroom, and they don’t want to wait for that.
The burqa argument also works in the matter of men and women’s roles. What makes America great is that our women are free and equal to men — sure, after 1920. Before that, women couldn’t vote. Read the federalist and anti-federalist papers. Women’s vote didn’t come up once in those books. It wasn’t even up for debate. Big laughter from Jefferson, Adams, and Hamilton on the woman’s vote. Are. you. kidding. me?
The cultural degradation of America follows a trajectory that matches the dress of women. The more they dress like men and the more they take their clothes off, the more that things fall apart. We’re not better off from those activities. This is the slouch or slide toward Gomorrah.
Masculine and immodest dress on women are not better for intimacy. They are not better for solid marriages. They are not better for family cohesiveness. They are not better for family solidity. They are not better for role accomplishment. They are not better for protection for women from all sorts of crimes. Women are not better off because they can dress like men and take more clothes off.
People feel more American for opposing the burqa and allowing for the shredding fad, allowing for big rips in clothing to see through. Lingerie used to be bedroom wear alone, and now it is a regular feature of outer wear. If we replaced all of the masculine, immodest dress on women with the burqa, we wouldn’t be worse off. I’m not arguing for either. If we’re going to point the finger at one, we should be able to point the finger at the other, except that the burqa in and of itself isn’t wrong. Only women wear it and it is modest. Obviously modest. The only thing more modest are those moving blankets at UHaul, but not wrong. What I’m saying is that we’re wrong, and they’re not wrong. I’m not saying they’re right, but they are at least not wrong. We are wrong, and wrong in a big way.
The burqa isn’t what destroys Moslem society. They suffer for many other reasons. We are not helping them by using lame and hypocritical arguments against their covering of women.’ http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com
- ‘The mayor of Brampton, Ontario, Linda Jeffrey, was also seemingly unconcerned about the calls in Toronto to murder Jews.
- The political establishment also does not seem concerned that imams are saying that the Islamic ruling allowing slaves is still in force. Meanwhile, statistics show that when it comes to hate crimes, Jews are by far the most targeted group.
- No one — neither media, nor politicians — even bothered to ask whether there is a significant connection between the virulent Jew-hatred being preached in mosques and the disproportionately high occurrence of hate crimes against Jews. Instead, the entire Canadian parliament is preoccupied with banning “Islamophobia”.’ https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10083/canada-islamization
whatyareckon 