A “Danish” imam named Abu Bilal Ismail has caused a sensation after a series of hidden-camera videos aired on TV2. In his capacity as an imam at the Grimhøj Mosque, Mr. Ismail called for the stoning of adulterers, the killing of apostates, and other violent policies. If he were not a member of a protected culture-enriching minority, he would surely have been prosecuted for his publicly-expressed sentiments.
Below is the first in a series of videos of the Indiscreet Imam. Many thanks to PEGIDA DK for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:
A second clip of the Indiscreet Imam is featured in this article from The Local:
New Clip From Danish Mosque: Hit Kids Who Don’t Pray
The controversial Grimhøj mosque in Aarhus is at the centre of yet more controversy as a new video shows a visiting Copenhagen advocating the “educational” beating of children.
A new clip from a hidden camera used for the TV2 documentary “Mosques behind the veil’ (Moskeerne bag sløret) shows an imam at the controversial Grimhøj Mosque in Aarhus suggesting appropriate ways to physically punish children who do not pray.
The clip shows an imam telling the female-only audience that children ten and older who refuse to pray should be beaten in an “educational” way.
“Fear Allah, brothers and sisters, teach your children to pray. It is mandatory for you to teach them to pray from the age of seven years old. And even to beat them if they do not pray when they are ten years old,” the visiting Imam from Copenhagen is heard saying in video.
“You hit them as education and to learn,” he continued.
The recording continues to show a member of the female audience query the imam as to how a child should be beaten if they fail to pray.
“It is not allowed to punch them, knock them into a wall or break their bones. It is also not allowed to take a knife to them and cut them. You hit them as education and learning. Not as violence,” the imam replies.
The TV2 clip was the second in as many days to reveal some of the controversial messages espoused at the Aarhus mosque. In a previous clip, imam Abu Bilal Ismail advocates the stoning and whipping of adulterers.
Video Transcript:
| 00:00 | Women, it is only allowed to spill Muslim blood for three reasons. | |
| 00:03 | The first reason: for fornication. | |
| 00:06 | If a married or divorced women fornicates, and she is not a virgin — | |
| 00:09 | and commits adultery, she must be stoned to death. | |
| 00:14 | The second reason: An eye for an eye. | |
| 00:18 | If you kill a Muslim, you must yourself be killed. | |
| 00:22 | The third reason: One who turns away from religion (Islam) must be killed. | |
| 00:26 | If you deny (Islam), or don’t believe in the fast, the judgment must be that you are an infidel. | |
| 00:30 | If you are stubborn and do not want to fast, you must be killed. | |
| 00:36 | But that is not done in Denmark. | |
| 00:40 | If an adulterer, be it a man or a women who whores — | |
| 00:44 | then their blood is halal, and they must be killed by stoning. | |
| 00:48 | If she is married, she will be stoned (to death). | |
| 00:52 | If she is a virgin, the punishment is whipping. | |
| 00:56 | And a divorced women who commits an act of whoring? Is the punishment whipping or execution? | |
| 01:03 | Whipping, whipping. — Whipping. Is that right? | |
| 01:06 | No, even if she is not married, the punishment is death. | |
| 01:11 | Only a virgin who commits an act of whoring, and who has never been married — | |
| 01:16 | will be punished with a whipping. |
Bloodthirsty SOB, isn’t he? Lefties will probably tell us that he does not represent the true islam but we know better. I am sure this sort of propaganda is being put about in every mosque in Europe.
bloodthirsty? Don’t think so, he is simply following Sharia laws… blindly. And the sad part of this – such events are allowed to happen without any consequences – be it from normal society in the form of active protests or from law enforcement agencies.
Danish – he does not have citizenship, fortunately
There have been numerous undercover videos on uTube and documentary news broadcasts over the years. Not just Denmark. By now it is a given that this is never the exception and goes with the the usual heavy anti Christian propaganda. It keeps the unstable head that is any Muslim topped up with madness.
A lot of left wing or progressive people I know don’t like any kind of religion. Many of us-especially from the 60s-see religion as a retrograde force. I certainly don’t make excuses for any kind of killing, in the name of a 7th century belief.
It’s sad that many do though! I can’t get along with Islam based on what I believe.
This is what Liberalism is to me:
Freedom of ones own body; equality of ALL groups; government control of environment; participatory democracy. And a government not afraid to try novel solutions to social problems.
Not having a religion isn’t possible. From a systems perspective whatever you end up believing is a de facto religion since it serves the same purpose in shaping your behavior.
What you’re actually claiming is that tradition is a retrograde force. The problem is that tradition evolves as an adaptation to survival problems faced by a population. It’s only a retrograde force when it makes it impossible to adapt to changing conditions as Islam does.
Otherwise it’s a stabilizing force. A tremendous amount of survival-related information has been used to “compute” tradition over time and this information is never all available to would-be social engineers.
Here’s what usually happens in cognitive terms when tradition is completely abandoned in favor of “progressivism”:
1) “I want to do/get X.”
2) Create post hoc rationalization based on high minded ideals, universal principles, etc, to support the goal in step 1
The vast majority of people are not capable of doing any better than this, unfortunately. And even if you have someone who somehow is completely lacking in self-interest, their are rather low and hard computational limits on their ability to work out the consequences of social engineering attempts.
Not having a religion isn’t possible. From a systems perspective whatever you end up believing is a de facto religion since it serves the same purpose in shaping your behavior.
If you’ve ever heard the ramblings of transhumanists…. Damn. They are the scariest people on Earth.
I’m not a transhumanist. The problem is that if someone is determined to believe that only “science” matters, it may take a technical argument to convince them otherwise. In other words, I may have to create a scientism that says “hey look, this is scientism. A religion. Now how do you escape religion?” in order to get the point across.
Then again, maybe everyone reading this is a transhumanist because they are using technology that would have been unavailable only a blink of an eye ago, and that will affect them.
BTW, my mother is actually a transhuman cyborg. You must think I am joking, but no… She has a modern pacemaker which is enough to meet the best technical/philosophical definition of cyborg that I can find. I read the programming manual for her cyborg parts so I could give her an idea of what to ask the doctor, which probably annoyed the doctor. At least for now, he’s still a doctor and not a robotics technician.
Only “science” matters…
It is indeed only science and man’s genius for invention which has got us anywhere; the church only held humanity back. If we, for example, just spent our days communicating with our fairies (gods) where would we be, what would we be?
If you don’t know the answer to that, look no further than islam .
And yes, I’ve been a non-believer for over 80 years. Can I explain the universe with/by science? No.
Nor can you with imaginary gods.
Peter35: Yes, I agree that religion has often impeded science. I disagree that religion has never solved any problems.
What you don’t seem to realize is that there’s a new religion (more than one really) that has nothing to do with gods. It impedes science in certain areas (especially social science), and makes society vulnerable to destruction.
While everyone is distracted by the latest LHC discovery, the barbarians will be smashing it and selling it off for scrap.
What exactly has science done to prevent the Islamic invasion of Europe? Doesn’t look to me like it’s done anything. What do you think is preventing that? Could it be a new de facto religion that you refuse to recognize as such?
Nimrod, science has done nothing to stop the Islamic invasion of Eurabia, as we all know, nor has religion–the church, all western religions, have rolled over, appeased and facilitated the take over.
As you are well aware, science has been hobbled, as have the people, everywhere in the western world. We cannot even defend ourselves against those the Coudenhove-Kalergi inspired lunatics deem to be ‘superior beings!’
re. religions, well we have the climate nutters for one, the Gore-Suzuki crowd who tell us we’re all going to drown in the rising seas; as a sailor I know that to be utter hogwash. Or maybe we’re all going to fry, though it was -51C in Verkhoyansk this morning.
To the best of my ability to estimate, what happened is this: moral absolutism was destroyed due to a desire to discredit Christianity. (This was unnecessary to support any real science because Christianity had already evolved “God in the gaps” naturalism.) This made it impossible to properly resolve the Paradox of Tolerance, and this has lead to the current situation.
Some of the most religious people I’ve encountered have been atheists preaching atheism.
I can relate to that. But the thing is, their preaching is never limited to just atheism. If anything, atheism is just a tool to discredit the opposing religion(s).
Diotima: “…Some of the most religious people I’ve encountered have been atheists preaching atheism.”
Yeah, Einstein complained about these types. Most annoying for him was that they proclaimed him to be an atheist, which he wasn’t. He by and large agreed with Spinoza.
Agreed, the problem with a society like the U.S. is that everyone is free to create his/her own morality. This eventually ends up with the common morality being eroded to the lowest common denominator. Religion provides a common standard and cohesiveness that law can never provide. Without religion, murder, lying, theft, etc. are only bad if you get caught by the police. With religion, you devote yourself to serve something greater and better than yourself. We still recognize our faults, but then desire to continuously improve ourselves. Whenever I hear people stating that the world would be better off without Christianity, my only response would be where is your proof? All I have seen in places such as Europe, is a total loss of social cohesion, due to the fact that there exists no ethos to stand in support of. Would the US be a more moral country without religion? I very much doubt it. Islamic countries are also not moral, but for a different reason. The main focus is not individual enlightenment and improvement to the end goal of a better society, but a forced group ethos, where deviants are severely punished. A correct religion is one which betters the individual and the society he serves.
Something needs to provide opposition to runaway hedonism, which is a far more destructive force to a civilization than any religion.
Something needs to provide a recognition that the visible, tangible world is not all there is.
Something needs to stay steady while other things rush “forward.” You can’t tear down EVERYTHING and replace it with something new and innovative, because innovations are often toxic failures.
A good religion is the only thing.
Many people without a religion have moral principles, and try to live by them. It really is arrogant and superior to pretend otherwise.
It’s arrogant and superior for people who supposedly have no religion to pretend that they don’t have a religion.
The majority of moral beliefs they have came from (guess what?) religion even if they’re unaware of it.
Yes, you can be unaware of what you believe. (See definition of underlying assumption.) You can be even more unaware of where those beliefs came from.
Aaaargh! My “religion”, such as it is, credits humans with the intelligence to work things out for themselves- whether this stems from a creator (benign or, more likely, indifferent) is beside the point. I’m well aware of the religious origins of my (and many) moral codes, thanks, and I think not unaware.
The question is, which came first, the need for a moral code, or the need for an explanation of the world and the humans and other creatures in it. I suspect that our ancestors invented both more or less simultaneously.
As the late, great (and atheist) philosopher Bertrand Russell said, when asked what he would say if he survived death and met God, “”Oh Lord, you didn’t give us enough evidence”.
Mark H: The thing that I worry is missing from humanism is that not everything is solved by humans using formal reasoning. This is especially true when there isn’t enough time to do it. For example, pattern recognition in a social situation is mostly done intuitively/emotionally. There wouldn’t be enough time to reason everything out. Just ask someone with high functioning autism because they have to try reasoning things out in such situations and it doesn’t work very well.
Social optimization problems humans solve may take millions of people over multiple generations. A process like this is not understood or under conscious control therefore it would be indistinguishable from “supernatural” guidance.
So even if you say humans do everything, I’d argue that they don’t necessarily do everything consciously, individually, in a short timeframe, using reason, or understand how they do everything especially in large numbers over very long time periods. And I think trying to throw all of this out would be throwing the baby out with the bath water.
That’s my humanist argument for what’s wrong with humanism. It’s also a humanist argument for supporting religion. (Some long lived distributed unconscious process may actually require people praying or meditating to operate effectively too.)
Nimrod and Mark H. I have no idea if you will even see this as it’s now almost 2 weeks since you posted.
There is a wider definition of religion that it is very important to recognize.
a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
The discrediting of Judeo-Christian religions that Nimrod referred to was in the service of those who saw science as supremely important and so felt it right to eliminate obstacles placed in the path of advancing Scientism.
Mark H sees the damage posed to both in large part because there is a neo-pagan element that has taken over the sciences to advance itself. Those who believe in Sustainability are drumming out of the sciences any who don’t support their fraud of human caused climate change. The ultimate goal of that is less humans cause less climate change and provides them a “moral” cover to hide their misanthropy — the belief that humanity supremely sucks and needs to be eliminated. Hard to be more pagan than that other than live babies are not yet thrown into infernos.
Again, remember this definition of religion: a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
Rob Andrews: “…This is what Liberalism is to me: Freedom of ones own body; equality of ALL groups; government control of environment; participatory democracy. And a government not afraid to try novel solutions to social problems.”
That’s what you have, with some exceptions. You should be happy.
What is wrong with liberalism is the amount of control it seeks over the society it proclaims to protect. Such a government eventually becomes totalitarian in its outlook. This is what we are seeing the start of today as liberal society controls the education system, the news, and entertainment industry. We are literally spoon feed propaganda from day one through all of the above avenues. How can you explain the support from young people for Bernie Sanders, even though he embraces a form of government that has failed (or is failing) wherever it has been tried? How can you have freedom with government control? The two are incompatible. Currently all the liberals are in support of combating global warming, despite there being any confidence that any of their efforts would greatly impact the amount of carbon exhausted in the atmosphere. Talk about beating your head against the wall. The great thing is that if they succeed, then they can point to a lack of climate change as success (We really stopped it!), when all that really happened was that their model was completely false.
The words from the imam’s mouth seem clear enough – and to me confirms the primitiveness of this religion.
The mosque’s chairman, Oussama El-Saadi, essentially denies what the imam said in the TV2 interview.
The Grimhøj Mosque publicly supports ISIS which euro land is supposedly fighting against.
A child psychologist (how appropriate) enters the picture saying the mosque’s teachings could be criminal.
Finally, the Justice Minister, says he’s “going to look into it.” I believe that’s about as far as it will go. The people who run Denmark, and the rest of Europe, are part of a herd of enablers still stuck on stupid. As a European citizen I doubt anything will change and that we will deserve what we get, a reward only idiots get when they suck up to this collective “democracy”, apparently now the dominant ideology in Europe.
There are two choices here:
a. Arrest and deport this islamic preacher
b. Do anything less than “a” and suffer the consequences
Denmark will most certainly choose “b.”.
That is the long and the short of it. 75 years of European history: enemies imported, welcomed, and subsidized; enemies act like enemies; in response Europeans import more enemies.
Yes, it really is a giant asylum run by the inmates.
Unfortunately, many people just shrug their shoulders and treat it as a joke.
Some joke.
The Danish people need to rediscover their backbone and refuse to accept the effette, liberal kow towing of their elected officials to the Muslim ingrates that are ruining their once proud nation. An encitement to kill anyone because of their religion, sexual orientation or sexual behaviour should be prosecuted as severely as possible. The evidence is there for God’s sake, it is irrefutable!
Two points:
This is incitement to violence. It should be prosecuted as such.
All these incitements are basic ordinary normative Islam. The preacher is not stepping outside Islamic teachings: he expresses them.
The fundamental problem is that we in the West are too spineless to punish these violent, psychotic, overgrown children for their transgressions, much less eliminate them for failing to respond to such punishments.
The UN sorted human rights years ago after ww2 …& was given the job of policing them. THEN POLITICAL CORRECTNESS crept in! Culture Custom Belief have become more important than REALITY & FACT.. Well now we reap the whirlwind! Stand for truth stand for reality stand for verification STAND AGAINST SUPERSTITION! TEACH SCIENCE only with science ,reason& education has it been possible to rise above disease, slavery & brutality . Now we must keep our courage to insist on Secular Politics or the world shall sink back to barbarity.