What Good Muslims Are Called To Do

In the following clip from TheRebel.media, Brian Lilley, formerly of SUN TV, talks about the latest jihad porn video released by the Islamic State, which shows the execution of thirty more Christians in Libya.

As he says, “This is a recruitment video.” It provides the Koranic justification for all the gore and violence shown at the end of the video, and is designed to lure in bloodthirsty young men eager to emulate the mujahideen of the Islamic State.

Now that Mr. Lilley no longer has to be bound by the editorial strictures of SUN TV, he is willing to tell his audience what most Gates of Vienna readers take for granted: the Islamic State represents the real Islam. Its murderous brutality is simply an acting-out of the instructions laid down by the founder of Islam 1400 years ago.

By the way — Brian Lilley describes the English-language narrator near the end of the ISIS video as a “North American”, but he’s obviously a Canadian. To someone born south of the Mason-Dixon Line, the Canadian accent is unmistakable:

Hat tip: Vlad Tepes.

15 thoughts on “What Good Muslims Are Called To Do

  1. Well….”Ask not for whom the bell tolls…it tolls for thee.”

    The savage Muslims of the IS have told us their intentions as clearly as they can…mocking us, no doubt, as unwilling and unable to defend ourselves in the face of the most overt threat possible.

    It would be bad enough if they were on the other side of the world, separated from us by the most impermeable barriers that modern technology and a rational political system could devise. It would be like watching a successful mating of the HIV virus with the ebola virus behind 100% dependable sterile room barriers. You know you’re safe, but you can’t help but imagine the horror affecting you.

    The reality is, the political leaders are actively working to bring the deadly virus into our country and our communities. It doesn’t matter what their motivations are. They’re doing it, and will be doing it for the predictable future, if things don’t change.

    The place to affect events is in the grass roots. The tea party. The Democrats may develop a grass roots devoted to supporting labor, but opposed to immigration. If they do, don’t discount it. At this point, we can’t be too picky who our allies are for the absolutely vital objective of keeping Muslims out.

  2. Muslims call the entity to which they bow down five times a day “allah.” Why do they not use his proper name, “LUCIFER ?”

  3. Well how about that? A film quoting the Koran and Hadith and showing the verses being put into action. A film made by muslims.
    When Geert Wilders made a film quoting the Koran and showing the instructions being put into action the media blackened him as a controversial far-right hate-monger denigrating the Religion of Peace. Islamic clerics put him under death sentence.
    The tainted and compromised Islam-licking media were self-satisfied and smug.
    What will the tainted ones say now? Nothing, of course. They fear for their own necks.

  4. “By the way — Brian Lilley describes the English-language narrator near the end of the ISIS video as a “North American”, but he’s obviously a Canadian. To someone born south of the Mason-Dixon Line, the Canadian accent is unmistakable”

    In the brief speech-clip of the English-language narrator shown in this video, I listened for but did not hear a word rhyming with “out”, which distinguishes Canadian speech (which is mostly the same as Midwest U.S. English, but with “out” pronounced like a Scotsman would). I too have seen news reports describing the narrator of this beheading video as having a “North American” accent. Well,
    is a big place, and the people in most of the countries of North America speak English with a Spanish accent (see the map). But according to this Wikipedia article,
    “The term North America maintains various definitions in accordance with location and context. In Canadian English, North America may be used to refer to the United States and Canada together.”
    It looks like “North American” is a euphemism for “Canadian”.

    • Yes, it’s like Brits saying “Asian” when they mean “Pakistani”. Covers up an inconvenient truth.

  5. How exactly did this “nothing to do with Islam” or “this is a perversion of Islam” lie get started and when? It used to be that on the big three nightly news shows, Islamic militants would simply be described as “Islamic extremists”. Then at some point they became generic “terrorists” who were just coincidentally Muslim whereas all other Muslims were just devout followers of peace. As of some particular date it seems that the Islamic militants turned into “violent extremists who have nothing to do with Islam.”

    Anyone know of any media studies that show how the language used in the media has changed over time? The things I’m wondering about are:

    1) how has the language changed over time, starting with language used before 1970
    2) who’s actually responsible for the changes in language, and
    3) why would media organizations comply? Did some media standards committe decide this on their own or were they forced/threatened?

    In a totalitarian government situation someone would just be threatened with prison or execution for not complying with the central government, but in the distributed system of western media it seems that something more sophisticated is going on. What is the exact mechanism for it? Civil lawsuits or something else?

    • I recall a few years back when the LA Slimes released the latest version of what they called their “style book.” They decided that the term “illegal alien” was offensive. From then on the persons formerly known as illegal aliens were to be called “undocumented workers.” Anyone who wanted to pass muster and have their submitted article approved by the editors, or wanted their freelance to be bought, knew they needed to follow those guidelines. It wasn’t outright censorship as it was voluntary to use the style book. Heh.

      You want dates. Seek style books from the major publications bearing the date of publication and you’ll have it. Some disgruntled newsmen somewhere have preserved their copies. Then compare copies between organizations.

      Someone who wants to know dates such as you

      • Well, then the question is, why do they care about what’s offensive and what isn’t? Is it only so they can sell as many newspapers as possible or is there something else going on?

        I wonder what percentage of potential subscribers need to be “offended”, or if it is even based on that. Perhaps maximizing political utility is the real issue.

        • There has always been more than a grain of truth in the idea that Koranic Islam is a perversion of the original teachings of Mohammad, since the extra-Koranic sources make it perfectly clear (and there is not the slightest real ambiguity about this) that Mohammad specifically and emphatically forbade the compilation of a written Koran, and the teacher of his message he authorized to act in his place also strenuously objected to the project and to the particulars of what was put into the written Koran after Mohammad’s death.

          Of course, those seeking to follow the ‘original’ Islam are slightly handicapped by the fact that the followers of the Koran killed all the Qurra and destroyed any records they could find which demonstrated the degree to which they had completely rewritten history. The tendency of Koranic Islam to violently stamp out the truth about Islam isn’t a recent innovation, it goes right back to the beginning.

          It’s still entirely possible that the reason Qutham forbade anyone to write down his revelations is because he knew they were an embarrassingly illiterate bunch of nonsense. That’s what a lot of sensible Muslims secretly believe. Heck, I don’t even believe there’s any definite reason it couldn’t have been divinely inspired but still embarrassingly illiterate nonsense. It wouldn’t be the strangest thing I’ve seen God do in human affairs…including creating humans in the first place.

          • By “extra-koranic sources.” I assume you’re referring to the sunnah and hadith. Pray tell, what is the difference on significant issues between the koran, on the one hand, and the sunnah and hadith, on the other, especially w/r/t the “correct” way to treat Infidels?

          • The degree of authority one can assign them, individually and collectively, without being murdered over it.

            That’s not a small difference.

          • I was less interested in when the denial started within Islam because, one way or another, it’s been going on forever in the Islamic world. The real question is, when did the supposedly truth-oriented disinterested western media join in and how has it evolved.

            Perhaps it started with news reporters trying to keep a lynch mob from descending on Dearborn after 9/11 and got out of control after that? Or did the Islam obfuscation and denial start before that?

          • The mass media narrative in which ‘moderate Islam’ is truer to the original teachings of Mohammad and the Koranic teachings shouldn’t be regarded as authoritative was inherited from the prevailing Western view back at the origins of the mass media itself…no matter whether you date that to the beginnings of broadcast television, radio, or the movable type printing press.

            It’s actually the view that the Koran is authoritative within Islam which is the ‘innovation’ from the Western perspective, because since the Crusades all interactions between the West and Islam have been characterized by rapid suppression and marginalization of the Koranic teachings.

            Of course, the reason for this is that the West (ever since the Crusades) would always respond rationally to the emergence of Koranic Islam, by killing everyone they caught practicing or even advocating it. When you do that consistently using the technologically superior military resulting from a higher level of civilization, the consistent result is that Koranic Islam always appears only as a lunatic fringe interpretation.

Comments are closed.