Is Islam a threat?
by Jose do Carmo
A few days ago, someone said to me that in his opinion, Islam is a religion like others, and he casually rejected the idea that it was a threat to the rich, strong, and civilized West.
Are there really no reasons to fear?
Well, beyond the very clear and explicit exhortations to violence and conquest, which can be read in the sacred texts of Islam, it is always history that shows us that since this religion emerged about 1,400 years ago, Muslims have consistently followed the Koranic command to make war on the infidels, on the House of War.
As a result, almost 75% of what was then called “Christendom” was definitively conquered by the House of Islam, including all of North Africa, Anatolia, Syria, etc.
Many European territories were under Muslim occupation, at times for centuries, from Portugal to Russia, passing through Spain, France, Italy, Ukraine, Lithuania, Serbia, Romania, etc. etc, only being liberated by force of arms.
More than 15 million Europeans were captured and enslaved in the name of jihad, in a process that lasted until the 19th century, reaching faraway Iceland. In fact, one of the first external wars waged by the USA (Jefferson and Adams) was precisely against the Muslim slavers, with Portugal as an ally.
All in all, for more than 1,000 years, Islam has been the principal and permanent threat to Western Civilization and has always been on the offensive when the relative potential of combat has been in its favor.
In the 20th century, Europe modernized itself and managed to neutralize jihad, but now seems to have forgotten everything about this old and constant threat.
For many Westerners, Islam is just a religion like others, and some, without knowing anything of history and the texts, even proclaim that it is “a religion of peace”.
No, it is not.
What history tells us is that it is the most formidable and persistent enemy that our civilization has faced up to today, and this has not changed just because circumstantially, we believe that we are on top.
The major problem, still, is not the forgetting of history, but its rewriting, so that it fits into new, politically correct narratives.
And this woke narrative, conveyed in the schools, in the media, and in the cinema, is that Muslims are part of the extensive group of historical victims of the West, that is, of the “heteropatriarchal whites” or by definition, the “oppressor”.
For example, the Crusades, effectively a military reaction to the Islamic conquest of the so-called Christian holy places, is described as a cruel and unjust attack on the poor Muslims, who were peacefully in their lands drinking tea and smoking water pipes. Moreover, the Muslim invasions are not even described as such, rather as innocuous “advances” by Arabs, Moors, Almoravids, Tatars, Mamluks, Ottomans, etc., deliberately hiding their true rational aggregate, jihad against the infidel.
But that is history, the appeasers will say. That time has passed. We have to look to the future and enter into a new era of mutual respect and tolerance, even if to do this, we have to gild history a bit.
The following essay by Michael Copeland was originally published in September 2014 at LibertyGB (as “BBC Draws A Veil Over Islamic State”), then edited in 2021.
BBC Misinformation: Islamic State
by Michael Copeland
“What does Islamic State want? They want to enforce their view of conservative Islamic traditions.” — BBC
This appallingly inadequate statement is on the BBC’s 6o-second video. It is, in fact, the only statement in it that actually answers their own question.
No, BBC, Islamic State apply Islamic law, Sharia, by force. They not only “want to” but are already doing so. To refer to Sharia as “their view of conservative Islamic traditions” is shameful, dishonest, and inadequate. No author is shown.
The BBC is being careful to draw the spotlight away from Islam itself. To throw the reader off the scent they are nourishing the propaganda line that Islamic State is not Islamic, that they are pursuing “their idea” which, we are left to suppose, is somehow mistaken. Notice that the text skillfully does not actually say so, but leaves that conclusion to be formed by the reader. There is no mention of law or religion: oh no, only of “conservative traditions”. This is an old chestnut, and a tired and worn one at that. Remember the British detective helpfully assuring the public that a murder (a Muslim honour-killing) was nothing to do with Islam (which it is), but was a product of conservative cultural practices of rural Pakistan? How touching that an English policeman be so expert on tribal practices of rural South Asia! So sensitive!
No: Islamic State is applying Islam. The leader has a Ph.D. in Islamic Studies, unlike Mr. Cameron, so is well-informed. He has proclaimed himself Caliph, in the same way as earlier Caliphs did. As Abu Imran (Fouad Belkacem) of Sharia4Belgium has helpfully explained, “Islam is Sharia, and Sharia is Islam.” The Caliph is enforcing Sharia, “the path of Allah.”
Sharia is as defined in the Manual of Islamic Law, drawn from the Koran and the “reliable” traditions, “Hadith”, concerning the life and sayings of Mohammed. Together these all form Islamic Law. The Koran can be consulted online and the Manual, “Reliance of the Traveller”, is available as a download.
A second piece by the BBC, “What is Islamic State?” (again, no author shown), is rather more helpful.
Author’s note: since the LibertyGB article appeared the BBC has silently changed the text of this second article. What follows relates to the original text, no longer shown.
Once again, though, it quickly steers the reader away from Islam by dictating, with no explanation, that Islamic State is “a radical Islamist group”. We can note that Islamic State does not call itself “Radical Islamist State”: no, the BBC does that for them.
“The group aims to establish a “caliphate”“. No, it has already declared one. Now for another chestnut: “the group implements a strict interpretation of Sharia”. No: there is not a non-strict or benign interpretation of “Kill”. “Kill” means kill. What the BBC means is a strict application of Sharia, “forcing women to wear veils, non-Muslims to pay a special tax or convert, and imposing punishments that include floggings and executions.” The law is there: it is just that not all Muslim societies apply it to the letter. Yet another old chestnut is rolled out: “IS members are jihadists who adhere to an extreme interpretation of Sunni Islam”. What, BBC, is the non-extreme “interpretation” of “Kill”? That is right. There is not one. This is just a device to draw attention away from Islam.
The following report by Janice Fiamengo was originally published at FrontPage Mag.
Valerie Price, Executive-Director of Act! For Canada with friends Tarek Fatah (left) and Salim Mansur (right)
Canada’s Anti-Hate Network Attacks ‘Act! For Canada’ in Desperate Hunt for Hate
Inside the Left’s twisted world of innuendo and unfounded allegations.
The Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN) is Canada’s ironically named version of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), an intolerant organization that can’t stop patting itself on the back for opposing intolerance. Though lacking the formidable political heft, war chest, and extensive reach of its more robust American cousin, the CAHN exists to rain calumny down upon groups or individuals who do not share its progressivist viewpoints. Never content merely to disagree or rebut, the network pursues its ends almost exclusively through Hall of Shame-style attacks on those it deems “far right” enemies.
Recently, Peter Smith and Elizabeth Simons of the CAHN published a wordy hit piece on Valerie Price, long-time Executive-Director of Act! For Canada (AFC), an organization founded in 2009 and dedicated to defending Canada’s freedoms, security, and core values. To this end, Price hosts a website, distributes a weekly e-newsletter, encourages activism, and (pre-Covid) organized conferences and special speakers on such subjects as Islamic terrorism, the Islamization of Canadian culture, and threats to freedom of speech.
Smith and Simons’ innuendo-laden “M-103 to the Pandemic: Evolution of Canadian Islamophobic Activists Shows How Hate Movements Adapt” has all the incisiveness of a midnight-concocted term paper by two second-year Sociology students who never learned the principles of argument. It also clearly illuminates the challenges that face the CAHN and similar groups in Canada. What are hate-hunters to do when there is no hate to be found? Having spent hours combing through AFC’s website and affiliated Facebook group — as well as those of a later-formed companion group, Action4Canada, run by Price’s associate Tanya Gaw-Smith — Simons found nothing objectively hateful nor anything dishonest or defamatory. The very worst they could discover was a supportive message for a young ex-Muslim activist, Sandra Solomon, who subsequently tore out pages of the Koran and left them on car windshields around a mosque. AFC’s failure to disavow Solomon, who objects to the treatment of women in Islam, left Smith and Simons aghast.
With nothing worse to expose, the vigilante authors could only present the facts of AFC’s various information campaigns as if they were far more incendiary than they actually are, informing readers breathlessly that Price has, over the years, posted articles on her website about the arrests of terror suspects, the possibility of Iran launching an EMP attack (with “electromagnetic pulse” put in scare quotes, as if the authors couldn’t hold back their incredulous laughter), and about the political results of the Arab Spring. The implication, never made clear in the article, is that pure-hearted multi-culturalists should have no truck with any such discussions.
According to Smith and Simons, AFC has also posted articles expressing dismay at the legalization of marijuana, criticizing the radical trans agenda, and supporting the right to life of unborn children; during the last two election campaigns, Price went so far as to endorse the People’s Party of Canada and the Christian Heritage Party. Perhaps realizing that such actions are nowhere near enough to justify calling AFC a hate site, the authors also rely heavily on innuendo and unfounded allegations too numerous to catalogue here, with special emphasis on Price’s alleged “anti-Muslim” sentiments, for which not one iota of evidence is ever presented. In the process, the article pretends to analyze how “the far-right adopts and packages new grievances to recruit support.”
Samuel Paty was a French schoolteacher who was beheaded a little over a year ago for showing some Motoons to his students.
The following report describes the vandalism of a memorial display for Mr. Paty. Although the reporter doesn’t mention ethnicity, I assume culture-enrichers were responsible for the damage.
Manosque: Glass display window paying homage to Samuel Paty destroyed, investigation opened
by Romain Hirt
November 12, 2021
A group of individuals was seen Thursday evening in the process of destroying a glass display window by throwing rocks. An investigation has been opened by the prosecutor’s office in Digne-les-Bains to find the perpetrators.
On Friday the prosecutor’s office in Digne-les-Bains opened an investigation in Manosque (Alpes-de-Haute-Province) after Thursday evening’s damage to a glass display window paying homage to professor Samuel Paty, BFM DICI learned from a police source.
On Thursday at around 9pm some neighbors of the Saint Charles College at Manosque witnessed the damaging of a glass display case, located on the college’s facade, paying homage to the history professor who was decapitated on 16 October 2020 after showing some cartoons of the Prophet during a class at the college of Bois d’Aulne, at Confians-Sainte-Honoine (Yvelines).
According to initial reports, a group of individuals was seen in the process of breaking this glass display window by throwing rocks. Though the photos in the window were neither stolen nor damaged, the window was destroyed.
The two articles below about the BBC were published successively in 2013 by Michael Copeland.
BBC Fog-Making: Soldier Murder in Afghanistan
by Michael Copeland
This article was originally published at Liberty GB, 4 April 2013.
Colonel Lapan, spokesman for the US Joint Chiefs of Staff commented, “we don’t know what’s causing them [insider killings], and we’re looking at everything.” (FrontPage Mag)
In Afghanistan earlier this year (2013) there was yet another dreadful soldier murder and multiple wounding by an Afghan trainee. The BBC, in a shameful piece, “What lies behind Afghanistan’s insider attacks?”, blames a “rogue soldier”. Yet a soldier obeying instructions in his manual is no “rogue”.
Read the Koran, BBC, instead of having an unnamed author refer to unidentified “many analysts” and tipping a barrow load of red herrings such as this:
“But perhaps worryingly for Nato the motivation for many of the assaults cannot be pinned down so precisely. Many analysts believe they are rooted in underlying, even subconscious, resentments that are prone to flare up and with deadly consequences.”
This is fog-making, reprehensible and damaging. Completely contrary to what the author claims, the motivations can be pinned down precisely: they are in the manual revered by every dutiful Soldier of Allah, namely the Koran, the book of fighting the unbeliever. Everywhere that is not Dar al Islam, ‘The House of Islam’, is Dar al Harb, ‘The House of War’ (What the West Needs to Know). Non-Muslims are “the worst of creatures” (Koran 98:6), “the vilest of beasts” (8:22, 8:55). “Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers” (2:98), so therefore must all Muslims be also: “The disbelievers are ever to you a clear enemy” (4:101). NATO, treated as an ‘occupier’, is doubly an enemy.
When a Soldier of Allah murders an infidel ‘occupier’ he is obeying the instructions in his war manual. Some 64% of the Koran concerns non-Muslims, the kafirs, and how to fight them. Islam is political: it concerns land, and involves fighting. It aims for “Mastership of the World”, as the Muslim Brotherhood leader Muhammad Badi proclaimed in 2011.
“The mosques are our barracks,” recited Recep Tayyip Erdogan, before he was Prime Minister of Turkey, “the domes our helmets, the minarets our spears, and the faithful our soldiers.” It was to the BBC that Anjem Choudary explained: “Nothing else is mentioned more than the topic of fighting in the Koran.”
Don’t the BBC listen? Can’t they read? Do they think they know better? Or are they negligently and recklessly allowing the anonymous author to supply them with fog? Thus do they directly imperil our soldiers’ lives. Shame on you, BBC. Will you name your author? Who are the “many analysts”? Cite them. Show us where we can read their analyses.
The Koran cannot be brushed aside: it forms part of Islamic Law. To deny any verse in it calls for the death penalty (Manual of Islamic Law o8.7 (7)). Its content is billed as “true from eternity to eternity” (Sam Solomon, former professor of Shariah Law). Here are just a few of the many, many fighting instructions:
- Kill the polytheists wherever you find them. 9:5
- Fight those who do not believe in Allah. 9:29
- Slay them wherever you find them. 4:89
- Fight the idolaters utterly. 9:36
- And that Allah may … exterminate the infidel. 3:141
Remember that when a soldier of Allah has killed infidels it was not he that did the killing: “You killed them not, but Allah killed them.” (8:17) There are instructions about relationships with non-Muslims, the kuffar (a word cognate with ‘dirt’), who are “unclean” (9:28), “the most despicable” (98:6):
- Do not take the Jews and Christians as allies. 5:51
- Muslims are merciful to one another, but ruthless to the unbeliever. 48:29
Osama bin Laden wrote: “Battle, animosity and hatred — directed from the Muslim to the infidel — is the foundation of our religion.”
The doctrine of “Permissible Lying” (Manual, r8.2) authorises the Muslim to maintain piously a false appearance of friendship. The revered collector of traditions, Sahih Al-Bukhari, recorded that Mohammed’s companion Abu Ad-Darda’ said, “We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.” Mohammed himself said, “War is deceit” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, 269). So, too, with agreements: Mohammed is quoted in the Hadith, the traditions, saying, “If I take an oath and later find something else better, I do what is better and break my oath” (see Sahih Bukhari 7.67.427). Agreements with infidels are not binding. An Afghan who appears friendly but who turns his gun on NATO personnel is no “rogue”: he is doing EXACTLY what it says in his book. This is why there should not be any joint patrols, or armed Afghans within NATO bases.
Killing infidels in a situation where the killer himself may well be killed may seem puzzling to a Western mind, but this is a main component of the motivation:
“Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain” (Koran 9:111).
This is the justification for the ‘martyrdom’ (suicide) bombing. The ordinary Muslim can never be sure whether his good deeds will sufficiently outweigh his bad deeds so that he will not be consigned to Hell in the afterlife. In contrast, those who “slay and are slain” are guaranteed immediate entry to Paradise with seventy-two beautiful dark-eyed girls each, perpetually virginal, and boys like pearls, where there will be wine and sumptuous fruits. In Islam’s teachings the martyr achieves his wedding in heaven. The Muslim loves death as the Westerners love life, Osama bin Laden explained.
These matters of Islamic doctrine are what are taught in the mosques. They are not surprise news to Muslims. They can be found without difficulty on the internet. These are what the BBC’s anonymous author refers to as “the complex web of factors that lead Afghan soldiers to turn their guns on their allies.”
Evidently they are not too complex for an Afghan tribesman. Shame on you, BBC.
by Michael Copeland
This article was originally published at Liberty GB, 28 October, 2013
Algeria is using a decision by the European Court of Human Rights to justify sentencing a scholar to three years in prison for the denigration of Islam.
This is, of course, deeply ironic, and I might have made a sardonic joke about the case were it not for the fact that the precedent used by the Algerian court is the case of my good friend Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, who was convicted in February of 2011 in an Austrian court for the “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion”. Elisabeth appealed her conviction for eight long years, until the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights — her highest possible level of appeal — refused to hear her case.
Her “crime” was to ask a rhetorical question about the marriage of Mohammed to 6-year-old Aisha: “What would you call it, if not pedophilia?”
The ruling of the ECtHR came in handy for the court in Algeria. I’m sure the ulama in Algiers were grateful to the grandees of Strasbourg for providing such a useful precedent.
Here’s the story from The Forum For Religious Freedom-Europe:
The European Court of Human Rights: Model For Algeria’s Repression Of Free Speech
November 8, 2021
Statement by The Forum For Religious Freedom-Europe, Set My People Free, And Jubilee Campaign
Vienna and Stockholm, 9th Nov 2021 — A 2018 decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) upholding the conviction of an Austrian citizen by a Vienna court for “disparaging religious doctrines” has been used by Algeria to defend the sentencing a scholar to three years in prison for “denigrating the dogma and the precepts of Islam.”
“The case illustrates how European jurisprudence criminalizing speech can harm the defense of human rights and freedoms in countries that look to Europe for positive examples,” according to Dr. Aaron Rhodes, President of the Forum for Religious Freedom-Europe (FOREF).
In April 2021, The Sidi Mohamed Court of First Instance in Algeria sentenced, under Article 144 of the Algerian Penal Code, for the “crime” of arguing that the sacrifice of sheep pre-dated Islam, and that Islamic scriptures do not mandate the marriage of pre-pubescent girls and the use of head coverings. Djabelkhir said these were “academic reflections.”
Local and international human rights groups have denounced the conviction, with a representative of Amnesty International stating, “It is outrageous that Saïd Djabelkhir is facing three years in prison simply for voicing his opinions about religious texts.”
The case drew the attention of United Nations Special Rapporteurs on freedom of religion and belief and freedom of opinion and expression. In a communication addressed to the Government of Algeria the Special Rapporteurs outlined the facts of the case and raised concerns regarding death threats made toward Professor Djabelkhir, which increased after Algerian authorities filed charges against the professor in January 2020. The Special Rapporteurs also emphasized that international human rights law regarding freedom of religion or belief does not protect religions from criticism or “any comments perceived as unfavorable.” The Special Rapporteurs also pointed out that where a religion is recognised as the state religion it should in “no way” affect the enjoyment of the rights protected under the ICCPR.
The Special Rapporteurs then asked specifically how the Government of Algeria justified its anti-blasphemy laws, such as article 144 bis 2 “offense against the Prophet” [and “denigration of dogma or the precepts of Islam”] with regard to its international law obligations.
The Algerian government’s response of 22 September 2021 made reference to the case of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, who was convicted in 2011 for “disparaging religious doctrines,” when a local court ruled that her questioning if the Prophet Mohammed’s possible “pedophilia” was not protected as freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights. The ruling was upheld by a 2018 decision of the European Court of Human Rights, which held thatthe domestic courts “carefully balanced the applicant’s right to freedom of expression with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and to have religious peace preserved in Austrian society.” Freedom of speech, the ruling stated, needs to be conditioned on expressions being made in an “objective manner contributing to a debate of public interest.”
Quiz III: Fourteen Clues
Compiled by Michael Copeland
We have actually allowed a Trojan horse to settle everywhere in our neighbourhoods, which wants to undermine our way of life.
— Nadine Romano, French MEP.
[Its] pattern is this: intimidate, humiliate and expropriate until you can annihilate.
— mortimer, comment
a savage subhuman criminal warlord death cult of oppression, murder and mayhem.
— Dan S., comment
a corruptor of good morals, a superstitious paradigm that promotes violence and bigotry as divine truth
— Agostino Armo Pellegrini, comment Dec 15, 2019 at 9:38 am
….inherently hostile—a costly lesson that countless innocents have been paying for nearly 1,400 years.
— Raymond Ibrahim
a primitive death cult used to control large populations, illegally accumulate wealth, excuse bad behavior and justify perversions.
— Cheechakos, comment
achieved nothing in 1,400 years, except murdering and enslavement
— Spartacus, comment
I received the latest of a series of periodic injections in my left eye today (to treat wet macular degeneration), so posting will be somewhat light this evening. However, there will be a news feed at least, in addition to the article below.
The “Belgian” terrorist Hicham Chaib has been convicted in absentia by an Antwerp court.
Hicham Chaib found guilty of terrorist assassination in Syria
Updated: Wednesday, after two and a half hours of deliberation, the jury of the criminal court of Antwerp found Hicham Chaib (40), who was not present at the trial, guilty of the terrorist assassination of an unidentified prisoner in March 2016 in Syria
October 27, 2021
The former figurehead of Sharia4Belgium was at that time part of the terrorist organization Islamic State (IS). Images of the execution were spread on the internet a few days after the attacks in Brussels and Zaventem.
The nine-minute video surfaced on March 27, 2016. The attacks in Belgium were glorified, and in a monologue, Hicham Chaib took part in additional terror. At the end of the message, he killed the prisoner, dressed in orange and kneeling on the ground in front of him, with a bullet to the back of the head. The victim then received another bullet in the back. “The experts studied the video and concluded that the images were real and that the execution was not staged,” the jury stated.
Former right-hand man of Fouad Belkacem
Before leaving for Syria, Hicham Chaib was the right-hand man of Fouad Belkacem, the leader of the terrorist group, Sharia4Belgium. He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison in 2015 in the trial of Sharia4Belgium, during the course of which he had already absented himself, leaving for Syria.
Chaib risks life imprisonment
Aside from the terrorist assassination, Hicham Chaib also was found guilty of participation in the activities of the Islamic State and the threat of terrorist assassination, due to his threatening language toward the Belgian population in the execution video. Tomorrow [Thursday] the federal magistrate will request a sentence. Chaib faces a punishment of life imprisonment.
A man was severely beaten in a culturally enriched district of Berlin for refusing to shout “Free Palestine”. The victim is reportedly a “German citizen”, which means he is probably a fellow culture-enricher who declined to engage in the Jew-hatred that Muslims consider mandatory.
36-year-old refuses to shout, “Free Palestine”— critically injured
Berlin police are searching for three men, who first harassed a 36-year-old and then beat him. Now the man is fighting for his life. The victim refused to shout an anti-Israel phrase.
Three unknown persons critically injured a man in Berlin. According to police, around 10:35 pm, at Altstadter Ring, they reportedly demanded that the man shout, “Free Palestine” [German: “Freie Palaestina”]. The words are considered anti-Israel since it questions the right of existence of the State of Israel.
When the man refused, the three men hit him, kicked him, and seriously injured him in the head, as the police reported. It was also confirmed by Die Welt that the victim is a German citizen. The 36-year-old lost consciousness for a short time. The three unknown persons then fled, according to the information.
Witnesses called an ambulance that took the man to the hospital. As yet, there is no indication of a possible connection between the three men and the 36-year-old, said a police spokesperson on Tuesday. The Criminal Police are investigating.
On Twitter, the Jewish NGO Werte Initiative called the attack a “heinous act”. “It is obviously a brutal case of Israel-related anti-Semitism,” which is being articulated more and more aggressively in Germany.
An ISIS bride has been sentenced in Munich to ten years in prison for her crimes while she was with her mujahid husband in Iraq. Since her name is Jennifer, I assume she is a convert to Islam, although I suppose it’s possible for Muslim parents to name their daughter Jennifer.
ISIS returnee Jennifer W. sentenced to 10 years in prison
The State High Court in Munich found the ISIS returnee guilty Monday, among other things, of membership in a terrorist organization abroad. The federal prosecutor had demanded life in prison.
October 25, 2021
In a terror trial the ISIS returnee Jennifer W. was sentenced to ten years in prison. The State High Court of Munich found her guilty on Monday of, among other things, membership in a terrorist organization abroad, accessory to attempted murder, as well as attempted war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The young woman appeared shocked by the sentence, looking first at her lawyer for help, and then up at the ceiling of courtroom A 101. When the presiding judge Joaquim Baier justified the decision of the court, she looked down at her hands.
The federal prosecution had accused the 30-year-old woman from Lohne in Lower Saxony of being a member of the Islamic State (IS) in Iraq, and having passively watched as her then-husband chained a small Yazidi girl in a courtyard in the scorching sun and let her die of thirst. The child was “defenselessly and helplessly exposed to the situation,” said Judge Baier. The defendant “from the beginning on must have realized that the child was in life-threatening danger chained in the heat.” But she “did nothing” to help the child — although it was “possible and reasonable” (to do so). The court was also convinced that Jennifer W. later threatened to shoot the mother of the child, who was crying for her child, if she did not stop.
Jennifer W. was originally charged with murder and war crimes, among other things. Her ex-husband is standing trial in Frankfurt for the alleged act.
The federal prosecution had demanded a life sentence for the woman, the defense a maximum two-year sentence for membership in the terrorist organization ISIS.
The defendant was conscious of the inhuman goals and acts of ISIS when she traveled to Iraq to join the organization, emphasized the OLG. Jennifer W. and her husband had exploited the mother of the deceased girl as a house slave, explained Judge Baier in the sentence justification. The woman was beaten daily. Jennifer W. often incited her husband to do so. With her ISIS membership, she supported the “destruction of the Yazidi religion” and the “enslavement of the Yazidi people.”
Sweden as a society is currently run by women, specifically feminist women. The prime minister is male, and numerous members of parliament are males, but important cabinet posts and administrative positions in the bureaucracy are filled by women. Female social workers. Female police chiefs. Female directors of enterprises, both public and private. And the ideology that animates public service and cultural institutions is avowedly feminist.
It is this feminist, feminized ideology that requires Swedes to welcome immigrants and celebrate them. Sweden has no legitimate culture of its own, so Swedes must embrace the multiculturalism that immigrants bring. Even if those culture-enrichers abuse, mutilate, brutalize, rape, and murder women and girls.
By 2050 — in less than thirty years — Sweden will no longer be run by feminists, because there won’t be enough of them left. Oh, there will be plenty of women, but the majority of them will be the property of patriarchal polygamous men who have been welcomed in from the Third World to enrich Swedish culture.
Unless there is a general societal collapse in the interim, Sweden in 2050 will be governed by patriarchal polygamous men under some form of sharia law. I don’t know what will become of the feminists under those circumstances. Perhaps they’ll become the obedient veiled third or fourth wives of the dominant males.
The following documentary discusses the anti-feminist consequences that Sweden’s gynocracy has brought down upon the country through its love affair with Third World immigrants. The video is in both Swedish and English, with the Swedish portions subtitled in English.
Video transcript (Swedish portions):
Many thanks to Hellequin GB for translating this article from PolitikStube:
The wolf in sheep’s clothing: Christian Lindner (FDP) welcomes muezzin call in Cologne
Christian Lindner welcomed the model project of the muezzin call in Cologne. At BildTV, the FDP boss invoked the right to exercise one’s religion freely and spoke out in favor of social “togetherness”. We have to “come to a good cooperation,” said Lindner when asked how he assesses the Cologne project.
Lindner cautioned, however, that “mutual consideration” was part of the cooperation he strived for.
When asked whether he could also imagine the muezzin call throughout Germany, Lindner emphasized again that he wanted to “get on well with each other”. “ And that’s why it is right that experience is being gained in Cologne,” said Lindner.
Source: Kölner Stadtanzeiger
Samuel Paty was a French schoolteacher who was beheaded a year ago by an over-enthusiastic culture-enriching “youth” after he allegedly showed a copy of a Motoon in class. Regular readers of Gates of Vienna will not be surprised to learn that Muslims in France still display support and approval of the actions of the Chechen mujahid who killed Mr. Paty.
The following report gives details about the case of a father who threatened to set fire to a school in solidarity with the killer of Samuel Paty. Many thanks to Gary Fouse for translating this article from France Bleu:
Threats after tribute to Samuel Paty: The father of the schoolboy will be judged in January
October 20, 2021
The father of the pupil who threatened to set fire to Jean Zay School at Valence will be judged next 20 January. He has been placed under judicial control awaiting his trial
The case begins on Friday October 15 during a tribute to Samuel Paty, the teacher murdered by a terrorist a year earlier. A pupil, aged 11, at the Jean Zay School makes a provocation during a minute of silence and cries, “Allahu Akhbar.” When he is informed of the warning against the boy, the father supports his son’s attitude and threatens the school principal on the phone. Threats he reiterates after going to the school Monday morning. He is then arrested by the police and placed in custody.
The man “minimizes the facts”
According to the national prosecutor of Valence, the man, aged 43, admitted part of the facts, notably, “that he verbally attacked school personnel,” and that he had threatened to “set the establishment on fire.” However, as Alex Perrin further writes in a press release this Wednesday, the man, “minimized them in evoking his anger at the situation. He explains that he was carried away by the action taken against his son.”
He is not on file for radicalization
Psychiatric expertise requested by the Valence prosecutor shows that the father of the family is totally responsible for his acts. He presents no psychiatric pathology, “despite an impulsive potential.” This Valence security officer is not known to the services responsible for tracking radicalization, nor is he listed as a radical. The prosecutor did not allege support for terrorism, “due to lack of remarks made in public.” The man will be prosecuted for death threats against persons charged with the mission of public service and attacks on public property.
The prosecution had asked for an immediate judgment in the appearance and placement in provisional custody. The judge of liberty and detention ruled Wednesday afternoon: The man is allowed to remain at liberty under judicial control awaiting his trial, which will take place next January 20.
The following fictional report is modeled on this BBC story about Wednesday’s attack in Norway, with relevant nouns and adjectives changed:
Rawalpindi: Knife Attack Appears to be Terrorism — Officials
A deadly knife attack in Pakistan which left five people dead appears to have been an act of terror, Pakistan’s security service (ISI) said.
However, a motive has not yet been determined.
The suspect, a 37-year-old Afghan citizen, had converted to Christianity and there were fears he had been radicalised, police say.
He is accused of killing four women and a man on Wednesday night in the northern town of Rawalpindi.
Why do Christian converts not carry out violent attacks?
Why is it that nobody ever has to be concerned about the “radicalization” of a convert to Christianity?
When is the last time you heard of a convert to Christianity killing someone for religious reasons?
The situation is not at all symmetrical. Contrary to what the media and your political leaders keep telling you, Islam is not a “peaceful religion just like other religions.”