Sunday, December 2, 2018

JIHAD WATCH
Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Nigeria: In meeting with President, Christian leaders say military is complicit in jihad attacks on Christians

  BY 13 COMMENTS
This is likely to be true, as Muslim soldiers who share the ideology of the jihad attackers will be, at very least, reluctant to move against them, and perhaps eager to share in their jihad.
“In Meeting with President, Pastors in Nigeria Say Military Complicit in Attacks on Christians,” Morning Star News, November 28, 2018:
JOS, Nigeria (Morning Star News) – Christian leaders meeting with President Muhammadu Buhari in Abuja, Nigeria this month delivered a sharp rebuke, saying the military is complicit in attacks on Christians.
With the governor of Plateau state in attendance, the Rev. Dacholom Datiri, president of the Church of Christ in Nigeria (COCIN), delivered a report to Buhari at the presidential villa on Nov. 6 stating that 646 Christians in Plateau state alone were killed from March through October.
“The narrative has been that these people are killed by unknown gunmen, or suspected herdsmen, or that there have been farmer-herders clashes,” Datiri said in the report, obtained by Morning Star News. “All these are deceptive narratives deliberately framed to conceal the truth and continue to perpetrate the evil.”
The truth, he said, is that Muslim Fulani militias heavily armed with sophisticated guns, including AK47s, machine guns, and rocket-propelled grenades have attacked and killed Christians.
“After the attacks, it is the Fulani herders that settle and graze their cattle on the farms of the victims,” Datiri said in the report to the president. “The proficiency and mode of operation in all of these attacks, as testified by the surviving victims, leaves us in no doubt of the complicity of the military being used as hired mercenaries by the Fulani militias. On this, we are disappointed, and sadly so, that the government has not delivered on her constitutional responsibility of protecting lives and property.”
Datiri said the herdsmen in collaboration with Boko Haram jihadists and other Muslim militants in the areas of Barkin Ladi, Riyom, Bassa and Bokkos destroyed 30 church buildings and 4,436 Christian homes, sending 38,000 Christians into 10 camps for displaced persons from March through October.
“Are we to believe that the armed forces sent to keep peace go with the instructions to protect them?” Datiri said. “The implication is that they protect the aggressors and leave the victims mercilessly helpless.”
Datiri pointed out that as the figures pertain only to Plateau state, they do not include those killed by Boko Haram in northeast Nigeria.
For his part, Plateau Gov. Simon Lalong reportedly faulted Muslim and other community leaders for compounding the crisis of violence in the state by hiding criminals.
Buhari, a Fulani Muslim, responded to the Christian leaders by saying he did not doubt COCIN’s report on the atrocities committed against their communities.
“The communities (in Plateau) have lived long enough to know that there is nothing they can do without each other than to live together in harmony,” Buhari said. “As leaders, we must persuade the upcoming generation using every channel, particularly the educational institutions, to live together with our neighbors.”
Christian and Muslim leaders have to work harder to convince the upcoming generation that they must live together in the same country, Buhari said.
“It is not all Muslims that are against Christians, and neither are all Christians against Muslims,” he said. “In our security arrangement, the police is in the frontline in making sure that communities irrespective of ethnic or religious bias live together in peace.”…
Boko Haram, whose name is loosely translated as, “Western education is a sin,” has fought for more than nine years to impose Islamic law on all of Nigeria, killing tens of thousands of people and displacing more than 2 million. Boko Haram militants reportedly warned parents of the returned Dapchi girls not to send their daughters back to school….
Christians make up 51.3 percent of Nigeria’s population, while Muslims living primarily in the north and middle belt account for 45 percent.
Nigeria ranked 14th on Open Doors’ 2018 World Watch List of countries where Christians suffer the most persecution.
at
JIHAD WATCH
Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Robert Spencer in PJ Media: New York Times Celebrates Muhammad as ‘Paragon of Compassion’

  BY 35 COMMENTS
Seventh Century fake news from a cynical and deceptive propagandist. My latest in PJ Media:
“Happy Birthday, Muhammad,” the New York Times proclaimed happily last Tuesday in a propaganda piece by Haroon Moghul, the author of a book confidently entitled How to Be a Muslim. I’d say it was a new low for the Times if the Gray Lady didn’t keep stooping lower every day.
Moghul details how he rediscovered Muhammad during a time of doubt, marveling “that he buried the least loved of his fellow Arabs with his own hands. That he put two of his fingers together and promised that he and the orphan would be that close in the life to come. That he so loved the vulnerable that God loved him in turn.”
Laying it on even thicker, Moghul continues: “He was an outsider like me. Being an orphan from age 6 in a very patrilineal, very patriarchal and very tribal society must have been a social death sentence. Muhammad could have reacted by seething with resentment and lashing out at the world. He could have turned on himself. Instead he became a paragon of compassion.”
Why should we believe Moghul? Because he knows: “I’d memorized Muhammad’s life story in Sunday school, cramming facts, dates, lineages into my head as if I was preparing for an A.P. exam, a good Muslim like my parents wanted me to be.”
If that is true, then Moghul knows that what he has published in the New York Times is false from beginning to end.
Here are a few statements attributed to Muhammad in sources that are considered reliable by Islamic scholars and normative for Islamic law, as recorded in The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS (in which the source for each is noted):
“I have been made victorious through terror.”
“Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. … When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. … If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them.”
“I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right affairs rest with Allah.”
“May Allah curse the Jews and Christians for they built the places of worship at the graves of their Prophets.”
“I looked into Paradise and I saw that the majority of its people were the poor. And I looked into Hell and I saw that the majority of its people are women.”
When asked about this, he explained: “I was shown Hell and I have never seen anything more terrifying than it. And I saw that the majority of its people are women.” They said, “Why, O Messenger of Allah?” He said, “Because of their ingratitude (kufr).” It was said, “Are they ungrateful to Allah?” He said, “They are ungrateful to their companions (husbands) and ungrateful for good treatment. If you are kind to one of them for a lifetime then she sees one (undesirable) thing in you, she will say, ‘I have never had anything good from you.’”
Moghul doubtlessly knows about such passages and many more. But he doesn’t bother to reveal them to his New York Times audience, even to explain them away. Now, why is that?
There are other passages in the earliest Islamic sources in which this paragon of compassion orders the murders of people who have insulted him. These include Abu Afak, who was over one hundred years old, and the poetess Asma bint Marwan. Abu Afak was killed in his sleep, in response to Muhammad’s question, “Who will avenge me on this scoundrel?” Similarly, Muhammad on another occasion cried out, “Will no one rid me of this daughter of Marwan?” One of his followers, Umayr ibn Adi, went to her house that night, where he found her sleeping next to her children. The youngest, a nursing babe, was in her arms. But that didn’t stop Umayr from murdering her and the baby as well. Muhammad commended him: “You have done a great service to Allah and His Messenger, Umayr!”
Then there was Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf. Muhammad asked: “Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” One of the Muslims, Muhammad bin Maslama, answered, “O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?” When Muhammad said that he would, Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab).” Muhammad responded: “You may say it.” Muhammad bin Maslama duly lied to Ka’b, luring him into his trap, and murdered him.
Moghul claims that Muhammad “was forced to take up arms, time and again, to defend his faith, his community, and himself.” But in reality, the vast majority of battles that Muhammad fought in were offensive, and after his death, his followers, emulating him, attacked and conquered the Middle East, North Africa, Persia, Spain, and much of India with astonishing rapidity. None of this was defensive warfare.
Just consider: Muhammad began waging violent jihad in Medina, one city of Arabia. By the time of his death he was master of all Arabia. That’s a most impressive defensive action! And likewise, when he is supposed to have died, in 632, the Muslims controlled only Arabia. By 100 years later, in 732, their empire stretched from Spain all across North Africa and the Middle East to Persia and India.
They defended themselves all the way to conquering nearly half of the known world? Pull my other leg.
Yet Moghul continues: “When terrorists struck New York and Washington in 2001 I was horrified, scared and bewildered. The Muhammad I revered bore no resemblance to the Muhammad they claimed. In their view, Muhammad was a conqueror first, a politician and a general second, and a man of faith last, and least.”
9/11 was hardly the first act of violence committed by Muslims acting in the name of Islam and in accord with its teachings. The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISISdemonstrates from Islamic sources that violent jihad has been a constant of Islamic history. If Moghul is to be believed, then Muslims for 1,400 years, everywhere Muslims have gone, have misunderstood Islam and outraged the memory of Muhammad. And this mass apostasy took place at the very top, as the violent jihad was led by the caliphs and other Muslim rulers who were, by their own accounts, endeavoring to emulate Muhammad and put his teachings into practice.
Moghul even claims that when Muhammad emigrated to Medina, “he pledged that the Muslim community would defend the native Jewish community from any of its enemies, and declared Medina to be one nation of two faiths, a profound and unusual gesture of pluralism and tolerance.”
Moghul doesn’t tell you what happened next: Muhammad exiled two of the three Jewish tribes of Medina, and massacred the third. Then he went to the oasis of Khaybar, where the two Jewish tribes he exiled had gone from Medina, and massacred them. On his deathbed, he vowed to expel all Jews, as well as Christians, from Arabia.
Haroon Moghul almost certainly knows that what I am writing here is all true. He will take no notice of this article, of course, and will hope that you won’t see it, because the question arises inevitably: what does Moghul make of the abundance of material, only some of which have I quoted above, found in canonical Islamic texts, that contradicts his picture of Muhammad? Why doesn’t he discuss this material and offer some explanation for it? Or is he just hoping that we don’t know about it, and that his vilification of those who point it out as “Islamophobes” will suffice for his readers to dismiss it?…
Read the rest here.
at
JIHAD WATCH
Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Hugh Fitzgerald: Marriage Jihad (Part One)

  BY 15 COMMENTS
One of the many ways that Muslims manage to enter and settle in the West is by marrying a Muslim who is already living in the West as a legal migrant or even as a citizen.
One version is that where Pakistani-British men return to Pakistan to find a bride, most often a cousin, who will be unused to Western ways, unlike Pakistani-British girls brought up in the U.K. For the Muslim girl, this arranged marriage appears not much different from the arranged marriage her family would otherwise make for her to a husband in Pakistan. In fact, she will come out ahead, because when her new husband brings her back to the U.K as his wife, even though she may live in a Muslim neighborhood, she will have more freedom of movement than would ever have been possible in Pakistan. She may acquire a better knowledge of English, offered by the generous welfare state of Britain. She may then have the further possibility of being able to work outside the house, depending on how liberal her husband is, and how great is the family’s need for money. She and her children will receive medical care far beyond what would have been possible in Pakistan. Her children will receive educations superior to anything they could get in Pakistan.
And in this way, many thousands of Pakistani girls and women are allowed into the U.K. each year — no one seems to know exactly how many — as the wives, in arranged  marriages, sometimes forced, of Muslim men already living in the country legally, thereby helping to increase the number of Muslims in Britain.
A different kind of arranged marriage is that where Muslim girls and women, who are legal migrants, or citizens, living in the U.K., are sent abroad by their families to marry Muslim men, who can return with them, as their husbands, on spousal visas. In order to make sure the girls are unable to back out from the marriages that have been arranged for them, the men deliberately rape and impregnate the girls, a way to seal the deal, and to prevent divorce, for the girls have now been rendered of less value — except to these “husbands” — on the marriage market. Furthermore, it is believed that a pregnant wife makes the marriage more legitimate in the eyes of British authorities.
These husbands from abroad now find that they are often (though not always) given that coveted thing, a spousal visa, by the Home Office, that allows them to remain in the U.K. as husbands of women who are legal migrants or  citizens. The couple can now be recipients of all the largesse the generous British welfare state provides. Their family can receive free or highly subsidized housing, free medical care, free education, family allowances, and more. But the main thing the men wanted they now have: they are able, with these spousal visas, to remain in the U.K.
Not all the women involved in these forced marriages are reconciled to their dismal lot. Some of these women have tried to get the British government to halt the practice of giving visas to their putative “husbands.”
Women and girls raped after being sent abroad, then Home Office lets illegal husbands settle in UK.
British teenagers are being forced to marry abroad and are raped and impregnated while the Home Office “turns a blind eye” by handing visas to their husbands, The Times has found.
Officials received dozens of reports last year that women wanted to block visas for men they had been made to marry in countries including Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and the United Arab Emirates. In almost half of their cases the visas were approved, records show.
Yvette Cooper, chairwoman of the home affairs select committee, said she would demand answers from the Home Office over the findings.
Experts believe that there are thousands of victims in Britain as the vast majority are too afraid to come forward….
Thus, while recognizing the nature of these forced marriages, designed to help the husbands obtain residence in the U.K., and having heard the testimony of many of the women who have been forced into these sham marriages, and heard, too, their pleas not to give their “husbands” visas, the Home Office has nonetheless continued to approve visas for these men. Why? Is it because they don’t mind offending Muslim women, but are worried about offending Muslim men? Are there Muslims working in the Home Office who are used to the idea of arranged — and forced — marriages, and do not consider such marriages to be “sham”? Where is the justification for approving these visas for men who, at the very least, have been accused by their “wives” of having raped them, and whose main interest is clearly not the marriage itself, but the ability to receive the spousal visas that will allow them to remain in the U.K.?
These “marriages” have involved girls as young as 11 who were sent abroad from the U.K.  Sometimes they are “married” using Skype. As noted above, the deliberate attempt to impregnate these girls not only makes them less marriageable to others, so that they are more likely to stay in this forced marriage, but also to make their own “marriage” more legitimate to British authorities. Another consideration is that by having their daughters marry Muslim men from abroad, who expect strict adherence to Islam, the parents hope that will change the behavior of their daughters, if they give signs of becoming too Western in their ways:
“Imams in the UK and abroad have been conducting ceremonies using Skype – so girls can be married remotely before “being put on a plane and consummating the marriage at the earliest opportunity”, according to Freedom, a charity.
The marriage is often conducted with the promise of a visa to the UK for their new husband, it said.
“The reason is to curb the behavior of their children when they become ‘too western’,” charity founder Aneeta Prem was quoted as saying by ‘The Sunday Times’.
“Once married, there is enormous pressure to get a spouse visa. The hope is the girl will visit (country of husband’s origin) and fall pregnant to make the union seem more legitimate before bringing the partner back,” she said.
To sum up:
Muslim girls in the U.K. are being sent abroad and forced to marry Muslim men, often much older, whom they do not know, and who have already been chosen for them, for three reasons. First, in order to make sure that their behavior remains islamically correct, and does not become “too western.” Second, so that the men they marry will be able to enter, and remain in, the U.K., on a spousal visa. Third, in some cases, these husbands-to-be pay the families of the girls for the right to marry them, mainly in order to get the benefits of that visa.
at

NYC: Muslim Uber driver throws gay man out of car, drags him along street, says he’d be beheaded in his country

JIHAD WATCH
Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

NYC: Muslim Uber driver throws gay man out of car, drags him along street, says he’d be beheaded in his country

  BY 46 COMMENTS
“My friend jumped out when we got to a red light, while the #Uberdriver continued to call us f***ots, and told us we would be beheaded in his country.”
That only happens in Sharia states.
The Qur’an contains numerous condemnations of homosexual activity: “And [We had sent] Lot when he said to his people, ‘Do you commit such immorality as no one has preceded you with from among the worlds? Indeed, you approach men with desire, instead of women. Rather, you are a transgressing people.’…And We rained upon them a rain [of stones]. Then see how was the end of the criminals.” (Qur’an 7:80-84)
Muhammad specifies the punishment for this in a hadith: “The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, ‘Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.’” (Sunan Abu Dawud 4462)
Also, Sharia forbids not just the consumption of alcohol, but its sale as well. A hadith depicts Muhammad saying: “Verily Allah, the Exalted, has forbidden wine. So who hears this verse and he has anything of it with him, he should neither drink it nor sell it.” (Sahih Muslim 3835)
“Man claims he was dragged along a street after hugging husband,” by Alexis Carey, News.com.au, November 30, 2018:
An alleged victim of a homophobic attack at the hands of his Uber drive has released graphic pictures of his injuries as a warning to other passengers.
Taray Carey, 27, was travelling in an Uber in New York on November 28 with husband Alex Majkowski and another friend when the couple shared a hug.
According to Mr Carey, the Uber driver was angered by the intimacy, allegedly calling the pair “f***ots” and telling them they would be “beheaded” if they lived in his home country.
Mr Carey attempted to leave the vehicle, but was allegedly dragged down the street as he clung to the car while the unnamed driver “gunned it”.
He said the incident had been reported to the police, but that they had been “patronising” in their response.
He shared details of the alleged incident on Facebook along with several photographs of his wounds.
“Tonight I was thrown out of an #uber by a homophobe,” Mr Carey wrote.
“I tried to step out, and he gunned it while my husband was still in the back seat.
“My friend jumped out when we got to a red light, while the #Uberdriver continued to call us f***ots, and told us we would be beheaded in his country. This is not OK!”…
at
JIHAD WATCH
Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

London’s Muslim Mayor Green-Lights Muslim-Owned Taxi Service That Could Destroy the City’s Traditional Black Cabs

  BY 30 COMMENTS
The black cab is every bit as familiar a sight in London as the red telephone box. It’s one of the things that make London unique, and is one of the things that tourists expect to see when coming here. Sadiq Khan, as London mayor, has a large say in what happens with Transport For London (TfL). He agreed with the removal of body-positive images of women in bikinis, and was quite vocal about why these images should be taken down from the underground adverts in his first days of office — in case they shamed fat people who have no control over their dietary impulses. Now he is happy that TfL is no longer dominated by white males, and he has made sure that people of colour make up the majority of the TfL voting bloc. Why he thinks skin tone or gender are transferable skills is beyond me. Uber cabs are already killing the black cab trade in London by illegally picking up people on the streets, and undercutting them on prices. Only black cabs are allowed to be flagged down by pedestrians; Uber is supposed to be by appointment only, and yet they sit on the sidewalks waiting to illegally pick up trade, like prostitutes.
Now Sadiq Khan has give the green light for Nohman Ahmed to set up a taxi service that will not only further undercut the traditional black cab service in London, but will also undercut Uber. Ahmed promises the surprise of your life, with Lamborghinis being one of the vehicles that might pick you up, and they will charge you only £5 for the privilege of escorting you around zone 1 in London with your 100th purchase. One of the selling points is that you can feel like Saudi Billionaire Turki Bin Abdullah.
The left are moaning about a ‘living wage,’ and Sadiq Khan is getting behind an organisation run by Ahmed that is virtually giving their wares away for free. How can the traditional London black cab compete with this? This is all reminiscent of Lutfur Rahman, the corrupt Tower Hamlets Muslim MP who was doing illegal deals with fellow Bangladeshis.
My friend is a black cab driver, and she has seen her income deteriorate with the rise of Uber. Now, with Khan giving the green light to Ahmed, she will see her salary reduced even more. It is illegal for Uber drivers to pick people up on the street, randomly, without prior booking, and yet they do. London hot spots are littered with Uber drivers. Further, my friend, the black cab driver, had to spend three years studying the London roads and answering multiple theory questions, at the expense of £10,000. Her studying comprised of learning the streets of London like the back of her hand (four hours on a bike each day to familiarize herself with the streets, two hours each day learning road names, a further two doing map testing, and two hours revision and preparation for the next day). She learned a craft that Khan is taking away from her. Nowadays, with sat-nav being available to all road users, my friend feels that her time spent studying was a waste, given the fact that people can get away with driving passengers around using electronic devices whilst speaking very little English.
A different organisation applied last year to TfL in order to have their cars and services rival Uber in London, but their appeal was rejected. Sadiq Khan has supported and defended terrorists throughout his legal career. It appears, now, likewise with Luftur Rahman, that there could possibly be Islamic favouritism occurring. Why would Sadiq Khan want to harm the traditional black cab industry by introducing a service by Ahmed that costs the user essentially pennies, and which will lead to the possible demise of a very English sight and mode of transport – the black cab?
at
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *