Islam and Dogs: What’s the Beef?

Islam and Dogs: What’s the Beef?

May 27, 2019Amil ImaniIslam0

By Amil Imani:

There is a deep-seated hatred of dogs among Muslims. Not among all Muslims, but among devout Muslims.  Dogs are considered “najes,” (unclean).

I have always loved dogs. It is said, “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.” Is there a saying for a case when both stupidity and malice team up together? I remember a gang of Muslim kids who tried to attack the street dogs. I was young and terrified. The gang managed to get a hold of a piece of meat from a nearby butcher shop as the bait. Bait for whom? The moment of truth arrived. I watched the unfolding drama from a distance with tremendous anticipation.

With the watering can hidden behind his back in one hand and the other hand held in front of him, dangling the bait, Hassan kept making friendly calls, “Here, here, good dog. Here, see what I’ve got for you. You’re our pet, you nice doggie, you,” as he slowly kept closing in on the dog. Uncharacteristically, the dog, while still on its side, started wagging its tail. It must have smelled the meat, the poor thing. I held my breath.

Then, the next thing I saw was Hassan’s mouth open, screaming like hell. The dog was dangling off the ground, hanging by its snout from Hassan’s hand, as if it preferred the meaty paw of the boss to the mostly boney bait. Hassan kept screaming, trying furiously to free his hand. The dog wouldn’t let go. Suddenly, to my horror, I saw Hassan bend over and bite the dog on the snout. Then the two of them howled in a harrowing duet. I had enough. I ran away as fast as I could. I feared that the dog was going to come after me, or worse, Mother might hear the commotion, catch me at the scene and summon Father with his sharp knife to finish me off.

Fanatical Muslims hate, literally hate, dogs. You might wonder why, since all dogs are considered man’s best friend by non-Muslims. And dogs have earned that privileged designation by their service as well as their devotion to people. Dogs have helped hunters, stood watch as hunters slept, and supplied people with an abundance of love. Why, then, single them out as deserving of hatred and even slaughter? It makes no sense.

One explanation for many Muslims’ hatred of dogs goes back to the time of Islam’s founder, Muhammad. The claims are that the Arab caravans were invariably accompanied by watchdogs. This presented a serious problem for Muhammad’s followers who routinely raided the caravans, often in a stealthy manner. The dogs detected the robbers, alerted the people and helped prevent attacking Muslims from robbing caravans and killing the traders. It was thus that Muhammad declared dogs as najes—untouchable— and condemned them to death.

To this day, no observing Muslim allows a dog anywhere near himself or his household. And in Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia, dogs are severely persecuted and considered fair game for maltreatment. Nonetheless, these very observant Muslims don’t have any qualms about using the invaluable assistance of dogs in chores to herd and guard sheep. In general, the Muslim hatred for dogs, as even many non-Muslims now know, has its origin in a celebrated hadith from the most authoritative collection, that by Bukhari:

Two Hadith from Sahih Muslim clearly convey Muhammad’s hatred of dogs: Abdullah (b. Umar) (Allah be pleased with them) reported:

Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) ordered the killing of dogsand we would send (men) in Medina and its corners and we did not spare any dog that we did not kill, so much so that we killed the dog that accompanied the wet she-camel belonging to the people of the desert. (Sahih Muslim 3811)

Ibn Mughaffal reported: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) ordered killing of the dogs,and then said: “What about them, i. e. about other dogs?” and then granted concession (to keep) the dog hunting and the dog for (the security) of the herd, and said: “When the dog licks the utensil, wash it seven times, and rub it with earth the eighth time.” (Sahih Muslim 551)

In short, for the past 1400 years, every misery upon humanity and animals originated from the source of Islam: The prophet Muhammad and his fictional God, Allah. Humanity has suffered too much, yet, the civilized world caters to these savages and ignores their actions. Why you might ask? Because they have oil.

© Copyright by Amil Imani, 2019. All rights reserved.

Email Amil:

Read More Articles by Amil Imani

How Complaining Physically Rewires Your Brain To Be Anxious And Depressed

How Complaining Physically Rewires Your Brain To Be Anxious And Depressed

by DailyHealthPost EditorialApril 24, 2019

complaining rewires brain

We all know a Debby-downer who is perpetually negative and tends to bring everyone down with them. For these people, life is always against them and they can never seem to catch a break. They eventually find themselves alone since their negativity can be physically exhausting to be around.

Everybody complains once in awhile, especially in our overly negative society. And for the most part, Dr. Robin Kowalski, professor of psychology at Clemson University, insists that complaining is perfectly normal (1).

Archetypes Of Negativity

Not everyone with a negative state of mind experiences and expresses their worldview in the same way. Just like every other personality trait, pessimism has its variations.

Here are the three most common types of complainers:

Venters: Venters are people who just want to be listened to. They typically look for someone to listen to their complaints but are quick to shut down solutions, even when it’s good advice.Sign up for the DailyHealthPost newsletter.
All the doable stuff to live better naturally, sent to your inbox daily.

Sympathy Seekers: Everyone’s come across one of these before. These kinds of complainers always one-up your misery. They always, always have it worse than you and are quick to see the fault in situations and others.

Chronic Complainers: These kinds of complainers do something researchers call “ruminating”, which means to obsessively think and complain about a problem. Instead of feeling relaxed after complaining, they actually become worried and anxious from the act.Page 1 / 3 >Sign up for the DailyHealthPost newsletter.
All the doable stuff to live better naturally, sent to your inbox daily.

  • How Complaining Physically Rewires Your Brain To Be Anxious And Depressedby DailyHealthPost EditorialApril 24, 2019Negativity Rewires Your BrainNegativity is a downward spiral, meaning that the more you focus on problems instead of solutions, you eventually start to see the negative side of everything in your life.While bouts of negative thinking happen on and off, it’s important to let yourself vent, but quickly move on to solutions.And it’s really worth doing : for one, negativity physically destroys your brain. ” …people who routinely experience chronic stress—particularly acute, even traumatic stress—release the hormone cortisol, which literally eats away, almost like an acid bath, at the hippocampus, which is a part of the brain that’s very engaged in visual-spatial memory as well as memory for context and setting,” explains Rick Hanson, Ph.D., a psychologist and Senior Fellow of the Greater Good Science Center at UC Berkeley (2).Plus, negative thinking reinforces neuropathways associated with that emotion, eventually making it an automatic reaction (3). The same can be said of any repetitive thought or action.However, this also allows you change your brain

Plus, negative thinking reinforces neuropathways associated with that emotion, eventually making it an automatic reaction (3). The same can be said of any repetitive thought or action.

However, this also allows you change your brain!

All the doable stuff to live better naturally, sent to your inbox daily.🍎SIGN UP 

how to stay positive

How To Stay Positive

You can train your brain to do anything, even when it comes to your outlook. The more you work hard to find the positivity in every situation, the more in becomes automatic (4).

Eventually, you’ll work hard to see the negative!

Here are a few steps to retrain your brain:

Be grateful: Find something to be grateful for everyday. If you keep a journal, write down 3 things you are grateful for every morning and every night.

If you start to feel anxious or pessimistic, pause a minute and write them down again. If it’s too hard, write down 5 or even 10 new things you’re grateful for. By the end of the exercise, you’ll feel much happier and fulfilled.

Catch yourself: Don’t wait for your friends or family to tell you you’re complaining, pay attention to your thoughts and words.

If you’re complaining, quickly shift your energy to find solutions and lessons to be learned. Afterwards, treat yourself will a nice cup of tea for the effort!Sign up for the DailyHealthPost newsletter.
All the doable stuff to live better naturally, sent to your inbox daily.

Change your mood: If you feel overwhelmed and negative, remove yourself from whatever you’re doing and shift your state of mind. If you’re home, sit down with your favorite book and cook up a tasty treat. If you’re at work, go to the washroom or break room for a few minutes and listen your favorite song.

Breathe deeply and close your eyes, paying attention to every word. Hold onto that relaxing feeling and carry it with you throughout the day.

Practice wise effort: Wise effort is the practice of letting go of anything that doesn’t serve you. If your worry won’t improve your situation or teach you a lesson, simply let it go and move on.

This is much easier said then done, of course, but if you write it out, ask friends for advice, and take some time to think it through constructively, it really can be done.

If you still feel stuck, here are 5 other practices worth trying:5 Powerful Ways To Drain Negative Energy

UK: thousands rally behind doctor “forced out” for politely asking Muslim woman to lift her veil

UK: thousands rally behind doctor “forced out” for politely asking Muslim woman to lift her veil


An update to a troubling story that Jihad Watch covered about veteran medical doctor, Keith Wolverson. A brief background:  He is facing an inquiry and possible dismissal for “discrimination” after asking a Muslim woman to remove her veil so he could hear her better, while treating her son in the walk-in centre at Royal Stoke University Hospital in Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire.  After Dr. Wolverson’s polite request, she willingly complied, but her supremacist husband later raised a stink about it about it, resulting in an inquiry. The ordeal lead to Wolverson planning to quit “and retrain as a cosmetic practitioner.” He stated:

 I feel a major injustice has taken place. This is why you are waiting so long to see your GP and doctors are leaving in droves. This country will have no doctors left if we continue to treat them in this manner. I’m deeply upset.

The update….

More than 11,000 people have rallied behind Dr. Wolverson. 11,000 signatures flowed in to defend and support Dr. Wolverson from this gross injustice in less than 24 hours.  The case involving Dr. Wolverson demonstrates just how far one hospital will go to appease Muslims, at the expense of a dedicated employee and of justice.

“Thousands rally to defend doctor ‘forced out’ for asking Muslim woman to lift veil as more than 11,000 sign petition in less than 24 hours”, by James Tozer, Daily Mail, May 21, 2019:

More than 11,000 people have rallied behind a doctor under investigation for asking a Muslim woman to remove her veil during an appointment.

Supporters have signed an online petition in huge numbers demanding Dr Keith Wolverson, 52, keep his job to ‘protect his reputation’.

The petition also called on the General Medical Council (GMC) to ‘treat this man fairly and look at all the evidence’ after it was revealed a complaint had been made to them by the patient following the incident at Royal Stoke University Hospital.

The doctor said he is unable to find work and is planning to quit medicine and retrain as a cosmetic practitioner.

Dr Wolverson claims the woman did not object when he ‘politely’ asked her to remove the face covering, adding he only asked because he was struggling to understand what she was saying about her sick daughter.

But her husband later made a complaint and last week the locum GP was shocked to receive a letter from doctors’ regulator the General Medical Council. It said that he was being investigated over allegations of racial discrimination which could result in him being struck off.

The GMC said it never confirmed whether doctors were under investigation unless they were given conditions or suspended, neither of which has happened to Dr Wolverson at this stage…..

Muslims In France Complain Of Widespread “Islamophobia”

Muslims In France Complain Of Widespread “Islamophobia”


The incident at the lingerie-shop in Montpellier, where a hijabbed woman was at first denied employment as long as she insisted on wearing the hijab, highlights a frequent debate in French politics and society: Can French Muslims ever be just French?

French Muslims can be “just French” if they are willing to adopt to, rather than resist, the laws, customs, and understandings of French society, beginning with the principle of “laicite” (the laic state), enshrined in French law since 1905. Every effort has been made by the French state to support Muslim migrants, who have had many benefits lavished upon them: free or highly subsidized housing, free education, free medical care, family allowances.Yet we see that French Muslims have segregated themselves, creating neighborhoods that in some cases have become distinctly unwelcome to the French. These are the “No Go” areas where non-Muslims fear to tread. Then there are the hundreds of French Muslims who have enthusiastically gone off to join ISIS; the tens of thousands of Muslims who without official permission aggressively take over French city streets for mass prayers; there are Muslim students who refuse to study the history of the Crusades, or the history of the French kings, seeing these subjects as irrelevant or offensive to them; ,some have objected to studying the Holocaust, also on the national history syllabus, because it creates “too much sympathy” for Jews.”

It is not the French who are keeping the Muslims out of the larger society, but the Muslims who are refusing to be “just French.” The Qur’an tells Muslims not to take Christians and Jews as friends, for “they are friends only with each other.”(5:51) It further says that while the Muslims “are the best of peoples,” (3:110) non-Muslims are “the most vile of created beings.” (98:6). Muslims who read those verses are not likely to want to integrate into French society; for the true Believers, it would make no sense for the “best of peoples” to want to become part of the society created by “the most vile of created beings.”

“Following the 2015 attacks in Paris, in which the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant armed group (ISIL or ISIS) killed 130 people in three incidents, Islamophobic sentiment has increased, said Nadiya Lazzouni, a journalist and Muslim activist.

“The belief that Islam cannot be a part of France’s Republic or that the French Muslim is a disguised enemy from within the country has definitely spread across the country,” she told Al Jazeera.

“It’s important to remember that after the 2015 attacks, the government and other institutions publicly asked Muslims to disengage themselves from what happened, which clearly means they didn’t trust Muslims to be supportive of France,” Lazzouni said. “It was a way to affirm whether we were loyal to the nation or not.”

Nadiya Lazzouni claims that after the 2015 attacks in Paris by Muslim terrorists, “Islamophobic sentiment has increased.” There was no increase in “an irrational fear and hatred” of Islam. These 2015 attacks — which began with the murders in January of 12 cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo, and of a half-dozen shoppers killed at a kosher supermarket, led to an increase in “a rational fear” of Islam and of Muslims. This rational fear was heightened in November, when there were attacks at the Bataclan nightclub, and outside the Stade de France, and at several cafes and restaurants, leaving 130 dead, and 413 wounded, including 100 critically. What should the French public have made of these attacks, by Muslims, claiming to act for Islam? Should they not have been alarmed? Should they not have read the Qur’an to find a possible explanation for such behavior? And when those who read the Qur’an then find those 109 verses commanding Muslims to wage violent Jihad against Unbelievers, to fight and to kill them, to smite at their necks, to strike terror in their hearts, should they simply have ignored those verses? Why? Those who grasp the significance of these verses cannot be accused of harboring a baseless “Islamophobia,” but, rather, they possess a perfectly rational fear of Islam and of Muslims.

Nadiya Lazzouri, a journalist and “Muslim activist,” apparently finds it unacceptable that after the 2015 attacks the French government and other institutions publicly asked Muslims to disengage themselves from what happened, which clearly means they didn’t trust Muslims to be supportive of France,” Lazuli said. “It was a way to affirm whether we were loyal to the nation or not.”

“The activist said Islamophobia has been increasing at a “frightening rate” in France for years.

I can find no confirmation of Lazzouni’s claim that the French government “publicly asked Muslims to disengage themselves from what happened.” There were Muslims who, as usual, claimed that these attacks in 2015 “had nothing to do with real Islam,” but those remarks were not demanded by the government. What does Lazzouni have in mind? There was not, after the November attacks, the same public call for solidarity with Muslims that had been made after the Charlie-Hebdo attacks, perhaps indicating that there was now less interest in soothing Muslim sensibilities by reassuring them, and a growing realization that those many Muslims who dutifully took in the Qur’anic commands to wage Jihad were not to be trusted– a commonsensical conclusion which Lazzouni finds so terribly unfair.

“According to the Collectif Contre L’Islamophobia en France (Organisation against Islamophobia in France, also known as CCIF) Islamophobic attacks increased by 52 percent in 2018 compared with 2017.

“In the first four months of 2019, there have been a reported 300 attacks.

Without more information, we do not know what, according to the CCIF, constitute “Islamophobic” attacks. One would like to be able to judge the severity of these attacks. Swearing and other forms of verbal disrespect? A line of graffiti near a mosque? How many of these “attacks” involved any physical contact whatsoever? Some Muslims have reported as “islamophobic” attacks even such minor “aggressions” as disapproving looks cast in their direction, or the failure to serve them properly, or promptly, in stores, subjectively interpreted as deliberate expressions of “Islamophobia.” Should such micro-aggressions — if in fact they took place at all, and were not made up to swell the statistics on “islamophobia”–really be counted as “attacks”?

“Lazzouni pointed to former President Nicolas Sarkozy, who created a ministerial position tasked to[sic] deal with reconciling immigration with national identity.

“He created a link between the two,” Lazzouni said, adding that this paved the way for his successor, Francois Hollande, to propose stripping dual-nationality citizens of their French nationality if they were suspected of “terrorist” activity.

“The proposal did not get far following public outcry, but the damage was already done, said Lazzouni.

“It had implanted in people’s minds the creation of “two versions of France facing each other”, she said.

The “version of France” that its Muslims adhere to is based on the Qur’an. Muslims are duty-bound to wage jihad against non-Muslims, though not necessarily through violence, when other more effective means present themselves (as, in France today, demographic jihad). While the French have made every effort to welcome Muslim migrants, and to integrate them into the wider French society, it is Muslims themselves — not all but a great many — who choose instead to remain aloof. They are told in the Quran not to take Jews and Christians as friends, for “they are friends only with each other.” (5:51) After all, as Muslims, they are the “best of peoples” (3:110) and the French, like all non-Muslims, are “the most vile of created beings.” (98:6). There is no place in France that Muslims cannot go, but there are many places in France that non-Muslins do not dare to go; these are the “No-Go Areas” where young and aggressive Muslims dominate, and even the French police enter these neighborhoods only in groups.

“For Jawad Bachara, CCIF president, the state leads anti-Muslim discrimination.

“Islamophobia is institutionalised within France,” Bachara told Al Jazeera. “There are two laws, one in 2004 that bans the hijab from public schools, and one in 2011 that bans the full face veil, that directly target the individual liberties of Muslim women.”

Jawad Bachara mischaracterizes the 2004 law. It did not just “ban the hijab” but banned the wearing of all religious symbols, including the Jewish skull-cap, and large crucifixes, from public schools. It was based on the felt need to reinforce the 1905 laic law on the strict separation of church and state..

As for the 2011 law banning the full face veil, but only in public (which Bachara fails to note) , that law was enacted, in the first place, for obvious reasons of national security. There have been cases where female terrorists managed not to be identified because they were wearing the niqab, and even more cases where male terrorists escaped detection by wearing the niqab. In the second place, that banning of the veil also was important to foil common criminals who have been wearing niqabs, in the commission of their crimes — the niqab has proven particularly useful for criminals who have, properly niqabbbed, gained entry to jewelry stores in order to successfully rob them.

“Most Islamophobic acts see mosques attacked or Muslim women who wear the hijab assaulted,” Bachara said.

How many mosques in France have been seriously “attacked”? What is the nature of those “attacks”? I can find online only one example of a working mosque that suffered anything more than the most modest of damages: that was the Al-Salam mosque in Toulouse, which did burn down. Another mosque, under construction, was party burned. In other cases, one or a handful of shots were fired, always when the mosque was empty: a single shot was fired at a mosque in Le Mans; several shots were fired at a mosque in Port-la-Nouvelle. Some empty bullet casings were found outside another mosque. At a Muslim prayer hall in Corsica a boar’s head and entrails were left outside with a note (“Next time you will be next”), swastikas and “sieg heils” were also painted on the outside walls of the Grand Mosque in southeastern France. The same swastikas and sieg-heils were painted on a mosque in Castres. Possibly another handful of mosques have had some minor damage: one or a few shots fired (always when the mosque was empty). These attacks are all deplorable, of course, but over the past 18 years, that’s not exactly a record of nonstop violent expressions of “Islamophobia.”

As for “assaults” on hijabbed women in France, I found listed on-lne only one attack, on a niqabbed emirati woman, by another woman who had lived for several years in Arab countries and had had her fill of what she saw as symbol of female oppression and tried to pull off her face veil. I can find not even a single example listed of “Muslim women who wear the hijab.[being] assaulted.”This does not mean there were no such incidents, but it does strongly suggest that there could not have been many such incidents. Possibly a dozen, or even two or three,that went unrecorded? In other words, in the 18 years since 2001, there may have been between 1 and 2 cases annually of hijab-snatching. Wouldn’t that be a reasonable estimate? The numbers of attacks on mosques and assaults on hijab-wearing women are absurdly small, compared to what Bachara and Lazzouni and other defenders of the faith want people to believe.There has been no tsunami of “islamophobia.”

“But there is also discrimination at work, such as the recent incident at the French [Etam] lingerie shop.

There is no mention, in this recital of islamophobic woe about the Etam incident, of what both the law (the El Khomri law requires employees to show ‘total neutrality” in their appearance), and sensible business practices call for under the circumstances; a hijabbed saleswoman would likely not be a good fit as a saleswoman in a lingerie shop.

“CCIF offers legal and psychological assistance to victims.

“[But] some people do not report Islamophobic acts due to fear of reprisals,” said Bachara.

“Following the announcement of the state of emergency in 2015 after the attacks, there was a suspicious climate in France coupled with police raids on homes, which contributed to silencing people in a way.”

It is perfectly understandable that after the attacks in France during 2015 –on Charlie Hebdo, on the kosher market, on the Bataclan night club, on the Stade de France, on several cafes and restaurants, that there would have been a heightened state of alert, including “police raids on homes” thought to be connected to terrorists. This “suspicious climate” is deplored by Bachara, who thinks that there may have been a great many acts of “Islamophobia,”but that innocent and frightened Muslims did not, in that supposed climate of fear, dare to report them.

“Bachara said the government’s own data on Islamophobia is unreliable because it only counts attacks where charges were pressed.

“Here at CCIF, we count situations and procedures that do not necessarily end up going to court,” he said.

Why might such cases end up not going to court? One possibility is that the complaint was made up, or exaggerated, and the Muslim who made the complaint was getting nervous about being found out, and chose not to continue..Another possibility: the public prosecutor might have judged a particular charge too flimsy to proceed with. Bachara doesn’t mention these as conceivable reasons why certain “situations” (where Muslims complain of “Islamophobic” attacks) do not “end up going to court.”

“According to Abdellali Hajjat, professor of political science at Nanterre University, there was a conscious movement of thought that in 2003 drove France’s historical secularism into what he called “neo-secularism.”

“Secularism in France was enshrined in law in 1905 and stipulates the separation of church and state, focused on three principles: the neutrality of the state, the freedom of religious practice, and public powers related to the church.

“The way Muslims are stigmatised in France today is perpetrated by the neo-secularism rhetoric, which consists of spreading the principle of religious neutrality beyond state officials, and then applying it to citizens,” Hajjat said, adding it was “hostile” to freedom of expression.

“Centre-right and centre-left movements or parties, represented by Manuel Valls (prime minister under Hollande) or by Nicolas Sarkozy, were more focused on an extending logic of this neo-secularism principle.”

“This rhetoric, which reached its peak in the 2004 ban on the hijab, had to do with the September 11 attacks in the United States and, before that, the attacks on French soil in 1995 and 1996 that were linked to the Algerian civil war, which Hajjal said changed the public perception of Muslims in France.

The French are being accused of allowing themselves – how dare they?–to be affected by reality. Attacks by Muslims in France in 1995 and 1996, and the 9/11 attacks in the U.S., “changed the public perception of Muslims” in France. How could they not have been? Of course the French have been affected in their views of Muslims by those attacks, and also by the nearly 35,000 attacks by Muslim terrorists worldwide since 9/11. Hajjat finds this so unfair; sensible people will beg to differ.

“There were also intellectuals who had, since 1989, argued for a ban on the hijab and who are still part of the public scene, he added.

“People like [author] Elisabeth Badinter and [philosopher] Alain Finkielkraut, as well as the late [industrialist] Pierre Berge, took it upon themselves to convince the political elite that there was a Muslim issue in France, and that the only solution was to completely ban the hijab in public schools,” he said. “They completely reduced the headscarf-wearing woman to the piece of fabric on her head.”

Hajjal continues to mistate the 2004 law, which did not “ban the hijab” alone, but applied to all “ostentatious” religious symbols, including the Jewish Kippah and large crucifixes (small ones, on chains and hidden from view, were allowed). It was not Badinter and Finkielkraut and Berge who convinced the French elite there was a “Muslim issue in France,” but the behavior of Muslims themselves, whose display of disaffection from the French state, and contempt for the French Unbelievers, remain so disturbing. Nor did Badinter and Finkielkraut and Berge claim that banning the hijab in public places was a “solution”; it addressed only one small part of the Muslim challenge to the secular French state.

“However, Hajjal added, Emmanuel Macron, the current president, “adheres to the original version of secularism because he is surrounded by a heterogeneous cabinet from diverse political backgrounds that have truly different ideological visions.”

“Lazzouni, the activist, said Islamophobia is still not yet recognised as a crime on the same level that anti-Semitism is.

“Anti-Semitism is fought against with determination by the government, and that’s great,” she said. “We are just demanding that all forms of racism are fought with the same vigour.”

Antisemitism is a real and ancient phenomenon, a pathological condition with deadly consequences; it resulted in the murder of six million innocents not so long ago. ‘Islamophobia” is a term made up in the last few decades to inhibit, and ideally to shut up, islamocritics, by labelling them as “Islamophobes,” possessing an irrational fear and hatred of Islam and of Muslims. Islamophobia, in turn, is described as a form of “racism” though no one has been able to explain why a religious faith — an ideology — should be considered a race. And the word itself, which should mean “an irrational fear and hatred of Islam and Muslims,” is routinely applied to all islamocritics, whose fears are not irrational, whose criticisms of Islam are sober, measured, and evidence-based — the evidence being both the observable behavior of Muslims during the past 1,400 years, and the contents of the Qur’an.

“Hajjat agrees and says that Islamophobia, as a form of racism, is also considered legitimate rhetoric.

Hajjat can say that, and so can Nadiya Lazzouni, and in Great Britain, Naz Shah, and Baroness Warsi, and in the U.S., the entire membership of CAIR, but it still won’t make it true. For the nth time, let it be repeated: Muslims are not a race and “Islamophobia” is not “a form of racism.” Write it 100 times on your mental blackboard.

“There’s no social backlash to anyone that holds Islamophobic views,” he said. “This happens because the public squares in which they have a platform to spread their ideas is [sic]run by people who share the same rhetoric.”

Everywhere the word “islamophobic” appears, simply substitute the word “Islamocritical”; for “islamophobe” substitute “islamocritic,” and for “islamophobia” substitute “islamocriticism.” Do not be inveigled into accepting, and starting yourself to use, the twisted language of Muslim apologists.

“For example, Laurence Rossignol, the former minister for families, children and women, infamously compared women who chose to wear the veil to “negroes who were in favour of slavery.”

Rossignol was describing the phenomenon of Muslim women who accept the symbols of their own subjection, and even defend them, as akin to “negroes who were in favor of slavery.” Was his remark “infamous” because it was false, or because, much more worrisome for Muslims, it was true?

“[With] clear Islamophobic voices rising within the government, [there is an] idea that Islamophobia is an opinion rather than a crime,” Lazzouni argued.

“We need to focus on other fields than the legislative one to fight efficiently anti-Muslim racism,” she said.

In the advanced states of the West, an opinion by itself is never a crime. We do not punish mere opinions. Lazzouni wants to criminalize islamocriticism — which she persists in calling “islamophobia.” She refers to “Islamophobic voices rising within the government” but does not offer a single name of such a “voice,” or a single example, of what she considers to be their “Islamophobia.”

“In the aftermath of the Christchurch mosque attacks in New Zealand, in which at least 50 Muslim worshippers were gunned down by a far-right white supremacist, “columnists, so-called intellectuals and journalists were given a platform to try to explain and therefore legitimise this terrorist act by saying it was an act of revenge [for acts committed by ISIL],” said Lazzouni, explaining that combatting Islamophobia requires more than documenting and giving legal advice.”

I have been unable to find on-line statements by French intellectuals, columnists, and journalists in which they try in any way to legitimize the attacks on two mosques in Colombo. Perhaps Nadiya Lazzouni would like to offer an example. And when she says, cryptically, that “islamophobia requires more than documenting and giving legal advice” surely she means this: that French society, working alongside the French state, should silence at its source all “islamophobic” — that is, islamocritical –voices. Not through legislation alone, or even mainly, but through social and economic pressure, Muslims will find the most effective way to silence islamocritics.. For example, Muslims and their supporters could engage in protests outside newspaper offices and television studios, in order to demand that “islamophobic” writers and talk-show guests be prevented from having their views disseminated in print or from appearing on television to discuss Islam. No laws are needed for this effective censorship. We already have seen, in this country, that the major social media platforms, without needing any prompting from governments, have made it difficult to access islamocritical sites.

In France,Lazzouni and Hajjat paint a picture of Muslim woe, of a government indifferent or hostile to the needs of its Muslim community. “Islamophobia” is supposedly on the march, and the French don’t care. These Muslim apologists have got it all backwards. In reality, a succession of French governments — from Sarkozy to Hollande to Macron — have not been indifferent at all, but have struggled with the problem of Muslim immigrants failing to integrate into French society, indifferent or hostile to their non-Muslim French hosts, and posing a physical threat to the larger society that has, to its own secret sorrow, taken them in and given them refuge.

Though they claim it is they, the Muslims, who feel threatened today in France, the facts tell us otherwise. It’s not mosques, but churches, that are being vandalized, often with their crucifixes and statues broken, church floors been urinated and even defecated on), by Muslims asserting themselves and demonstrating their contempt for Infidels. In 2018, when there was not a single attack on a mosque in France, there were 1,063 attacks on Christian churches or symbols (crucifixes, icons, statues) registered in France.. It’s not Muslims who are assaulted on French streets, but non-Muslims, especially Jews, by Muslims. It’s not Muslims who dare not enter certain areas, but non-Muslims who are afraid to enter the No-Go areas that many Muslim neighborhoods across France have become. It is not the so-called threat of “Islamophobia,” but rather, the spread and use of this insidious word — describing a fake condition, a phony worry — in order to shut down “islamocriticism,” that should concern people in France. Well-informed and relentless criticism of Islam is now indispensable for the survival of the West. Islam’s ever-increasing presence in France, as elsewhere in Europe, the result of large-scale migration, conversions to Islam, (especially among prisoners), and sky-high fertility rates, has become a tremendous problem.

There is no simple solution to this problem. Is there a hard one?

Share this:



What happened when a nation tried Bernie Sanders’ power plan. 

May 16, 2019  Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

Nearly 150 years after electricity came to South Africa, the country is in the dark. The blackouts can strike at any time and then lights, hot water and even major industries vanish into the darkness.

Storing perishable food in the fridge has become a gamble. The meat you buy today may be inedible tomorrow if the rolling blackout arrives and lasts long enough to destroy all the food you cooked.

With rolling blackouts that can last for as long as twelve hours, South Africans have grown used to eating by candlelight and heating water the old-fashioned way. Those who can afford it have been stocking up on generators. But the demand is so high that it can take a month to even obtain a generator.

It’s not just homes and small businesses. Factories and mines are struggling to maintain the country’s industrial base when power can vanish for the entire workday. Traffic lights run off the same power grid and when it goes into ‘load-shedding’ mode, the roads become a snarled maze of honking cars.

South Africa is out of power. The load-shedding blackouts are a last-ditch effort to avert a national blackout that will send the entire country spiraling into a deeper and more enduring darkness.

At the center of the disaster is Eskom: South Africa’s state-owned power company. The socialist relic has had many scandals over the years, but its dysfunction reached epic proportions under the ANC. The African National Congress still carries a mythical luster in the United States due to the Mandela name, but it has thoroughly alienated both the country’s white population and its black middle class.

Key figures in the ANC, including Nelson Mandela, were members of South Africa’s Communist party. And under ANC rule, Eskom, the largest state-owned enterprise in South Africa, suffered massive thefts. Earlier this year, a government investigations unit tried to track down $9.6 billion in stolen Eskom funds.

And that may only be the tip of a melting iceberg.

With elections coming up, the blackouts are politically inconvenient to the government, and the opposition Democracy Alliance is accusing the ruling ANC of blowing through a secret diesel budget to keep the system up and running until the elections are over. And then the real blackouts will begin.

Eskom meanwhile is dominated by the Union of Metalworkers which has its own political movement, the Socialist Revolutionary Workers’ Party, founded due to ANC proposals to break up Eskom. The SRWP is a Marxist-Leninist movement whose manifesto calls for abolishing private property ownership.

“We will nationalize the land and place it under the control of a worker state,” its national chair, Comrade Irwin Jim, the general secretary of the Union of Metalworkers, declared. “Under a Socialist government, no one will own land, therefore allowing for the worker-controlled state to decide how land is allocated, farmed and used.”

Considering how well South Africa has done with state and worker control over electricity, giving the SRWP control over all the land would lead to famine and the deaths of millions.

But when it isn’t calling for a Marxist dictatorship, the SRWP is fighting the privatization of Eskom.

South Africa’s power supply is in the hands of Marxists who are fighting the more moderate Marxists. The SRWP doesn’t care if Eskom’s debts bankrupt South Africa or its blackouts leave the country in the dark. The ANC knows that it if it doesn’t find a way to keep the power on, it will lose the middle class.

The Marxist SRWP is fighting to maintain Eskom’s failing coal plants while the ANC has proposed bringing in private companies to supply renewable energy. The power struggle puts South Africa in the unique position of being the only country where the Left is fighting against solar and wind power.

That’s because the comrades of the Union of Metalworkers fear losing control if solar power comes in.

The ANC tried to cope with power problems by building two huge coal plants. Medupi and Kusile instead became hugely expensive boondoggles that continually break down because of overuse, staff incompetence and poor planning. Eskom’s engineers and brass were unqualified ANC cronies brought in through affirmative action, and were incapable of managing a project of this scale. The power plants that were meant to provide for South Africa’s future are rated as being only 40% reliable.

While the SRWP is calling for massive investments in Eskom, there’s no more money left. A $5 billion bailout hasn’t helped. The only remaining hope for the failing socialist utility is huge loan from China. While the socialists blame each other for the blackout, others are turning to the free market.

2016 didn’t just usher in political revolutions in the United States and the United Kingdom.

That was also the year that the ANC lost Johannesburg. Mayor Herman Mashaba, the Democracy Alliance candidate, is a successful entrepreneur and former chair of the Free Market Foundation. And he’s had enough of Eskom. The libertarian politician announced that he’s going to protect the city from the socialist blackouts by striking a deal with the independent power producers whom Eskom hates.

The Democracy Alliance’s victory in Johannesburg highlighted the ANC’s collapse among both the white and black middle class. Americans tend to see Mandela’s triumph as a victory against racism. But apartheid was already collapsing. The ANC’s victory put former Communists in charge of the country.

The blackouts, the corruption, thievery and even murder are the inevitable outcome of that disaster.

If the Democracy Alliance wins over the middle class, the ANC will be reduced to fighting for welfare votes against more radical movements like the SRWP and Malema’s Economic Freedom Fighters by implementing portions of their program of nationalization, redistribution and socialist terror.

And that will transform South Africa into a war zone or another Zimbabwe.

South Africa is losing billions to the blackouts as factories, mines and businesses shut down. Eskom was always a time bomb. It existed to produce artificially cheap electricity. State-owned utilities are a popular socialist gimmick. They’re so popular that Senator Bernie Sanders ran on a similar pledge.

In the seventies, the program of America’s future socialist celebrity politician was ominously similar to that of the SRWP. “The oil industry, and the entire energy industry, should be owned by the public and used for the public good,” he proposed in 1973.

In 1976, he suggested seizing Vermont’s private electric companies, claiming that it would result in cheaper rates and revenues that the government could then spend on social welfare.

“I favor the public ownership of utilities, banks and major industries,” he stated in an interview.

South Africa’s rolling blackouts, families forced to turn to kerosene lamps, to firewood, and to generators is a graphic demonstration of what Bernie’s power play would have done to America.

Socialism in South Africa means being unable to store food in your fridge. It means eating dinner in the dark and finding your way around your building by using the light on your smart phone. It means that your business may need to shut down because there will be no power and no customers.

Like the ANC, socialism promises everything and instead takes everything leaving you in the dark.

Socialism doesn’t work. Like South Africa’s power plants, it’s only a matter of time until it breaks down.


Photo credit: Tags: Bernie SandersSocialismSouth Africa

Australia switches off

Australia switches off

MAY 18, 2019 10:15 AM BY MARC36 COMMENTS

Today I had a couple of reports that this site was not accessible in Australia. They started in early morning, so I suspect that something happened overnight. We know that the majority of internet service providers in both Australia and New Zealand had started a month ago, described here at as “ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent”.

Initially it was only sites that had hosted the shootings in Christchurch, and was reported to be only temporary.

In New Zealand, mobile internet service providers take it upon themselves to enact censorship

Starting over the weekend, Spark NZ, Vodafone NZ, and Vocus NZ were the three New Zealand ISPs that have taken it upon themselves to block these sites. On their part, the ISPs and smartphone network providers are claiming that these are only temporary blocks. Temporary blocks that have lasted multiple days – more than long enough to change people’s’ browsing habits. Even the perpetrators of this censorship are aware how unprecedented it is. Geoff Thorn, a chief executive at New Zealand Telecommunications Forum (TCF), commented to CIO:

This site and none of it’s authors have ever advocated violence as a solution, and commenters that do are actively removed, and it was never even suggested that the site host or link to the footage of the shooting.

They lied, they expanded the censorship and it’s no longer looking temporary. Only a couple of days ago the Daily Mail quantified the damage that Google is doing with their biased algorithm here. It’s a death by a thousand cuts, and they get deeper with every slash.

So that’s where we are today, Jihad Watch has again become a victim of fascist censorship, a whole continent blocked from hearing any opposing views of Islam or discussion of jihad. The narrative will be in the hands of big tech and those in power.

The blocking method they have used is very low tech, and thankfully for now easily bypassed. Ten years ago I was sharing this link with dissidents in Iran and family in Turkey. or if that’s blocked just these numbers in a browser provides instructions on how to bypass this method of censorship. Keep them handy, the free internet is getting much smaller at a faster pace,  so you never know when you might need them. This is often the first method that fascist regimes use to censor the internet. Once they get comfortable with it, such as China, North Korea and Iran, they have more aggressive censorship methods, but that takes time to deploy.

Jihad Watch actually always has, or I should say had, quite a large viewership in Australia.  They were very active here as commenters. I get to see the new guys’ comments get caught in our moderation system when I check them each morning (there’s a 12 hour time difference).

Hopefully those that have access can spread the word on how to bypass those blocks, a VPN will also work, and has the benefit of always bypassing censorship and ensuring privacy, VladTepes discusses that here as he had similar reports from his visitors.

2 years ago we found that many ISPs in the UK and a few in the rest of Europe were doing the same. I offered this advice then.

I am very disappointed with EFF, an organisation describing themselves as “The leading nonprofit defending digital privacy, free speech, and innovation.”, although acknowledge and are aware of the scale of this misuse of power, only describing the following as “The Ugly”…

The Call asks companies to take “transparent, specific measures” to prevent the upload of terrorist and violent extremist content and prevent its dissemination “in a manner consistent with human rights and fundamental freedoms.” But as numerous civil society organizations pointed out in the May 14 meeting, upload filters are inherently inconsistent with fundamental freedoms. Moreover, driving content underground may do little to prevent attacks and can even impede efforts to do so by making the perpetrators more difficult to identify.

We also have grave concerns about how “terrorism” and “violent extremism” are defined, by whom.  Companies regularly use blunt measures to determine what constitutes terrorism, while a variety of governments—including Call signatories Jordan and Spain—have used anti-terror measures to silence speech.

It must be obvious that sites such as are not even close to “terrorist and violent extremist content”. It’s just news and discussion, mostly sourced from mainstream media or regional news. What are EFF scared of ? they won’t cite an example, and there are many. Is free speech only protected for those they agree with now?

UK: Muslim MP rejects “islamophobia” definition, says the term is “weaponized by hardline groups”

UK: Muslim MP rejects “islamophobia” definition, says the term is “weaponized by hardline groups”


“England’s first Muslim MP today agreed that the Government was right to refuse to enshrine a definition of Islamophobia in law.  Labour’s Khalid Mahmood… said the move would only divide the country more and lead to increased segregation of Muslim communities.” He further stated: “I am for equality for all – but I oppose this. We as Muslims should be proud of who we are and try to move away from a victim mentality.”

Jihad Watch covered the rejection of the working definition of ‘Islamophobia’ proposed by an all-party Parliamentary group. The definition, “as put forward by the British Muslims determined that Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”. The latter term is undefined and downright ludicrous.

The victimology subterfuge is often used by Islamic supremacists to beat down critics of Islam.  MP Khalid Mahmood also warned that “‘Islamophobia’ had been ‘weaponised’ by hardline groups and could be used to stifle the ‘operation of a free media’”. But for fellow Muslim Labor MP Naz Shah, the UK government’s rejection of the term was rather upsetting to her as it was to many Muslim groups. She stated:

If it is down to women to define the experience of feminism, the experiences of people of colour to define racism, the experience of Jews to define anti-Semitism, the experience of the LGBTQ+ communities to define homophobia, I ask the minister how dare he tell the British Muslims that our experiences can not define Islamophobia.

Aside from dislike of “Muslimness” which could be interpreted to mean dislike of the sharia, deemed be divine in Islam, the term “Islamophobia” was also defined in Canada by the National Council of Canadian Muslims to be: “fear, prejudice, hatred or dislike directed against Islam or Muslims, or towards Islamic politics or culture.

So, no, it is not up to Muslims to impose the term “Islamophobia” upon Western societies as Naz Shah would have it. If Muslims want to address their experiences of discrimination, then they have every right to do so, and to oppose anti-Muslim bigotry, but “Islamophobia” is a loaded term that has no place in any free democracy.

While Naz Shah is pushing “Islamophobia”, she cares nothing about Muslims victimizing innocents. She retweeted for the young victims of Muslim rape gangs to shut up for the good of diversity.

“MPs rail against plan to define Islamophobia in law that would ‘divide the country’ after the government rejected it and experts warned it would limit free speech”, by Martin Robinson, Daily Mail, May 16, 2019:

England’s first Muslim MP today agreed that the Government was right to refuse to enshrine a definition of Islamophobia in law.

Labour’s Khalid Mahmood, who represents Birmingham Perry Barr, said the move would only divide the country more and lead to increased segregation of Muslim communities.

He told the Commons during a debate on the issue: ‘I am for equality for all – but I oppose this. We as Muslims should be proud of who we are and try to move away from a victim mentality’.

Supporters of the idea including the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims say that formalising the term will help to counter hostility toward Muslims.

But Mr Mahmood said: ‘I have been the victim of hate mail and actions from the far right and the Islamist community as well. I am proud to be a British Pakistani Muslim MP – the first Muslim to be elected in this Parliament from England. I will take no lessons from anyone who says I’m an Islamophobe or too much or a Muslim’.

Mr Mahmood also said the proposed definition focussed too much on what a Muslim man or woman would traditionally wear – rather than protecting British Muslims who choose to dress differently.

He said: ‘How do you protect those Muslims who dress normally in society but have the religion in their heart? The definition of ‘Muslimness’ as it is described in this report categorises people who dress a particular way and those who don’t. By defining it in this way you are excluding those who don’t’.

Yesterday he said the term ‘Islamophobia’ had been ‘weaponised’ by hardline groups and could be used to stifle the ‘operation of a free media’.

Downing Street said last night the suggested definition of Islamophobia had not been broadly accepted, adding: ‘This is a matter that will need further careful consideration.’

More than 40 religious leaders and experts including Mr Mahmood wrote to Home Secretary Sajid Javid yesterday, telling him that the definition could be a ‘backdoor blasphemy law’ and limit free speech.

Naz Shah, who represents Bradford West, said Muslims in Britain were being denied the same rights as other races or religions in the UK.

Proposals for an official definition of Islamophobia were rejected by the Government yesterday after advice from anti-terror police and concerns it could be a ‘back door’ blasphemy law.

What is the UK law on Islamophobia?
There is no specific law against Islamophobia in the UK.

However, there are numerous laws which might be used to prosecute offenders.

Stirring up religious hatred is an offence under the Public Order Act 1986.

It can carry a sentence of up to seven years in prison.

Criminals may also be handed longer sentences for other offences if they are found to have been motivated by racial or religious hostility.

There are separate laws covering online abuse.

In addition, the Equality Act 2010 stops discrimination based on ‘protected characteristics’ including religion.

If a new, official definition is adopted, it could be used to block government actions in the courts.

Terror legislation could be subject to such judicial reviews, it is claimed.

An unofficial 1997 wording defined Islamophobia as ‘unfounded hostility towards Muslims’.

The suggested new one says: ‘Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.’

Supporters of the idea say that formalising the term will help to counter hostility toward Muslims. ….

Mohammad Tawhidi, The “Imam For Peace”

Mohammad Tawhidi, The “Imam For Peace”


Mohammad Tawhidi is well-known as the “imam for peace” who urges fellow Muslims to support Jews and Christians, rather than join or defend those Muslims who attack them. He not only defends Israel, but insists that “Palestine is Jewish land.” He warns Christians to wake up to the Muslim peril in the West. Some think he seems too good to be true. Is he?

Tawhidi recently was interviewed by the Christian Broadcasting Network here

“We are all brothers in humanity before brothers in faith,” Tawhidi told CBN News.

“Tawhidi is a third-generation Iranian-born Muslim from Australia and author of The Tragedy of Islam.

“He uses his Twitter and Facebook accounts to warn the world about the growing dangers of radical Islam.”

“If Christians don’t wake up, if Christians leaders don’t wake up, then we Muslims who fled from extremists can’t help you anymore,” Tawhidi told CBN News in an interview. “We tried warning you.”

Tawhidi has viewed with alarm the refusal of Christian leaders to recognize the danger of Islamic “extremists”; he is no doubt thinking especially of Pope Francis, with his absurd remark about how “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Quran are opposed to every form of violence.”And of course there are all those Christian and Jewish clerics so ready to believe the best about Islam, to take part in those interfaith gatherings which always end up with Christians and Jews blaming themselves, and exonerating “real Muslims,” for terrorist attacks, while expressing sympathy and concern for those who are the victims of an apparently rampant “Islamophobia.”

“Tawhidi says out-of-control multiculturalism and political correctness are allowing radical Muslims with their dangerous and deadly ideology, to flourish.”

He’s identified the ideological obstacle to recognizing the truth about Islam. It’s the quite unnecessary guilt that many in the advanced, and mostly white, West have been made to feel towards everyone else. We are not allowed to be proud of our own civilization, but are forced to believe that all civilizations are of equal value. It’s not something susceptible of proof, but a given that we have all agreed to accept, despite the evidence of our senses that tells us quite otherwise. That is multiculturalism, which insists that all cultures are equal, and that works to deprive us of our national as well as of cur civilizational pride; all religions, ethnicities, peoples, are equal in achievement, and anyone who exhibits too great an attachment to his own country and [non-Islamic] faith will be dismissed as “far-right.”

As for “political correctness,” this means one must be exceedingly solicitous of anyone who might take offense at comments about their religion or ethnicity. We must all be especially careful not to joke about such matters; when it comes to political correctness,‘there is no such thing as a joke.” Watch out for unintended “micro-aggressions” that might make someone feel bad. Do not say anything that suggests you think the culture of the advanced West is superior in any way to other cultures. And while you may say what you will about Christianity, don’t you dare criticize Islam, for that is the most unacceptable manifestation of political incorrectness. It can even get you killed.

“When we come to the West and try to warn the governments and intelligence agencies about what is happening, about the people we fled from, we have this new political correctness agenda that tells us that “oh, we are the racists, we are the ones who are traitors and the extremists need to be understood and embraced.’

So many people in the West are affected by quite-unnecessary feelings of guilt toward Islam, insisting that islamocritics like Tawhidi “are the racists,” though we keep being reminded that Islam is not a race. And “we [Tawhidii and his fellows] are the ones who are traitors” for criticizing Islam, while it is the “extremists” — that is, the Jihadists — who must be “understood and embraced.” Political correctness protects extremist Muslims, while condemning the moderates who criticize them.

The first week in May,Tawhidi was in Canada taking part in ceremonies commemorating the Holocaust.

He tweeted:

“ I flew to Toronto to light the candles of #YomHashoah2019, with over 20 faith leaders, at the first multi-faith commemoration of the Holocaust. May the rest of the world stand in solidarity with the Jewish People. Thank you to the @CanadianFSWC on this historical achievement.”

This sounds heartfelt, rather than another example of Muhammad’s insistence that “war is deceit.”

“This is rather a remarkable transformation for a Muslim who reportedly just a few short years ago had very different view of Jews.

“Five years ago, I used to curse them,” Tahwidi admitted. “Today I am standing in solidarity with them.”

“Dov Hikind, former New York state assemblyman and a Jewish American, recently wrote about Tawhidi saying: “I’m proud to call @Imamofpeace Imam Tawhidi a personal friend as well as a friend of the Jewish people and an advocate for a peaceful humanity. He’s someone who has well internalized the lessons of #neveragain and has much to teach people from all faiths and backgrounds.”

“Tawhidi responded, writing: “You are Jewish, and I am Muslim. We are on the same path, just on different lanes. Side by side we will take on the enemies of humanity.”

“As you can imagine, fellow-Muslims have ridiculed him for building relations with Christians and Jews.

“My friends asked why I changed teams?” Tawhidi asked rhetorically on Twitter recently. “As though they didn’t know why,” he retorted.

“For many years we have been lied to {that} ‘the Jews are the enemy, kill them.’ And I do not want to be in a position where I have to “kill Jews, or shoot their children; even in a laser tag game,” he wrote on Twitter.


His abandonment of antisemitism seems deeply felt. His taking part in YomHashoah in Toronto, his recognition of, and repulsion at, the murderousness of Muslim antisemitism (“the Jews are the enemy, kill them”), his friendship with Dov Hilkind, his tweets attacking Ilhan Omar as an antisemite, a trivializer of 9/11 (“some people did something”), and “an enemy of the U.S.,” (‘She makes it clear that she is against the US and its values”), his astonishing support for the Jewish state (“Palestine is Jewish land”), are all of a piece. Some people wonder if he can possibly be on the level, given that his teacher in Iran, Grand Ayatollah Shirazi, has standard anti-Infidel views. Tawhidi says he certainly held such views in the past, but no longer does.

“And now he’s coming to the defense of Christians who are being persecuted in unprecedented numbers around the world.

“We are all human beings,” Tawhidi told CBN News. “If I don’t side with you against ISIS that wants to kill both of us, then what is my purpose in life.”

“Shortly after the Islamic terror attacks in Sri Lanka, Tawhidi tweeted, “If you are silent about #SriLankaAttacks, know that this is an Islamist war against Jesus. Pick a side. I am standing with Jesus.

“Looking back, Tawhidi says he’s horrified at how his Muslim faith has treated people of other religions.

“When I was 12, our fledgling Muslim community in Australia bought a Church and converted it into a Mosque,” he wrote on Twitter. “The Imam gathered us all to wash the inside of the building with running water to purify it from the ‘impurities of the Christians.’ I was scrubbing all night. How pathetic.”

“Tawhidi applauded President Trump this week [in the beginning of May] when his administration announced plans to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terror organization. Such a designation would make the Muslim Brotherhood and its partners vulnerable to harsh economic and travel sanctions imposed by the US.

“The Muslim Brotherhood is the most organized extremist terrorist organization on this planet,” Tawhidi told CBN News. “Yes, I do support {the decision} and more power to President Trump.”

Apologists for Islam cannot stand Tawhidi. They have tried to sow doubts about his sincerity, focussing on the ideology of his teacher, Grand Ayatollah Shirazi. But Tawhidi long ago forthrightly acknowledged that he had once held views similar to those of Shirazi, but no longer did so. Tawhidi is consistent and relentless in his defense of Israel, insisting that “Palestine is Jewish land.”, He has deplored the Muslim murders of Christians in Colombo and the Middle East. ’He unceasingly attacks Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib. During the recent flare-up between Israel and Gaza he tweeted:: “Remember that time [Omar] and [Tlaib] condemned Hamas’ terrorism? Neither do I.”

I think he’s said, and done enough, to earn our– what’s the usual phrase?– “cautiously optimistic” trust.

Pakistan: another Christian woman and her disabled husband remain jailed for blasphemy and await execution

Pakistan: another Christian woman and her disabled husband remain jailed for blasphemy and await execution


“Following the joyous news of Christian Asia Bibi’s release from jail,” there is another worrying case: “the plight of a Christian Pakistani couple who have also been facing execution in a Pakistan prison for five years.”

The couple, Shagufta Kousar and Shafqat Masih,  stated that “the motive behind the allegations” of blasphemy against them was that their accusers “wanted revenge after a minor quarrel that took place between their children and their neighbours 6 months prior.”  Accusations of blasphemy against Christians are routine and are taken on the word of Muslims who often lie as revenge during a dispute. Their word being automatically taken as truth shows the inferior status of Christians in Pakistan.

False accusations of blasphemy are merely a means to subjugate and persecute Christians. Fake evidence is also sometimes planted against Christians. For example, a village cleric planted pages of the Quran among burnt pages in the bag of a Christian girl and then pinned the blamed the girl.  She is now being held in prison for blasphemy amid threats of violent mobs trying to kill her. The clerics own act of desecrating the Quran but setting up the young girl caused 600 Christians to flee for their lives to escaped enraged Muslims. As for rest of the girl’s family; they will never be able to return to their home village and will remain in hiding indefinitely.

Shafqat Misih is currently paralysed from the waist down following an accident in 2004 when he fractured his spine and is also suffering from depression. Moreover painful sores that he has developed since his incarceration are causing a rapid decline in his health which could lead to a premature death.

After Asia Bibi’s blasphemy death sentence was overturned, Pakistani Christians feared even greater persecution and more violence against them. The case of Bibi became high profile in the media with over 400-thousand people globally signing a petition for her to be released, but let us not forget the countless other Christians in Pakistan who are rotting away in cloistered Pakistani jail cells under harsh conditions.

“Pakistan’s other woman blasphemy victim and her disabled husband still await an appeal against their blasphemy conviction”, by Wilson Chowdhry, British Pakistani Christians, May 12, 2019:

Following the joyous news of Christian Asia Bibi’s release from jail in the early hours of Wednesday 8th May, we highlight the plight of a Christian Pakistani couple who have also been facing execution in a Pakistan prison for five years.

Please sign our petition (click here)

Shagufta Kousar and Shafqat Masih were sentenced to death on 4th April 2014 following a court trial where they were accused of sending blasphemous text under Islamic law to a Muslim man. Now Shagufta is imprisoned at Multan Jail and Shafqat is 150 miles away at Faisalabad District Jail both have have not seen each other since their incarceration and are exhibiting signs of severe depression.

The couple, believed to be in their late 30’s, hail from the city of Gojra from the Punjab province. They led a simple life and were living with their four young children in a church compound. Shagufta was employed as a cleaner and servant at the local church school.

On 18th July 2013, Muhammad Hussain, a Muslim, complained to his Mosque clerics about a blasphemous text that he had allegedly received on his phone whilst praying and whilst seeking legal advice, he claimed to have received more.

Despite Shagufta and Shafqat being illiterate and unabke to text in English or having an understanding of alphanumeric symbols, local police registered a blasphemy case following the complaint of a cleric. This resulted in the couple being arrested on 21st July 2019 under charges of both “insulting the Koran” and “insulting the Prophet.”

The police had obtained confessions from Shafqat which both defendants claim was given under duress. Shafqat has stated to his previous lawyer fighting his case at Toba Tek Singh District Court “To save my wife, I confessed,”

The couple have appealed the sentence at district court level on the grounds that the witnesses produced by the prosecution during the trial were related to the complainant and were therefore inimical towards the couple. The appeal stated: ‘Their statements require independent corroboration, which is lacking in this case.”

Furthermore, evidence exists that Judge Mian Amir Habib, who sentenced the couple to capital punishment, was intimidated by hardline lawyers and religious leaders in the community.

Shagufta, a caretaker at St John Girls High School, Gojra said that her National Identity Card was stolen by a friend of Mr. Hussain who had used it to purchase a SIM card in her name that was then used to send the text messages which the prosecution denies.

Both Shagufta and Shafqat are arguing against their conviction on the basis that there is no evidence that they purchased the SIM involved and adding that as they are both illiterate, could not have possible sent the messages which were written in English.

The couple have also stated that the motive behind the allegations made by Mr. Hussain was that he wanted revenge after a minor quarrel that took place between their children and their neighbours 6 months prior……

It’s time to face facts: Obama’s presidency was a failure

It’s time to face facts: Obama’s presidency was a failure

By Kyle Smith

January 14, 2017 | 2:06pm | Updated Enlarge Image

It’s time to face facts: Obama’s presidency was a failure

Getty Images



Now Hillary Clinton’s loss is being blamed on Jon Stewart

Pathetic Democrats have become the party of apologies

Prosecutors just spat in the face of Chicago cops in Jussie Smollett case

Why Ocasio-Cortez’s trendy brand of ‘socialism’ is doomed to fail

Sunday’s #WhoCares Oscars left us longing for big-star glamour

The closing arguments for the Obama years are arriving, and they aren’t helping the outgoing president. A case in point is a new book published this week, one that acknowledges “Obama’s supporters have experienced [his presidency] as a continuous disappointment.”

Those supporters, and others, must have noticed that “for most of Obama’s term, wage gains were largely confined to the rich.” Or that “The administration’s planning in Libya clearly failed” or “It is certain that the actual outcome [of Obama’s Syria policy] was disastrous.”

Even many of President Obama’s proudest achievements look about as enduring as April snow: “If there was a single aspect of Obama’s legacy most vulnerable to reversal, it was his achievements on climate change,” the book says, and “Obama’s regulatory offensive is, of course, vulnerable to reversal by Donald Trump or the Supreme Court, since it rested upon executive action.” The longest chapter is titled “The Inevitability of Disappointment.”

Yet the title of the book containing these quotations is “Audacity: How Barack Obama Defied His Critics and Created a Legacy That Will Prevail,” by the New York magazine columnist and lefty firebrand Jonathan Chait.

Sustained coherence seems to elude the author. On Page 99 we hear about those “overblown or even false claims that the new law [ObamaCare] was raising premiums,” but three pages later we learn, “Big insurers like Aetna pulled out of the exchanges, reducing options, and insurers in most markets raised their premiums.” Oh. Republican opposition, which boils down to wariness of new spending while Obama is racking up more debt than the previous 43 presidents combined, doesn’t earn a rational counter-argument.

No, the GOP simply means “rage.” “Republican terror,” Chait writes, is “berserk” with a “fierce and even crazed tone” (this last describes Paul Ryan).

On Page 31, Chait declares “the simplistic initial hope of Obama’s giddy supporters that the symbolism of a black president could help heal, if not eliminate, racial prejudice turned out to have a real basis in fact.” But 20 pages back, he comes to the opposite conclusion: “racism continues to lurk deep in the American psyche,” “Americans had split once again into mutually uncomprehending racial camps,” “the continued existence of racism in American life has been confirmed by a library of social-science research.”

Only an Obama fanboy would argue, just as a fire is going out, that the whole forest is about to burn down.

Meanwhile, current polling on the matter is clear. American worries about race relations, which had been stable for nearly 20 years, increased markedly in Obama’s second term, reaching a new high last spring, while the president’s approval rating on race issues, which was very high when his first term began, has ranged from 48 percent to a low of 26 percent for the last seven years or so, according to Gallup.

Chait grouses that the 2009 stimulus was dismally small and admits that the Republican critique of it as funding “a wish list of long-standing Democratic policies” had “an element of truth.”

Yet he also celebrates it as saving us from depression. Really? The downturn actually ended in June 2009 as the first stimulus checks were being signed. Only an Obama fanboy would argue, just as a fire is going out, that the whole forest is about to burn down.

Moreover, deep recessions (such as the 1981-82 one) that cause people to cut way back are generally followed by booming rebounds. This one wasn’t. Far from turbo-charging the economy, the stimulus was such a dud that five years after the recovery began, 72 percent of Americans said in a poll that they thought we were still in a recession. “The stimulus ultimately failed to do what America expected it to do — bring about a strong, sustainable recovery,” wrote Michael Grabell of ProPublica.

That’s hard to dispute given the sluggishness of the recovery — economic growth has been by far the weakest of any post-recession period since World War II. But Chait has zilch to say about that. Nor does Chait mention that Obama is the first president since Herbert Hoover to fail to preside over a single year of 3 percent growth. But hey, Obama fans, stay in your bubble. It’s cozy there.

Sealing himself off certainly didn’t work for the Bubble President, though. President Obama entered office thinking: “They love me! So they’ll love everything I do!” No. He had no backup plan for what to do if Congress became less than generous with the rubber stamp. Virtually every president has to negotiate with Capitol Hill — Ronald Reagan faced hostile Democrats in the House for his entire presidency — but Obama thought horse-trading was beneath him.

So he contented himself giving speeches and signing executive orders that Donald Trump is about to feed into the shredder. It looks like Obama’s chapter in the history books is going to be much like his résumé when he was elected president: thin.