Cardinal bashes Talmud

A few weeks ago, in an interview with the Catholic magazine Famiglia Cristiana, Shomali claimed that “hatred of Christians” is the Talmud itself. “The Talmud, the holy book studied by the ultra-orthodox, more highly venerated than the Bible itself, invites religious hatred, speaks badly of Jesus, and even worse of Mary and, in general, of Christians,” the bishop said, adding that “in Israeli schools, love for the other is not taught, but rather the destruction of the other”….

This is very interesting. A highly-placed Church official attacking the Talmud in the same words Michael Hoffman does.

Is Pamela Geller autistic?

As Dr. Hamid Dabashi writes, Geller’s antiquated language harks back to that used by white supremacists against any number of colonized people of color who were seen as ‘uncivilized’, and today Muslims, Palestinians, Arabs—they are the savages du jour. Geller has succeeded in resurrecting the colonial call for defense against the ‘savages’; her language has squarely placed Israel in the position of colonizer.

With predictable results:

The solution:

Queen Tiye

Imam Fawaz Jneid

The wrong choice has eternal consequences…

Honor killing and FGM: “culture”?

Muslims often claim that honor killing and FGM have nothing to do with Islam, because they are also found in non-Muslim cultures. But this is ridiculous. We could just as easily claim that male circumcision, or the belief in God have nothing to do with Islam, because they are also found among non-Muslim cultures. Muslims will scream that honor killing and FGM cannot be compared to male circumcision because male circumcision is wonderful, but that is beside the point. Whether something  is part of Islam, or part of culture is totally unrelated to whether something is wonderful. When something can somewhat defended, Muslims will claim it to be part of Islam. When something is generally hated, it suddenly becomes “culture”.  But why would eradicating Somali “culture” NOT be “racist”?  Why is it that diverse cultures like the Somali, the Moroccan, the Turkish and the Pakistani ALL have honor killing, and only place “culture” above “Islam” when it comes to honor killing? Why do Somalis only consider “culture” more important than “Islam” when it comes to FGM?  Weird, weird. Another reason why Muslims can get away with claiming that honor killing and FGM have nothing to do with Islam, is because honor killing and FGM are not clearly found in the Koran, like chopping off hands for theft. But actually, the Islamic teaching that sex between non-Muslim men and Muslim women is blasphemy, and the teaching that Muslims must take the law in their own hands, is solid proof that honor killing is Islamic.

“Thus if [a] Muslim commits adultery his punishment is 100 lashes, the shaving of his head, and one year of banishment. But if the man is not a Muslim and commits adultery with a Muslim woman his penalty is execution…Similarly if a Muslim deliberately murders another Muslim he falls under the law of retaliation and must by law be put to death by the next of kin. But if a non-Muslim who dies at the hand of a Muslim has by lifelong habit been a non-Muslim, the penalty of death is not valid. Instead the Muslim murderer must pay a fine and be punished with the lash….Since Islam regards non-Muslims as on a lower level of belief and conviction, if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim…then his punishment must not be the retaliatory death, since the faith and conviction he possesses is loftier than that of the man slain…Again, the penalties of a non-Muslim guilty of fornication with a Muslim woman are augmented because, in addition to the crime against morality, social duty and religion, he has committed sacrilege, in that he has disgraced a Muslim and thereby cast scorn upon the Muslims in general, and so must be executed….Islam and its peoples must be above the infidels, and never permit non-Muslims to acquire lordship over them.” — Sultanhussein Tabandeh, A Muslim Commentary on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

There you have it. This is a far better proof of the Islamic nature of honor killing, than the fact that parents and grandparents can kill their children without paying blood-money. After all, lawful killing of offspring would also cover abortion and euthanasia, actions generally abhorred by Muslims.

Interestingly, the same Muslims who place scorn on local cultures, did adopt foot-binding in China. In general, Islam only copies local culture when it is sick and disgusting. In the Netherlands, Muslims are starting to have vicious attack dogs.

Finally, if honor killing and FGM have nothing to do with Islam, it is obvious “Islamophobes” are far worse liars than Anti-Semites; this would mean that “Islamophobia” is worse than Anti-Semitism. “Islamophobia” would kill 1.5 billion innocent people, Anti-Semitism would only kill 20 million innocent people.

Muslims hold two narratives(2)

Some time ago:

Both Avraham Burg on the Left, and Henryk Broder on the Right, are Jews who question the importance of the Holocaust.
There is, however, one nasty side effect of Holocaust denial. If you adopt full-blown National-Socialism, Muslims will come to you and say that Hitler was a friend of Islam. Of course, in discusion with normal non-Muslim Whites, they will hold that Muslims are the Jews of the 21th century, and any criticism of them will result in a new Holocaust. They overlook the fact that most people who oppose Islam don’t see Muslims as a race, but as people who must be converted. Muslims will hold that opponents of Islam are racists, but that would mean that they would be worse than Hitler, as Hitler openly called Jews a race, and would, hence, be more honest.

In general, Muslims will equate any criticism of Islam to be racism and the moral equal of Anti-Semitism. People who point out the connections between Hitler and Muslims will be called Zionist liars. They call their opponents Nazis and White Supremacists. But when they detect someone is an actual Nazi, they will approach him and say that Hitler was a friend of Islam, and all Muslim denial of this was just to fool their enemies. Regarding the Holocaust, they have the same double approach. On the one hand, when talking Zionism, the Holocaust was made up to steal land from the Palestinians, on the other hand, when talking immigration and integration, a new Holocaust will await Muslims if any pressure is made on them to behave. Muslims want to have their cake and eat it too.

I see quite often Muslims playing the victim card and they push the audacity to invoke that their treatment is comparable to the way Nazis used to treat the Jewish people!! Unbelievable, can you imagine they try to dupe the general population by comparing themselves to the Jews during WWII? In other words they are persecuted. I still think that this trick still work with a lot of unaware people.

He seems to allude to the Holocaust which never happened, according to Muslims. Is he confused, or are Holocaust-denying Muslims deceiving us?

As we can see, Muslims hold even three narratives. Muslims are the new Jews and will be Holocausted, the Holocaust never happened, and the Holocaust was deserved and we will repeat it.

In order to get rid of these conflicting narratives, other people could themselves use conflicting narratives. The best way to defuse things is to point out that the existence of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Nonie Darwish, and others prove that at least many non-Muslims and “Islamophobes” are willing to breed with ex-Muslim women, something the National-Socialists would never do with Jewish women. Also, according to Islam, abortion is murder. If abortion is murder, it is far, far worse than the Holocaust. Finally, many Muslims, or at least pro-Palestine demonstrators, compare the star of david with the swastika, and rant that Zionists, or even Jews, are the new Nazis. So Muslims shouldn’t complain when they get a dose of their own medicine.

Non-Jewish origins of multi-culturalism


“Proponents of multiculturalism may think that they are working for more confluent societies with more tolerant citizens…”

Shrieking Banshees !

The LEFT absolutely doesn’t believe this deceit about “more tolerant citizens”.
The LEFT is using multiculturalism to destroy Denmark.
Flooding white Christian European nations with third world barbarians is a deliberate tactic of the LEFT to destroy Nationalism and Western Civilization.
Nationalism and ethnic homogeniety are some of the greatest defenses the West has against the Left and their battering ram, Islam.
There’s a good explanation of this in “Eurabia” by Bat Ye’or.

The LEFT has wanted to destroy white European nationalism since at least WWII and WWI.
White supremecist nationalism as represented by Nazi Germany but also by all the European imperial powers was seen as a threat by the third world but also by the Communists in the Soviet Union and as such it was targeted for destruction by the third world, islam and the communists – thus multiculturism.

Don’t take anythng the LEFT says at face value.
The only people who fall for “Proponents of multiculturalism may think that they are working for more confluent societies with more tolerant citizens…” are the useful idiots and clueless delusional Christians and Jews who believe this “all men are created equal” and Love and Peace nonsense.
The LEFT is using Christianity against the Christians.
Clear eyed Christians and Jews see that Islam is out to slit their throats and sell their children into slavery – and multiculturalism is one of the weapons the Left and Islam use in their war against Western Civilization.

Trying to argue against multiculturalism as if its proponents are sincere but just misguided is a sign that someone is not even aware of the real threat.

It’s way past time to dignify the evil hissing of muslims with the presumption of sincerity.
Best assume that all their so-called arguments are nothing more than Islamic taqiyya.
The same goes for the deceptions of the Left.
Their lies are nothing more than psychological jujitsu.
They try at every turn to use our own Christian charity and morality against us.

Logical arguments about the downside of muslim immigration, no matter how true, are unlikely to sway citizens of Denmark who make the naive assumption that they are dealing with sincere members of their own culture.
The Christian moral arguments that sacrifices must be made to exercise Christian charity towards everyone, even our enemies, are going to take higher priority than the possibility of psychological problems for the generous Danes due to the exercise of that Christian charity.

As true as Nicolai Sennels observations about the downside of multiculturalism are, they are of interest only among natives of Denmark who can communicate with each other with sincerity.
He’d do well to point out that muslims always have ulterior motives and are only using arguments for multiculturism to deceive the Danes and to accomplish their hidden agenda, the conquest of Denmark for Islam.

As I predicted: Sunni vs. Shia


Egyptian Muslim cleric: Muslim Brotherhood presidential candidate said that the Shiites are more dangerous to Islam than the Jews


At least that lessens the possibility of an Egypt/Iran alliance. “Egyptian Cleric Muhammad Hussein Yaaqub: MB Presidential Candidate Muhammad Mursi Told Me that the Shiites ‘Are More Dangerous to Islam than the Jews,’” from MEMRI, June 13 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Following are excerpts from an address by Egyptian cleric Muhammad Hussein Yaaqub, which was posted on the Internet on June 13, 2012.Muhammad Hussein Yaaqub: The Shura Council of the Islamic Scholars [convened], and decided unanimously to support Dr. Muhammad Mursi for president. Do you have another solution? Do any of you have any other solution? There is no other way.

But I told him [Mursi] all the things that you want. I said to him: I want a Salafi president, [who follows] the Koran and the Sunna like the early Muslims. He said: “Yes, ours is a Salafi call.” He said so. He said this, and it is recorded on video. He said it.

I asked him about the Shiites, and he said that the Shiites are more dangerous to Islam than the Jews. He said so.

I told him that I wanted a president who is not afraid of America, and he said: “I am not afraid.”

What more do you want?


What indeed?