Poll by ICM Research for the Russian news agency Rossiya Segodnya.
Why France will do nothing about the Paris Massacre
by David "Spengler" Goldman, Asia Times 11/15/15
Ignored in news coverage of the Paris massacre is the single most pertinent piece of background: A 2014 opinion poll found that ISIS had an approval rating in France (at 16%) almost as high as President Francois Holland (at 18%). In the 18-to-24-year-old demographic, ISIS’ support jumped to 27%.
Muslims comprise about a tenth of France’s population, so the results imply that ISIS had the support of the overwhelming majority of French Muslims (and especially Muslim youth), as well as the endorsement of a large part of the non-Muslim Left. Read more:
California-surfer turned education-reformer, Rabbi Nachum Shifren has spoken-out against Islamization and Islamic Jew-hatred from Dearborn, Michigan to Whitehall in London (and other UK rallies with the English Defence League). Visiting L.A. from his current residence in Canada, Rabbi Shifren comments on the Paris Attacks ramifications.
The Education Rabbi, Nachum Shifren, endures Jew-hate-filled Islamists and left-wingers organized by left-wing agitators B.A.M.N. ("By Any Means Necessary") to call patriotic Americans to action - from Pastor Terry Jones' counter-sharia rally in Dearborn, Michigan on Friday 17 June 2011.
Author, Robert Spencer ("JihadWatch.org) addressed a David Hororwitz Freedom Center audience in Los Angeles in September, 2015.
The Hijrah into Europe. "Refugees" colonize a continent by Robert Spencer in Frontpage Magazine Sept 4, 2015 "Germany expects a total of around 800,000 people to seek asylum in Germany this year. And that’s just Germany. The entire continent of Europe is being inundated with refugees at a rate unprecedented in world history. This is no longer just a “refugee crisis.” This is a hijrah. Hijrah, or jihad by emigration, is, according to Islamic tradition, the migration or journey of Muhammad and his followers from Mecca to Yathrib, later renamed by him to Medina, in the year 622 CE. It was after the hijrah that Muhammad for the first time became not just a preacher of religious ideas, but a political and military leader. That was what occasioned his new “revelations” exhorting his followers to commit violence against unbelievers. Significantly, the Islamic calendar counts the hijrah, not Muhammad’s birth or the occasion of his first “revelation,” as the beginning of Islam, implying that Islam is not fully itself without a political and military component. To emigrate in the cause of Allah – that is, to move to a new land in order to bring Islam there, is considered in Islam to be a highly meritorious act. “And whoever emigrates for the cause of Allah will find on the earth many locations and abundance,” says the Qur’an. “And whoever leaves his home as an emigrant to Allah and His Messenger and then death overtakes him, his reward has already become incumbent upon Allah. And Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful.” (4:100) The exalted status of such emigrants led a British jihad group that won notoriety (and a shutdown by the government) a few years ago for celebrating 9/11 to call itself Al-Muhajiroun: The Emigrants. And now a hijrah of a much greater magnitude is upon us. Evidence that this is a hijrah, not simply a humanitarian crisis, came last February, but was little noted at the time and almost immediately forgotten. The Islamic State published a document entitled, “Libya: The Strategic Gateway for the Islamic State.” Gateway into Europe, that is: the document exhorted Muslims to go to Libya and cross from there as refugees into Europe. This document tells would-be jihadis that weapons from Gaddafi’s arsenal are plentiful and easy to obtain in Libya – and that the country “has a long coast and looks upon the southern Crusader states, which can be reached with ease by even a rudimentary boat.” . . . Of course, not all of these refugees are Islamic jihadis. Not all are even Muslims, although most are. However, no effort whatsoever is being made to determine the refugees’ adherence to Sharia and desire to bring it to their new land. Any such effort would be “Islamophobic.” Yet there are already hints that the Islamic State is putting its plan into effect: jihadis have already been found among the refugees trying to enter Europe. There will be many more such discoveries."
White Britons are now the minority (45%) in London
Some 3.7million Londoners classified themselves as whiteBritish in 2011 – down from 4.3million in 2001 – despite the city’s population increasing by nearly one million over the decade to 8.2million, The Daily Mail reports.
The census shows the population of England and Wales was swollen by nearly four million immigrants in a decade of sweeping social change.
London’s population has been especially enlarged by immigrants. Three million foreign-born people now live in the capital.
Asians (India/Pakistan/Bangladeshi) comprise 18%. Black Londoners – including Africans, black Britons and those from the Caribbean – make up 13 per cent.
Al Jazeera America: What influence is Qatar's emir spending $500 million to effect within America? The British-accented, Al Jazeera English satellite news channel, met with limited reception by US pay-TV subscribers, will be superseded in North America by a new, American-based (but still Qatar-monarchy owned) Al Jazeera America news channel. Al Jazeera America will be ushered into American cable and satellite homes over the channel formerly known as CurrentTV beginning August 20, 2013. Tony Fox, Al Jazeera's public communications chief (formerly with Comedy Central), gives us the lowdown on how vast the news channel's American operation will be - and what independence will this channel have from the sharia-governing owner, Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Thamer Al Thani. The channel has hired familiar, chief business correspondent with CNN, Ali Velshi, to be the familiar public face to help streamline acceptance of channel-viewing into American homes. Mr. Velshi explained his perspectives on the channel's role in the American media landscape to DemoCast at the National Cable Television Association convention in Washington D.C. on June 10th. s The Qatari Emir, though also professing a hands-off approach towards editorial in Al Jazzera English, has been criticized for influencing it. In one case, it resulted in the replacement of it's long-time Director-General by a man with no background in journalism, according to the Britain's The Guardian newspaper published 30 Sept'12:
"Al-Jazeera English was set up in 2006 by the Arabic broadcaster of the same name and both are owned by the Qatari state. The network, founded in 1996, gained credibility with audiences in the region for its seemingly independent coverage in the post 9/11 period. Its English channel was launched to offer an alternative, non-western-centric worldview. However, in recent years, Qatar has taken steps to consolidate its control over the channel as the country seeks greater political influence in the Gulf. In September 2011, Wadah Khanfar, a Palestinian widely seen as independent, suddenly left as director-general after eight years in the post and was replaced by a member of the royal family, Sheikh Ahmed bin Jassim al-Thani, a man with no background in journalism. In his resignation letter, Khanfar said, after noting that the channel had been criticised by Donald Rumsfeld and hailed by Hillary Clinton, that "al-Jazeera is still independent and its integral coverage has not changed".
Many on the Left disparage America's response to 9/11 by attempting to condemn American military involvement in the Middle East. But they do it to evade the point of combating global Islamism entirely, especially the branch of that movement which thrives under our noses- and seeks to undermine our principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity.
Swiss member of Parliament, Oskar Freysinger, gave a speech in Berlin, that no politician in Washington (save Rep. Allen West) is yet ready to speak from the floor of Congress. In order for us to beat back the Islamists, we need some key leaders in Washington to make a similar speech and lead the nation against the Islamist threat head-on.
A year-and-a-half after the critically-acclaimed film Undercover Mosque was first screened, Dispatches goes undercover again to see whether extremist beliefs continue to be promoted in certain key British Muslim institutions inDispatches: Undercover Mosque- The Return.
A female reporter attends prayer meetings at an important British mosque which claims to be dedicated to moderation and dialogue with other faiths. She secretly films shocking sermons given to the women-only congregation in which female preachers recite extremist and intolerant beliefs. As hundreds of women and some children come to pray, a preacher calls for adulterers, homosexuals, women who act like men and Muslim converts to other faiths to be killed, saying: "Kill him, kill him. You have to kill him, you understand. This is Islam."
David Thompson comments: I’ve remarked before on how the enthusiasm for sacralised murder never quite fails to jar. And despite repeated exposure to such impressive piety, I still can’t help noting that the quoted sermons feature the word “kill” no fewer than nine times. However, the news isn’t all bad.
These punishments, the preacher says, are to be implemented in a future Islamic state. “This is not to tell you to start killing people,” she continues. “There must be a Muslim leader, when the Muslim army becomes stronger, when Islam has grown enough.”
Naturally, as with most things Islamic, inconsistencies abound.
Regent’s Park Mosque has a major interfaith department, which arranges visits from the Government, the civil service, representatives of other religions and thousands of British school children a year. I watched as an interfaith group was brought in to meet the mosque’s women’s circle for a civilised exchange. But when the interfaith group wasn’t there, the preacher attacked other faiths, and the very concept of interfaith dialogue. One preacher said of Christians praying in a church: “What are these people doing in there, these things are so vile, what they say with their tongues is so vile and disgusting, it’s an abomination.” As for the concept of interfaith live-and-let-live: “This is false. It does not work. This concept is a lie, it is fake, and it is a farce.”
Doubtless these inconsistencies will be resolved “when the Muslim army becomes stronger.” Allah willing, of course. The Telegraph published an article by Sarah Hassan, the pen-name of the undercover reporter on Dispatches.
Regent's Park Mosque has a major interfaith department, which arranges visits from the Government, the civil service, representatives of other religions and thousands of British school children a year.
I watched as an interfaith group was brought in to meet the mosque's women's circle for a civilised exchange. But when the interfaith group wasn't there, the preacher attacked other faiths, and the very concept of interfaith dialogue.
One preacher said of Christians praying in a church: "What are these people doing in there, these things are so vile, what they say with their tongues is so vile and disgusting, it's an abomination." As for the concept of interfaith live-and-let-live: "This is false. It does not work. This concept is a lie, it is fake, and it is a farce."
Interviewees for the film explained that an ideology like this has spread throughout Britain's mosques from the Saudi Arabian religious establishment. One leading Muslim figure told me: "Petrodollar money coming from Saudi Arabia has basically distorted the growth and development of the Muslim community in Britain"; while a British imam accuses them of distorting Islam - "the abuse and misuse of this great faith of mine".
The imam went on to say: "The underlying motive here is to find a way of continuously implanting this permanent wedge between the wider British society and the younger Muslims living in Britain."
As Professor Anthony Glees, who runs the Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies at Brunel University, explains: "To think, as I believe our government thinks, that it makes ideological sense to play patsy with the Saudi government is folly of the first order of magnitude. We will be paying for it for years to come."
British, Pro-democracy watchdog, Pat Condell, releases new diatribe against the conspiracy of the Organization of Islamic States and their commandeering of the United Nations Human Rights Commission.
"Britain is Being Islamised by Stealth," claims Melanie Phillips, being interviewed by CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck. British political commentator, Melanie Phillips, condemned the Archbishop of Canterbury's endorsement of authorizing enforcement of non-standardized, decentralized Sharia in Britain. Watch her video:
Christopher Hitchens used Archbishop Rowan Williams sanctioning of Sharia as justifying his ouster. From Slate:
"In the midst of this dismal verbiage and euphemism, the plain statement—"There's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said"—still stands out like a diamond in a dunghill. It stands out precisely because it is said simply, and because its essential grandeur is intelligible to everybody. Its principles ought to be just as intelligible and accessible to those who don't yet speak English, in just the same way as the great Lord Mansfield once ruled that, wherever someone might have been born, and whatever he had been through, he could not be subject to slavery once he had set foot on English soil. Simple enough?"
The difference between the imposition of any part of the Shari'a and whatever a very limited role is allotted to Jewish (or possibly Hindu) family law, is that there is no real challenge, by the latter, to the supremacy of English law. There is no long-term program to use whatever small place has been allowed for there to be some kind of use of Jewish (or Hindu?) family law, in very limited ways, and ONLY when those ways do not contradict English law, to undercut the supremacy of the law of the English state. There is no program to undo the legal and political institutions of the English state.
The situation is quite different from Islam. The pretense, that the uninformed and terminally naive Archbishop of Canterbury has fallen for, that Muslims "only" want this little concession, should be seen in light of the steady and inevitable Muslim desire to remove everything that stands in the way of the spread of Islam. Shari'a imposed on Muslims -- many of whom do not want it (see the example of Canada, where female Muslims led the fight against it) because their legal position under the Shari'a-supplied family law is far inferior to what it would be under the laws of any Infidel land -- in the supposedly limited area of family law may, and indeed does, contradict the law of the land in Great Britain. That is quite another matter. And so too is the fact that this is not a final demand, but merely an opening one. If granted, it will lead to more and more such demands -- demands that swell with each new victory, as a sense of triumphalism is at the heart of the matter. That sense must never be encouraged. It must always be discouraged and disappointed.
Christopher Hitchens elaborates on the importance of resisting Islamist imperialism in this essay published six months ago, "God-Fearing People: Why are we so scared of offending Muslims?"
... Not content with igniting copies of The Satanic Verses, Islamist lynch parties demanded the burning of its author as well. Many distinguished authors, Muslim and non-Muslim, are dead or in hiding because of the words they have put on pages concerning the unbelievable claims of Islam. And it is to appease such a spirit of persecution and intolerance that a student in New York City has been arrested for an expression, however vulgar, of an opinion.
This has to stop, and it has to stop right now. There can be no concession to sharia in the United States. When will we see someone detained, or even cautioned, for advocating the burning of books in the name of God? If the police are honestly interested in this sort of "hate crime," I can help them identify those who spent much of last year uttering physical threats against the republication in this country of some Danish cartoons. In default of impartial prosecution, we have to insist that Muslims take their chance of being upset, just as we who do not subscribe to their arrogant certainties are revolted every day by the hideous behavior of the parties of God.
It is often said that resistance to jihadism only increases the recruitment to it. For all I know, this commonplace observation could be true. But, if so, it must cut both ways. How about reminding the Islamists that, by their mad policy in Kashmir and elsewhere, they have made deadly enemies of a billion Indian Hindus? Is there no danger that the massacre of Iraqi and Lebanese Christians, or the threatened murder of all Jews, will cause an equal and opposite response? Most important of all, what will be said and done by those of us who take no side in filthy religious wars? The enemies of intolerance cannot be tolerant, or neutral, without inviting their own suicide. And the advocates and apologists of bigotry and censorship and suicide-assassination cannot be permitted to take shelter any longer under the umbrella of a pluralism that they openly seek to destroy.
