Angola denies it banned Islam, destroyed mosques

24_-_Destroyed_mosque-650x487.jpg

I doubted the accuracy of this report from the beginning, and sure enough, it turns out to be false. That is all to the good — banning an entire belief system would just embroil Angola in an ongoing resistance and would become a serious human rights issue. Banning Islam in particular would engulf it in a more energetic jihad than is being waged against it now. And no one who is committed to the freedom of conscience can support such a ban, although the Angolans and everyone else are certainly within their rights to ban and work against elements of Sharia (or any other system) that contradict universal principles of human rights.

More on this story. “Angola Denies It Banned Islam, Destroyed Mosques,” by Connor Adams Sheets for International Business Times, November 25:

Angola became a hot topic in the international media over the weekend, as news outlets around the world wrote about reports that the Southwest African nation had banned Islam and had begun to dismantle mosques.

But an official at the Angolan Embassy in Washington, D.C., who did not want to be identified while discussing the sensitive matter, said that there is no such ban, and that the reports are erroneous.

“The Republic of Angola “¦ it’s a country that does not interfere in religion,” the official said via telephone Monday afternoon. “We have a lot of religions there. It is freedom of religion. We have Catholic, Protestants, Baptists, Muslims and evangelical people.”

News of Angola’s supposed ban on Islam originated in the African press, which went so far as to quote the nation’s president and minister of culture offering statements that suggested the premise of the reports was accurate.

A second official at the Angolan Embassy in the U.S. reiterated that the diplomatic seat has not been made aware of any ban on Islam in the country….

FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    This begs the question, who is responsible for spreading such uplifting news? I’m referring here to the original report, of course.
    What parties have a stake in rocking the Angolan boat? Could it be that the jihadist bastards are trying to foment deadly outrage and an Islamic rebellion in a country where they account for only 5% of the population?

  2. says

    “The Republic of Angola … it’s a country that does not interfere in religion,”

    Until people stop thinking of Islam as a religion the world will not fight Islam as it should.

    Islamo-Fascism with its Jew-hating Nazism element should be considered a mass-murder political ideology that it behooves the world to abolish. Otherwise, we’re just not going to win. It’s too widespread, including in the West now due to Europe’s “multiculturalism” BS and they over-populate – Demographic Jihad.

    The Jihad doctrine in Islam discredits it from being a religion.

  3. says

    While I fully approve a ban on Islam, we must realize that it is not enough, especially with our PC leaders, our need of their oil, our abortion laws and our suicidal immigration policies.
    Our best allies in this war are Muslims themselves. They are starting to wake up and many of them have free access, for the first time in history, to real information about their so-called prophet.
    To every Muslim of good will: THIS is what your own books have to say about Muhammad…the “Perfect Man”?!

    http://crossmuslims.blogspot.ca/2010/12/perfect-man-of-islam.html

  4. says

    If a muslim is expected to apostatize then so too the rest.
    Apostatised muslims may move up the scrambling social hill and then revert back to Islam, or not as de case may be.
    But Islam is still there, breeding. Islam is the non-human entity that needs Muslim souls, not infidel’s souls. Whoever would have been where that muslim was born would have become muslim.
    Islam is the problem, muslims are its captives.

  5. says

    Islam will always be hostile to all human rights, except those rights that apply to devout Muslim men. For that reason, I think it’s inevitable that many countries are going to ban Islam eventually. Otherwise, I don’t see how enlightened, democratic societies can survive, in light of the aggressive nature of Islam and the high birth rates of Muslim immigrants.

    I realize this is an incredibly controversial view to espouse (especially for a liberal like myself). But, at some point, we’re just going to have to admit that Islam is an exceptionally intolerant and dangerous religion; and we’re going to have to make an exception, in terms of our own religious tolerance. Fifty years from now, Islam will be banned in France, or France will no longer be a democratic nation that supports human rights.

    Trying to separate Islam from its inherent barbarism and political imperialism is an exercise in futility. The sooner we acknowledge that fact, and stop wasting time and energy beating that dead horse, the better.

  6. says

    “And no one who is committed to the freedom of conscience can support such a ban…”

    Your fellow ‘counter-jihadists’ on here disagree Robert!

  7. says

    The “belief systems” of Nazism or Communism can be banned, so why not that of Islam? The mere fact that Islam poses as a religion does not exempt it from scrutiny and judgment as to what it really is. It is a criminal organization, intent on taking over the world not through rational or emotional persuasion, but through murder and mayhem. That makes it eligible for active banning by freedom-loving peoples.

  8. says

    the ibitimes quoted unnamed sources but within the body of the article has data contradicted it’s headline?

    “Weekly French-language Moroccan newspaper La Nouvelle Tribune published an article on Friday sourcing “several” Angolan officials, including the minister of Culture, Rosa Cruz, who reportedly offered the following remarks, which have been translated from French: “The process of legalization of Islam has not been approved by the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights. Their mosques would be closed until further notice.”

    OnIslam.net reports that the African economic news agency Agence Ecofin wrote that Cruz made the statement at an appearance last week before the 6th Commission of the National Assembly. The website goes on to note that, “According to several Angolan newspapers, Angola has become the first country in the world to ban Islam and Muslims, taking first measures by destroying mosques in the country.”

    The first Angolan Embassy official denied knowledge that Cruz had made such comments…an official at the Angolan Embassy in Washington, D.C., who did not want to be identified while discussing the sensitive matter, said that there is no such ban…”

    do we know folks in Angola who can help us know the truth?

  9. says

    “And no one who is committed to the freedom of conscience can support such a ban…”

    Your fellow ‘counter-jihadists’ on here disagree Robert!

    Me too. Especially when the Muslims charge a tax on your beliefs if it differs from theirs. And in some Muslim countries, they won’t even let you have a job or build a church.

  10. says

    RS: “And no one who is committed to the freedom of conscience can support such a ban, although the Angolans and everyone else are certainly within their rights to ban and work against elements of Sharia (or any other system) that contradict universal principles of human rights.”
    -I have to respectfully disagree Robert.
    Islam can’t be separated into “good bits” and “bad bits”. No Muslim would edit the Koran and that is what would need to be done. Ain’t gonna happen. A sane society is therefore left with only one option: ban Islam.
    We await the arrival of this sane society…

  11. says

    But realistically I don’t suppose any country will ban Islam. Or not now anyway. After WWlll maybe. Austria has banned “Mein Kampf”…after WWll.
    Our best hope is that Muslims will themselves reject Islam. That is made very difficult, of course, by the death penalty for apostates. That’s very clever, with all the cleverness of a fallen angel. Shows where Islam comes from. n the meantime, here I agree with Robert:
    “..although the Angolans and everyone else are certainly within their rights to ban and work against elements of Sharia (or any other system) that contradict universal principles of human rights.”
    Non-Muslim nations could do more (something!) to apply pressure on muslim nations to drop apostasy and blasphemy laws. That would certainly help disenchanted muslims to free themselves.

  12. says

    “The “belief systems” of Nazism or Communism can be banned, so why not that of Islam?”

    So the holy grail that is the belief in democracy isn’t even actually believed in on here. Hilarious!

  13. says

    The real question is HOW AND WHY would such a story be leaked out if not true? There is evil afoot for Angola and the trail of deceit should not be that hard to follow.

  14. says

    “no one who is committed to the freedom of conscience can support such a ban,” …. I have a lot of trouble with that comment. Islam is sharia and sharia is hell on earth. The two cannot be separated. It has nothing to do with “conscience” it has to do with survival of anything other than islam. Islam is determined to rule the world islam is the the horror and islam must be eradicated. Islam is a total evil.

  15. says

    So in other words, you admit that the democratic system is completely flawed?

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Oh the irony …

    “Isa” is the one who’s completely flawed; since islam is wholly evil, and he’s only making a fool of himself by defending the indefensible: islam.

  16. says

    Islam is a criminal organisation masquerading as a religion under the evil Allah (created by the even more evil Mohd), not unlike the mafia, kempetai, ku klux klan. It has no place in civilised society.

    I withdraw my admiration for Angola and am resigned to waiting for a govt that
    will rise to the challenge and rid the world of a pseudo-religion that has enslaved 1.5 billion ?cretins ?cowards. (Are they ignorant or are they afraid?)

  17. says

    I firmly echo everyone’s comments about Robert’s statement: “And no one who is committed to the freedom of conscience can support such a ban…”
    Nonsense, Robert! These people should not be allowed to run for protection under our first amendment — dead wrong!

  18. says

    Robert, you can’t have it both ways. Either you are in for a fight to stop Islam or not. There is no human right to destroy a country in the name of spreading the faith. The Islamic faith/political ideology has been a scourge on Africa since its inception. Freedom of religion or conscience does not allow for murder and deception in the name of one’s god. I have enjoyed your articles for years, but now, when a country finally stands up againt the idiocy of sharia and jihad, which are part and parcel of Islam, you seem to be backing off. The war against Islam must be waged for the benefit of modernity and common sense. Islam, like nazism, is a cancer on humanity that must be removed.

  19. says

    Freedom of religion doesn’t protect cults that engage in human sacrifice.

    Islam when in a minority doesn’t manifest its inner reality as a murder cult quite as obviously as things like the Thuggees, the religion of Moloch, or the Aztec killings…but all one has to do is look at the ritualistic Muslim butcherings of the tourists at Luxor, the children of Beslan, and such things as the slaughter of the Fogel family (including their tiny four-month old daughter whose throat was ritually slit while she lay in her cot), the torture and slaughter of Kriss Donald and Ilan Halimi, the murder of Miriam Monsonego, and most obvious and appalling of all, the allahu-akbaring ritual slaughter of Lee Rigby in broad daylight in the streets of London – to know that Islam is *all* about the killing.

    I concluded some time ago that ‘honor’ murders are, de facto, human sacrifices of nubile females.

    When infidel prey are not available, and allah gets hungry for blood, Muslims sacrifice each other.

  20. says

    But an official at the Angolan Embassy in Washington, D.C., who did not want to be identified while discussing the sensitive matter, said that there is no such ban, and that the reports are erroneous.

    Someone should tell that to the imam David Já, the front-man of the islamic community in Angola. News on portuguese language sites less than an hour ago quote him saying that the Angolan government is actively persecuting the islamic community and closing down and demolishing mosques.

  21. says

    @Left-Wing Counter Jihadi

    “No other ideoleogy poses the sort of clear and present danger to democracy and human rights that the Religion of Peace does.”

    The same democracy that you accept ‘isn’t perfect’ you mean? The same subjective ‘human rights’ that have only been adopted in the last hundred years or so and will probably be completely different in another hundred years? How did the world ever manage without these?

    —–

    @LemonLime

    ‘Excretion’? ‘Superficial fashion’?

    Hmm…interesting. Could it not just be that an absolute belief in democracy, universial suffrage and freedom of speech automatically grant a platform to those who do not share these values to try and work towards a system that excludes them?

    “Democracy destroys itself” as Isocrates once declared!

  22. says

    It’s only hilarious if you find childish spelling errors and grammar mistakes funny.

    The ‘Robert Spencer’s Blogging the Qur’an: Qur’an Commentary’ series linked to at the top left of the screen is far better written, and has the additional virtue of making sense.

  23. says

    “Until people stop thinking of Islam as a religion the world will not fight Islam as it should.”

    We need to realize that Islam is a religion AND an aggressive, imperialistic political ideology combined…and then ban it.

    It really is a political ideology masquerading as a religion — a crude fraud created solely for the worldly benefit of the prophet Muhammad — but since 1.5 billion gullible dupes see it as a “religion”, it’s going to be hard to lose that label.

  24. says

    Until people stop thinking of Islam as a religion the world will not fight Islam as it should.
    =========================================================

    I concer, we must recognize Islam for what it really is, a diabolical cult born in the bowels of hell and fathered by Satan. Its purpose, to destroy mankind, Jews first, Christians second, and finally the rest of humanity who are too gullibable to believe the lies of the filty koran.

  25. says

    Your statement is true and correct: “Islamo-Fascism with its Jew-hating Nazi element should be considered a mass-murder political ideology that it behooves the world to abolish.”
    Islamists use taqiya to fool the West, and its governments, into protecting the cult as religion, instead of declaring it Enemy of the State, and abolishing it. I’m not talking Sharia only, but Islam as a whole — and every single principle that incites its adherents to jihad against civilization itself.

  26. says

    Salah, I assume what you’re getting at is that we need to help Muslims become ex-Muslims by openly criticizing their religion. If so, I agree; but that’s not enough. We also need to start letting Muslims know that their ideology simply isn’t welcome in the civilized world.

    Either their barbaric religion needs to go (apostasy), or they need to go (deportation).

  27. says

    “Either their barbaric religion needs to go (apostasy), or they need to go (deportation).”

    No need for deportation, a ban on Islam is enough. Those who accept the ban are more than welcome, those who do not, will have no other choice but to find a more suitable country.

  28. says

    “Either their barbaric religion needs to go (apostasy), or they need to go (deportation). ”

    The West (and the Rest of the world) is increasingly suffering a situation where Islam is undergoing a global revival and is metastasizing; and given this situation, your either/or choice makes less and less sense as time goes along. At best, one could pursue a strategy where both are implemented simultaneously on parallel tracks; but our interest in safety must always trump our hopeful expectation that Muslims will apostasize in numbers large enough to make a difference.

    Currently, the view (even among many within the Counter-Jihad, including its unofficial leadership) is analogous to a house on fire, and people anxiously unwilling to use axes to chop down walls and water from powerful fire-fighting hoses, because they are worried that the furniture will get damaged.

  29. says

    “No need for deportation, a ban on Islam is enough. Those who accept the ban are more than welcome, those who do not, will have no other choice but to find a more suitable country.”

    Those Muslims who “accept the ban” and remain here will thereby become apostates…in which case, they will be welcome to stay.

    Otherwise, they need to relocate to the sunny Islamic republic of their choice.

  30. says

    “So the holy grail that is the belief in democracy isn’t even actually believed in on here. Hilarious!”

    As Sam Harris predicted years ago, democracy just serves as a gangplank to theocracy when Muslims get the vote. This has proven to be true in the wake of the Arab Spring (as Robert Spencer predicted) — and eventually it will be true in countries like France, once the Muslim population gets a little bigger.

    Human rights and human liberties are “the holy grail”. But Muslims don’t seem to get that.

  31. says

    I agree — hoping for enough Muslims to become ex-Muslims, soon enough to make the difference, is a long shot. We need to deal with the threat of Islam ourselves, via public education, political lobbying and, inevitably, I think, deportation. (At least in countries like France, Sweden and Britain, where Muslim immigrants have already become a huge problem.)

    All I’m saying is, any Muslim who is willing to abandon his/her barbaric religion should be welcome to stay in the civilized world.

  32. says

    “.., because they are worried that the furniture will get damaged.”
    -The current situation is even worse than that: “The house is not on fire” is the order of the day for BHO and friends.
    Two things are therefore lacking:
    1. The recognition that the house is on fire.
    2. The determination to put it out.
    Small wonder that the blaze continues.

  33. says

    “So in other words, you admit that the democratic system is completely flawed?”

    No, I’m NOT saying the democratic system is “completely flawed”. I’m just saying it’s not perfect, especially when imperialistic barbarians with a seventh century worldview are mixed into the equation.

    I suppose you would have us replace democracy with Sharia?

  34. says

    “is this new true…islam is the only religion of peace and humanity.”

    WTF? Syed, obviously English is not your first language, so I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt — but either you’re one drôle, sarcastic dude, or you have truly drunk the Kool Aid.

    If there is only one religion of peace and humanity, that would have to be Jainism (based on my limited knowledge of that ideology, and my fuller knowledge of the competition). Islam isn’t even in the Top Ten. Scratch that; Islam isn’t even on the list!

  35. says

    Angola denies it banned Islam, destroyed mosques
    …………………………..

    I noted on the first thread that this story had been debunked. Robert Spencer was right to have been skeptical.

    Syed Wasi wrote:

    is this new (sic) true…islam is the only religion of peace and humanity.
    …………………………..

    If by “peace and humanity” you mean unending savage bloodletting, then your statement is perfectly accurate…

  36. says

    We could have our government(s) ban Islam if only our politicians would get off the PC toilet long enough to realize that “freedom of conscience” cannot condone incitement to jihad; i.e. toppling our governments.
    We should all lobby our lawmakers to that effect. What are we waiting for?
    The bleak picture, re: PC, is how Islamists have I infiltrated every level of government, and Israel has to fight us as well as those cowardly murderers who lie in bloody ambush.

  37. says

    Here, here! Nobility and reciprocity, courtesy of our Constitution and our Bible, have no place in this fight for our lives. The Islamists want nothing more than to use our code of ethics against us, like the parasites that they are.

  38. says

    Bettina wrote, replying to Zubair Khan:

    Not an accusation, friend — only inducing a welcome state of hope in all of us.
    ………………………..

    I’m afraid Zubair Khan is *not* your friend, Bettina.

    He has stated elsewhere that he is an Ahmadi Muslim. While the Amadiyya do disavow waging violent Jihad to impose Shari’ah”and are persecuted and slaughtered by their more orthodox coreligionists because of it”they still very much believe in Shari’ah law.

    That means that he is fine with amputating the limbs of petty thieves, stoning women to death, and systematically oppressing Infidels like you and me.

  39. says

    No edit button, please Robert!

    The embarrassment of finding a spelling or grammar error in a submitted post is far less inconvenient than trying to keep up with the ever-changing post of a mohammedan troll!

    I sympathise with you JJ, because we all do it, but giving trolls the ability to adjust their arguments would be far worse!

  40. says

    ” The Islamists want nothing more than to use our code of ethics against us, like the parasites that they are.”

    If your code of ethics can be ‘used against you’, then they are not very good are they?

  41. says

    I noted on the first thread that this story had been debunked. Robert Spencer was right to have been skeptical.

    But that did not stop him from publishing a mosque being destroyed by the Israelis.

    In that thread I wrote Ha Ha don’t you ever feel cheated, is not only referring to the image, but to the whole article. It seem most Jihad Watchers along with the CJM where taken in with this story.

    Because of the images used I was also very skeptical, and thanks to Angemon giving a link to an Angolian site led me to look at several more, one of which was a letter from the Angolian Islamic Organization protesting against the demolition of some mosques, there was no mention of a ban

    Now Mrs grave image Lets set record straight

    On the other thread I wrote that the header image was from Naqab, Israel.

    To which you reply

    Actually, journalists at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution have traced this image further back, ten years ago to an article illustrating an incident in Morocco where the authorities there razed some houses and a Mosque.
    Is that the original story

    Well yes that is the original story, They also gave a link

    http://www.ism-france.org/communiques/Destruction-de-6-maisons-et-d-une-mosquee-dans-le-Naqab-article-464%20, but the link is dead, so you as per usual assumed it was correct

    The sie was in french, but the url mentions Naqab, and International Solidarity Movement, should have rung bells. Thats the same movement St Pancake (Rachel Corrie) belonged to. ISM is Palestinian-led organization.

    Now here is the correct link

    http://www.ism-france.org/communiques/Destruction-de-6-maisons-et-d-une-mosquee-dans-le-Naqab-article-464

    You also write

    But certainly, the image’s origin was not in Gaza.

    I never mentioned that the mosque was in Gaza, I was referring to another image that some other sites where using, which is the image that Mr Spencer is using as a header for this thread.

    http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:24_-_Destroyed_mosque.jpg

  42. says

    “If your code of ethics can be ‘used against you’, then they are not very good are they?”

    Our code of ethics works just fine with civilized people. But, in the hands of Islamists, free speech and freedom of religion can be used against us, to promote a barbaric ideology that aims to eliminate free speech and freedom of religion, along with women’s rights, democracy, etc. — which is why we need to make an exception where Islam is concerned.

    We need to stop allowing the promoters of Islam and Sharia to use our enlightened principles and laws against us. We need to start treating them like the enemies they are, clearly and unequivocally. No more uncertainty or hand-wringing! And no more mealy-mouthed statements about the need to be “respectful” of, or “tolerant” towards an ideology that seeks to undermine the most enlightened and humane societies the world has ever produced.

    Isa, your comments on this thread illustrate a worldview that is simple-minded, crude and thuggish — providing an excellent example of the Islamist mindset (thanks very much!), and making you a worthy successor to your evil, thuggish prophet. Please come back whenever you like, and post your bone-headed comments as frequently, as freely, and as thoughtlessly as possible. We love you, baby!

  43. says

    ” The Islamists want nothing more than to use our code of ethics against us, like the parasites that they are.”

    If your code of ethics can be ‘used against you’, then they are not very good are they?

    Bettina didn’t say our code of ethics can be used against us, but rather that Muslims (I don’t know what “Islamists” are) want to use our code of ethics against us.

    What Muslims can and do use against us is not our code of ethics per se, but an excretion that has grown out of them currently enjoying a mainstream dominance through a relatively superficial fashion of thought. Once we recover our rationality (God-given reason underpinning our classical code of ethics), we will pull the magic carpet ride out from under Muslims and reveal their jihad for the mirage it is. But it will be difficult, for this superficial fashion that currently holds sway throughout the West remains dominant and mainstream; and no small measure of its influential hold on people may be seen by the fact that even many otherwise intelligent Jihad Watchers labor under the preposterour delusion that we cannot through our extant laws condemn Islam as the evil and dangerous enemy it is (and has been for 1,400 years). The very same JW Softies who would immediately agree, for example, that the U.S.A. could easily round up and deport (or detain in camps) a cult of neo-Aztecs who go around abducting little girls in order to sacrifice them, having already sacrificed hundreds, let us say, with every indication that they are getting worse– suddenly find their minds paralyzed by an imaginary inability to do the same to a cult a thousand times more evil and dangerous than the Aztec cult.

    So it will take some time and massaging to restore our native rationality (by a marvelous paradox also transcending tribalism to develop into universalism); but I have reasonable hope it can and will be done.

  44. says

    “Isa” wrote:

    ” The Islamists want nothing more than to use our code of ethics against us, like the parasites that they are.”

    If your code of ethics can be ‘used against you’, then they are not very good are they?
    …………………………………..

    Not really. Westerners, as a whole, tend to think well of others”because that is their general experience with other civilized Westerners.

    Muslims are only capable of misusing this trust because they are far worse than civilized people.

    Historically, the Fascists and the hard-core Communists were given the benefit of the doubt for far longer than they should have been on just this basis.

    The West eventually woke up in those instances, and the savvier among us are now waking up to the threat of Islam.

  45. says

    “… which is why we need to make an exception where Islam is concerned.”

    It’s funny how many ‘exceptions’ need to be made to these supposed all-high deeply held principles of yours…

    “Please come back whenever you like, and post your bone-headed comments as frequently, as freely, and as thoughtlessly as possible. We love you, baby!”

    At least I’m no longer considered a CAIR operative with some sort of hidden agenda I suppose. Progress!

  46. says

    do we know folks in Angola who can help us know the truth?

    I have a friend who has a friend who is working in angola, and i nagged her enough to have her ask her friend what’s going on. From what i managed to gather, the leader of the islamic community in Angola is claiming that the government started to shut down and demolish mosques shortly after a high-ranked member of the catholic church of Angola said they did not want islam there and that muslims who pray risk getting arrested. The closing of mosques has been denounced by the islamic community since 2010 or 2011, but it seems it’s due to legal issues with the building process – mostly bribing of officials.

    Now, regarding the ban of islam. Apparently for a religious organization to be officially recognized by the government it needs to prove it has a minimum number of adherents spread around a minimum area of the country (couldn’t get info on the exact number of followers or the minimum area). It seems that late last month or early this month the request of the islamic community of Angola for the official recognition of Islam was denied. Couldn’t get info on the why though. Maybe they didn’t comply with the minimum number of followers (very unlikely), their distribution in the country (could be, if most of the muslims are foreign immigrants and are all located in an specific area) or if it was simply a problem with the certification process itself (too much bureaucracy, something might have been overlooked, you know the drill). Anyway, it seems that all the reports of ban and persecution come from the islamic community itself. I wasn’t told of any government statement on the issue, so for now what was said by the embassy in Washington is the closest thing we have.

    Like i said, i asked a friend to ask a friend, so take it with a grain of salt.

  47. says

    “It’s funny how many ‘exceptions’ need to be made to these supposed all-high deeply held principles of yours…”

    It’s funny how ALL of the exceptions we need to make are in regards to just ONE ideology: Islam.

    “At least I’m no longer considered a CAIR operative with some sort of hidden agenda I suppose.”

    Nope. Your agenda seems pretty obvious.

  48. says

    “It’s funny how ALL of the exceptions we need to make are in regards to just ONE ideology: Islam.”

    Don’t forget Communism. And Nazism. And any other ‘-ism’ that you happen to disagree with.

  49. says

    I’m not worried about communism, or Nazism (in the 21st century). Just Islam. No other ideoleogy poses the sort of clear and present danger to democracy and human rights that the Religion of Peace does.

  50. says

    “The West eventually woke up in those instances [viz., Communism]…”

    Not really. PC MC has developed a virulent phobia about “McCarthyites” which is not merely a relic of the past, but was actively used — by Democrats and Republicans alike — to demonize Michelle Bachmann recently when she tried to raise the question of a rational suspicion of Muslim Brotherhood operatives in US government and other related institutions. And that’s just one example of many of the modern West’s irrational anti-anti-Communism.

  51. says

    So Mrs Graven Image, lost your tongue have you, after having another of your assumptions totally debunked.

    This article really shows how sloppy Mr Spencer is. If he was skeptical then why didn’t he investigate the story a little further.

    Just by looking at the image was enough to indicate the story was suspect, using an image of a mosque demolished by Israeli was a sure sign that the article is a hoax.

    Another indication, was the lack of rioting

  52. says

    Semeru wrote:

    So Mrs Graven Image, lost your tongue have you, after having another of your assumptions totally debunked.

    This article really shows how sloppy Mr Spencer is. If he was skeptical then why didn’t he investigate the story a little further.
    ………………………

    Of course he was skeptical”the very title of the first story reads “Angola reportedly bans Islam”

    And Robert Spencer goes on to say:

    “This is extraordinarily strange news, given that the world is racing in the other direction, to accommodate and appease Islam. It will be interesting to see, if these reports turn out to be accurate…”

    All of this indicates skepticism. But this story was reported by the mainstream media, so it certainly was news.

  53. says

    Just by looking at the image was enough to indicate the story was suspect, using an image of a mosque demolished by Israeli was a sure sign that the article is a hoax.

    That will teach mr. Spencer not to trust articles on islamist websites.

    Another indication, was the lack of rioting

    Angola is not Pakistan, Afghanistan or France. Angola muslims know what the police would do to them if they tried to riot like muslims did in those countries.

    Also, portuguese language news-media are reporting that several sites on portuguese speaking countries other than Angola have been hacked by islamist bangladeshi hackers who are protesting against the banning of islam in Angola.

  54. says

    LemonLime wrote:

    “The West eventually woke up in those instances [viz., Communism]…”

    Not really. PC MC has developed a virulent phobia about “McCarthyites”…
    ……………………

    I very much take you point, LemonLime”but the resistance to recognizing the threat of Fascism and Communism”and the branding of anyone concerned as hysterical or a “warmonger””went on in each case for *years*. I believe given the passage of history that many of us”not yourself, perhaps”tend not to realize just how many Westerners wanted to believe that the Nazis and Communists were rational actors, *long* after it should have become obvious that they were not.

    I agree that PC/MC adds an extra layer of denial to today’s situation”but apart from that, the situations are extremely similar, and with just the same infuriating level of willful, suicidal cluelessness.

  55. says

    Still lost your tongue about image of the mosque being pulled down in Morocco.

    So much for your claim that Mr Spencer verifies every item before putting it up here., This article clearly proves that he doesn’t

    Also it proves that Mr Spencer does not expose islam, he only recycles what is reported in the media and peppers it with a few relevant/irrelevant islamic quotes

    What is so sad about this whole affair, is who ever kicked off this story fooled most of the CJM, they must be peeing themselves with laughter.

  56. says

    Thanx for the link to Angolian site on the last thread, from that I was able to track another article on the same site that comfirmed that the banning of islam was a hoax

    Yes I noticed too about the bangle hackers , they chose some weird targets, such as the Portuguese Fertility Association (APF) page

  57. says

    Thanx for the link to Angolian site on the last thread, from that I was able to track another article on the same site that comfirmed that the banning of islam was a hoax

    Could you link me to it? The last info i got on what happened came from a friend of a friend working in Angola who mentioned that late last month or early this month the request of the islamic community of Angola for the official recognition of Islam was denied. I’d like to know how that compares with the official explanation so i can assess her reliability for future reference.

  58. says

    Hope these will help

    They helped a bit. None of them tells where the reports of the ban started, but both mention that the islamic community is struggling to register 100 thousand followers spread out through two-thirds of the country (the minimum values i wasn’t told about), which is required for government recognition.

  59. says

    The point is, the West has not woken up to the problem of Communism; and Communist subversion continues to this day, in the form of a cultural climate of historical revisionism about “McCarthyism” and the entire anti-Communist effort.

    The recent books of Diana West and M. Stanton Evans, and their recent heated and interesting debate with (and slander by) most in the conservative counter-jihad community — about which one would never know anything has happened at all since Spencer has seen fit to be as silent as a tomb about his colleague David Horowitz’s central role in it — are salutary correctives both to the view that anti-Communism was excessive (let alone “paranoid” and fascist), and the view that the West has woken up to the problem and there no longer remains a problem.

  60. says

    No Western polity institutionalizes an absolute democracy; all have wisely developed official controls of the process (the very fact of having a government at all implies the rudiments of a control). The source of ethics and laws, mediated through political science, is a complex phenomenon — unlike the conceit of simplistic visions of how to organize society, of which there are mainly three:

    1) absolute democracy

    2) theocracy

    3) gnostic totalitarianism.

    To my knowledge, no polity has attempted #1, though there have been individual dreamers of it, and perhaps small experiments in the form of utopian communes.

    Attempts to one degree of another of #2 have been common in history.

    Islam is unique in pursuing both #2 and #3, though its internal vortex of chaos and corruption to which it is perpetually vulnerable seem to have prevented any regime within the Umma to have sustained it for long, if really at all (notwithstanding propagandistic boasting claiming such now and then (e.g., various Caliphates)).

  61. says

    P.S.:

    And of course attempts at #3 occurred in recent Western history (the French Revolution under Robespierre then Napoleon; then the Communist Revolution & Regime under the U.S.S.R.; and Hitler’s Third Reich).

  62. says

    Semeru wrote:

    Still lost your tongue about image of the mosque being pulled down in Morocco.
    ……………………………….

    How have I, as you put it, “lost my tongue”? Have you forgotten that I the very poster who noted that the Atlanta Journal-Constitution had traced this image back to Morocco on the original thread?

    [myself]: “Actually, journalists at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution have traced this image further back, ten years ago to an article illustrating an incident in Morocco where the authorities there razed some houses and a Mosque.”

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/11/angola-reportedly-bans-islam-destroys-mosques.html#comment-987025

    More:

    So much for your claim that Mr Spencer verifies every item before putting it up here., This article clearly proves that he doesn’t
    ……………………………….

    What absolute crap”it proves *just the opposite*.

    Robert Spencer noted his reservations when he posted the original story. Given its content and sources,it was clearly salient here, but Spencer noted that his skepticism.

    And this story is the follow up, when he had more information.

    This is ethical journalism in action”not that you would be apt to grasp that.

    More:

    Also it proves that Mr Spencer does not expose islam, he only recycles what is reported in the media and peppers it with a few relevant/irrelevant islamic quotes
    ……………………………….

    Jihad Watch is *more* relevant for citing stories from the mainstream media. Are you somehow implying that no story here is valid unless it was the result of original research on the ground all over the world by Robert Spencer himself?

    Not only is that logistically absurd, but then the content would come under fire as being supposedly untrustworthy because all of the material was from an “Islamophobe” like Spencer himself.

    The fact is that the horrific stories about Islam posted at Jihad Watch come from newspapers, radio, and television shows all over the world”including the Muslim world. The fact that the sources are so diverse”and yet the stories so damning of Islam overall”goes to prove what a terrible threat Islam presents, both for Infidels and for vulnerable Muslims themselves.

    And your dismissive characterization of Spencer’s commentary is absurd given the penetrating caliber of his analysis.

    More:

    What is so sad about this whole affair, is who ever kicked off this story fooled most of the CJM, they must be peeing themselves with laughter.
    ……………………………….

    Who is “they”? Robert Spencer had serious reservations about this story from the beginning, and noted the complications that would ensue were it accurate.

    I expressed my own skepticism, and provided links to follow-up stories.

    In the whole scheme of things, moreover, this story is a sideline. The savagery of Jihad and brutal Shari’ah proceed apace, and mostly passes apologists such as yourself without condemnation.

  63. says

    How have I, as you put it, “lost my tongue”? Have you forgotten that I the very poster who noted that the Atlanta Journal-Constitution had traced this image back to Morocco on the original thread?

    Are you that stupid, If you had followed the link that Atlanta Journal-Constitution put up, you come to

    http://www.ism-france.org/communiques/Destruction-de-6-maisons-et-d-une-mosquee-dans-le-Naqab-article-464%20,

    Link is dead, dead as a dead parrot

    Here is an active link

    http://www.ism-france.org/communiques/Destruction-de-6-maisons-et-d-une-mosquee-dans-le-Naqab-article-464

    And what have we here

    Aujourd’hui, le 29 décembre 2003, les autorités israéliennes ont détruit six maisons et une mosquée, prétextant l’absence d’autorisation de construire, dans les villages non reconnus dans la région du Naqab, occupée en 1948, Mazraa et Zaaroura.
    SHARON DETRUIT LEURS MAISONS : Les habitants du Naqab décident de les reconstruire
    Aujourd’hui, le 29 décembre 2003, les autorités israéliennes ont détruit six maisons et une mosquée, prétextant l’absence d’autorisation de construire, dans les villages non reconnus dans la région du Naqab, occupée en 1948, Mazraa et Zaaroura.

    And here is a google translation

    Today, December 29, 2003 , the Israeli authorities have destroyed six houses and a mosque , citing lack of permission to build in unrecognized in the Naqab region , occupied in 1948, and Mazraa Zaaroura villages
    SHARON DESTROYED THEIR HOUSES: The inhabitants of the Negev decide to rebuild
    Today, December 29, 2003 , the Israeli authorities have destroyed six houses and a mosque , citing lack of permission to build in unrecognized in the Naqab region , occupied in 1948, and Mazraa Zaaroura villages.

    Well folks, this is one of your finest commentators, must be completely of her rocker to even suggest that Sharon, and the Israelis destroyed six houses and a mosque in Morocco.

  64. says

    Jihad Watch is *more* relevant for citing stories from the mainstream media. Are you somehow implying that no story here is valid unless it was the result of original research on the ground all over the world by Robert Spencer himself?

    You are totally bonkers, How did you arrive at the above when I wrote Also it proves that Mr Spencer does not expose islam, he only recycles what is reported in the media and peppers it with a few relevant/irrelevant islamic quotes

    What I am implying is Mr Spencer is totally reliant on the mainstream media, without it JW would be rather thin. Basically JW is taken a free ride on the backs of journalists and media

    If Mr Spencer is such an authority on Islam, why did he have to wait for the MSM to expose the story as fake.

  65. says

    May be I am ranting, but at least my facts are right

    What about those Israelis who you believe to be pulling down mosques in Morocco.

    By the way you still have not given a link to prove that the French influenced article 476 is based on the tenets of Islam

  66. says

    Semeru wrote:

    What about those Israelis who you believe to be pulling down mosques in Morocco.
    ………………………..

    What rot…

    More:

    By the way you still have not given a link to prove that the French influenced article 476 is based on the tenets of Islam
    ………………………..

    One may well wonder what this is a reference to, since there’s nothing about this in the story above. That would be this thread, here:

    “Morocco: 16-year-old girl kills herself after being forced to marry her rapist”

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/11/morocco-16-year-old-girl-kills-herself-after-being-forced-to-marry-her-rapist.html#comment-987351

    Semeru is so incensed that any Kaffir might openly consider the systematic abuse of rape victims in the Muslim world to have anything to do with Islam that he is now cross-posting about it.

    Incidentally, he holds that this poor girl’s being coerced into marrying her rapist was not about Islam”instead, it was”unbelievably”due to the laws of…France.

    Never mind that no rape victim in France is coerced into marrying her rapist”nor imprisoned for it, nor stoned to death. Never mind that rape victims in the Muslim world have suffered from all of these Islamic abuses.

    Infidels are not supposed to dare notice…

  67. says

    Semeru wrote:

    What about those Israelis who you believe to be pulling down mosques in Morocco.

    To which Cravem Mirage replied

    What rot…

    Well it was you who cited from some fish wrap that the demolished mosque was in Morocco, she cannot accept that she has been proven wrong once again.

  68. says

    Semeru wrote:

    Well it was you who cited from some fish wrap…
    ………………………….

    The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is a Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper.

    More:

    To which Cravem Mirage replied…
    ………………………….

    Did you mean “Craven Mirage”? This would be an ugly and witless play on my user name, worthy of banned troll Americana”but surely it would make more sense than “Cravem Mirage”?

  69. says

    LemonLime wrote:

    The point is, the West has not woken up to the problem of Communism; and Communist subversion continues to this day, in the form of a cultural climate of historical revisionism about “McCarthyism” and the entire anti-Communist effort.
    ………………………….

    Well, you’re right, LemonLime”our apprehension of the threat of Communism has always been no better than partial, and often commingled with appalling whitewash of oppression in the Soviet Union and Communist China, especially.

    We did”finally!”wake up to the extent of the threat of Fascism, and I can only hope that when the West finally comes to understand the threat of Islam, that it more closely resembles our successful addressing of Fascism, and not out schizophrenic engagement with Communism.