• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

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

The Best Revenge

Feb 26, 2015 12:50 pm By Michael Devolin

justin-trudeau-praying-in-mosque“To refrain from imitation is the best revenge.” –Marcus Aurelius

I would never attempt to explain the fact that all religions are not equal, precisely because there have been so many—too many—before me explain this reality already, but to a predominantly insouciant populace. Those who believe that all religions are equal and, consequently, that all deserve the same measure of respect do so either because they are hopelessly obtuse, or because they are embarrassed by the inconvenient knowledge that their particular religion is the one most often found wanting.

Justin Trudeau, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, who believes multiculturalism and the Teletubbies are going to save the Western Hemisphere from Islamic extremism, excoriated P.M. Stephen Harper recently for his decision to appeal a court ruling allowing Muslim women to wear a face covering during the swearing-in ceremony for Canadian citizenship, saying that “…the prime minister of this country has a responsibility to bring people together in this country, not to divide us by pandering to some people’s fears.” But of course, this would be the view of the same Justin Trudeau who attended the Al-Sunnah Al-Nabawiah mosque in Quebec, in 2011, a mosque later exposed by U.S. Intelligence as a recruitment centre for al-Qaida, but already with a reputation for harbouring extremist views as far back as 2006. I guess it’s not wise to pick just any mosque in Canada when choosing to portray oneself in the public eye as a Liberal politician promoting multiculturalism.

Raphael Israeli has written of the obvious contradistinction “…when one bears in mind, on the one hand, the harsh, even fanatic, reaction of Muslims worldwide to what they perceive as the profanation of their holy sites or any slur to their culture, or the enthusiastic and self-assured way they go about spreading their faith and imposing it on others; but on the other hand, the unbearable ease with which they deny others’ religious rights, and even step in to obliterate the religious heritage of other faiths.” Islam has never had a reputation for bringing people together or for being amicable toward those of other faiths. On the contrary, it is notorious for dividing nations and destroying traditions of tolerance. Anyone can take five minutes and delve into Islam’s history to verify this truth. For example, of the 37 rulers during the Abbasid Dynasty alone, 13 of them were murdered and/or assassinated by fellow Muslims. In modern times, likewise, since the beginning of the so-called “Arab Spring” there are Muslim rulers who have lost their positions of national leadership, some even their heads. And please note that this is Islam’s contemporary history, atrocious reverberations even now transpiring in lands where Islam is given free rein and has purchased, by violence alone and by no other means, religious and political preponderance. And with Islam, it’s never about unity—it’s always about religious and political preponderance. Apparently this undisguised fact of Islam’s recent past has escaped Justin Trudeau’s attention. For Justin Trudeau, winning elections entails climbing into bed with just about anyone, friend or foe. His famous father, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, was once labelled by Newfoundland’s very comical John Crosby as a “political transvestite.” I guess Justin Trudeau, as they say here in rural Canada, “didn’t get it out of the ground.”

As for “pandering to some people’s fears,” I, for one, am thankful there is a Prime Minister in Ottawa concerned enough to pander to my fears. And I do fear Islam. And my fear of Islam is justified. I fear that Islam will bring to my country what it has brought to Europe, by way of jihad. Alan Dershowitz writes, “It is wrong to assume that only Muslims who manifest Jew hatred through violence, harbor anti-Semitic views. Recent polls show an extraordinarily high incidence of anti-Semitism—hatred of Jews as individuals, as a group and as a religion,—throughout North Africa, the Middle East and Muslim areas in Europe. This hatred manifests itself not only in words, but in deeds, such as taunting Jews who wear yarmulkes, vandalizing Jewish institutions, and occasional violence directed at individual Jews. Among a small number of extremists it also results in the kind of deadly violence we have seen in Toulouse, Paris, Brussels and other parts of Europe.” I have seen with my own eyes the so-called “moderate Muslim” screaming antisemitic shibboleths at my Jewish friends as I stood beside them in Toronto, and also in Mississauga, during a JDL counter-protest across the street from the notorious Palestine House. These are the same Muslims who, in downtown Toronto, celebrate Al-Quds Day, “…an international day of struggle against Israel and for the liberation of Jerusalem.”. Anyone familiar with the Arab Muslim vision for the Middle East will know only too well the hidden meaning behind the phrase “the liberation of Jerusalem.” “It ain’t what the rich call prayer,” as my dear old Dad would say. And for those readers who don’t know the hidden meaning, these Al-Quds revelers are talking about the destruction of the State of Israel and the extermination of all Jews dwelling therein.

A report filed in June 2014 by Saied R. Ameli and Arzu Merali, of the Islamic Human Rights Commission’s Hate Crime Project, revealed that these captious authors, “Using case studies…deconstruct the Islamophobia and discursive racism present in Canada. Significant figures in the media are profiled and important laws are scrutinised till the bones of injustice are laid bare for the reader to see. Television, film and press have acted as highly effective vehicles for anti-Islam rhetoric and Muslims have been dehumanised to such an extent that they exist outside of the space where rights are guaranteed to them.” Of course, the very opposite is true. In truth, “television, film and press” have, contrary to this mendacious screed against Canadian (and American) freedom of expression, have inadvertently taken up the cause of the Islamist. After all, it was Western journalists who first invented—and then purveyed with proofs—the phrase “Islamophobia.” Today “Islamophobia” is referred to as some sort of social disease and used to label anyone brave enough to tell the truth in real time about Islam and Muslim behaviour. If anyone is being “dehumanised to such an extent that they exist outside of the space where rights are guaranteed to them,” it would be those public figures today defending our democratic freedoms against those who denigrate such honesty and patriotism as Islamophobia.

We are laden—despite our loud protestations and proofs to the contrary—with these false and misleading representations of Islam and its jihadist ideology, as though jihad is simply a “personal thing” and innocuous. The masses have always been prone to believe those things sounding most convenient, requiring the least noetic effort to brook, regardless the absence of truth, regardless the steam-roller of calamity coming around the bend at them. And this is exactly why Justin Trudeau’s fantasy politics finds purchase in the media today. As old Horace wrote long ago, “It has always been lawful, and always will be, to issue words stamped with the mint-mark of the day.”

Vauvenargues opined that “Servitude debases men to the point where they end up liking it.” I have no intention of ever being debased by a religion whose primary purpose, as pointed out in its Quran, is to force or conjure, by foot or by fathom, the entire world into submission to its barbaric and insensate tenets. And I’m not alone. Those with me are not about to imitate the madmen of Islam. We are not about to go on a murderous rampage because someone slighted our religious beliefs. We are not about to obtrude our religious beliefs on others. We are not about to threaten those of other faiths, nor those who’ve left our particular religion, with death. We are not about to hate Jews simply because they’re Jews. I could go on, but I trust anyone who thinks as I do has picked up on the gist of what I’m saying. The best revenge is to remain who we are and what we are and to avoid becoming anything like those who are offended at our existence.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: anti-dhimmitude, Islamic supremacism Tagged With: Justin Trudeau


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Salah says

    Feb 26, 2015 at 1:02 pm

    “Islam has never had a reputation for bringing people together or for being amicable toward those of other faiths.”

    Here’s what the Qur’an has to say about us, the “infidels.”

    http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2012/10/infidel.html

    • mortimer says

      Feb 26, 2015 at 1:48 pm

      Roman Catholicism is also ‘divisive’ and forbids its members (like Justin) from praying to a pagan moon god.

      • john spielman says

        Feb 26, 2015 at 3:26 pm

        politicians like Justin T are simply whores who will do anything for votes. At least prime Minister Harper has standards that he will not betray. Hopefully the Conservative party will remind the populace that they (the Conservative party) will oppose the judiciary allowing muslim women from wearing face veils during citizenship ceremonies and court appearances and will stand up for traditional Canadian values!

    • Beagle says

      Feb 26, 2015 at 5:04 pm

      “infidels” (kaffir, disbelievers)

      48 (sūrat l-fatḥ) ayat 29, 48.29

      Sahih International:

      “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah ; and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves…”
      — —
      Now you know why fellow Muslims always claim a particular jihadi is or was a gentle soul. They are not lying, just deceitfully omitting.

    • M S case says

      Feb 28, 2015 at 10:49 pm

      “The prime minister of this country has a responsibility to bring people together not divide us”

      You are going to be divided all right. Your heads are going to be divided from your body. Looks like by now any and every free country would have waken up by now to what islam actually is.but Nooooooooooo!!!

  2. PRCS says

    Feb 26, 2015 at 1:13 pm

    “…the prime minister of this country has a responsibility to bring people together in this country, not to divide us by pandering to some people’s fears…”

    As it really should be:

    by pandering to some people’s religious beliefs

    PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS. IDEAS DO NOT..

  3. Dan says

    Feb 26, 2015 at 1:29 pm

    What really scares me, is that idiot Justin Trudeau stands a pretty good chance of getting in.

    The rest of the world is wishing they’d had someone with some backbone, like Harper, yet the Canadian media, the CBC and such ilk, have been demonizing Harper full bore, and painting Trudeau as the suave savior.

    Justin’s dad, Pierre,and Fidel Castro were practically kissing cousins. When that rodent faced Pierre died, Castro, who rarely left Cuba, came to the blasted funeral in Canada.

    And Justin, a third generation trust fund baby, has never worked to support himself a day in his life; except if I remember right, for a brief stint as a failed drama teacher.

    Just a couple weeks ago, the Sun News Network, Canada’s only real conservative station, which constantly exposed left wing hypocrisy, shut down because CRTC, (Roughy our version of the FCC)
    stonewalling.

    I know we’re always trying to one up the U.S. but yeesh.

    To try and top Obama’s performance?

    Obama may have bowed to a Middle East king.

    But have you actually SEEN him praying in a known to recruit radicals Mosque?

    • mortimer says

      Feb 26, 2015 at 1:38 pm

      Justin Trudeau prayed to meteorite chips in Saudi Arabia, thus breaking the first three of the Ten Commandments, mortal sins in the Roman Catholic faith he is supposed to uphold.

      • umbra says

        Feb 26, 2015 at 3:16 pm

        Catholic in name only?

    • Angemon says

      Feb 26, 2015 at 2:24 pm

      Dan posted:

      “What really scares me, is that idiot Justin Trudeau stands a pretty good chance of getting in.

      The rest of the world is wishing they’d had someone with some backbone, like Harper, yet the Canadian media, the CBC and such ilk, have been demonizing Harper full bore, and painting Trudeau as the suave savior. ”

      You’re scaring me…

  4. mortimer says

    Feb 26, 2015 at 1:31 pm

    Is Justin Trudeau saying that a FACE MASK does not divide?

    Is Justin Trudeau saying that 7th century counter-feminist clothing is not divisive?

    Is Justin Trudeau saying that GENDER APARTHEID is not divisive?

    • Brian Hoff says

      Feb 26, 2015 at 5:04 pm

      Nobody is make your wife and daughter wear one. The Hijabs are so beautiful looking on women. So you the Islamophobia racist are going to tell muslim women that they cannot wear the Hijab and that you are going to phyical remove the Hijab from every muslim women in Canada. You are the one makeing it divisive.. You will next tell muslim how to run they mosque what a big ego you must have.

      • pumbar says

        Feb 26, 2015 at 11:32 pm

        “Nobody is make your wife and daughter wear one”.

        That’s not strictly true now Brian is it.

        I also note that if, god forbid, you were married, your missus would be “the wife of Brian”. Reminds me of something out of a Monty Python film.

        • Brian Hoff says

          Feb 27, 2015 at 7:33 pm

          There is no religish police in Canada at all. What would you do it your wife decide to wear the Hijab for one day like this super model did. Here is video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_j4s06Nu7Y. I know some non-muslim woman who wear the Hijab as they are so cloreful and styleish.

        • Angemon says

          Feb 28, 2015 at 11:04 am

          Brian Hoff posted:

          “There is no religish police in Canada at all.”

          But there usually is in muslim-majority countries. Didn’t the religious police (an all-female religious police) in the islamic state recently poured acid in the faces of women who refused to wear face-covering clothing in public?

          Also, religious police is an islamic thing.

      • MKG says

        Feb 27, 2015 at 12:44 pm

        “Nobody is make your wife and daughter wear one. ”

        At least not yet.

        In any event, westerners simply do not trust people who hide their faces. Whether they be male or female.

      • Angemon says

        Feb 27, 2015 at 3:59 pm

        Brian Hoff posted:

        “Nobody is make your wife and daughter wear one.”

        That’s because Canada is not a muslim-majority country. Were that the case, things would be quite different.

        “The Hijabs are so beautiful looking on women.”

        Well, if that’s your fetish, more power to you. In any case, Harper appealed to have people NOT wear the niqab, which is a face-covering piece of clothing that makes it impossible to tell who’s behind it. It raises public-security questions, and Harper is right in doing what he did.

        You’re either too stupid and ignorant to know the subject being discussed or you’re hoping to fool us into believing that the controversy sparked over a hijab. In any case, sod off wanker.

        “So you the Islamophobia racist are going to tell muslim women that they cannot wear the Hijab and that you are going to phyical remove the Hijab from every muslim women in Canada.”

        “islamophobia racist”? As opposed to what, islamic supremacist forcing women to wear a piece of clothing becuse otherwise they might get raped since muslim men are apparently incapable of restraining themselves? When in Canada do as the Canadians do. Do not try to emulate the habits of whatever 3rd world hellhole you manage to escape from.

        “You are the one makeing it divisive.”

        Nope.

        “You will next tell muslim how to run they mosque what a big ego you must have.”

        Are you saying that mosques should be allowed to teach hate of non-muslims and that muslims are mandated to wage warfare against non-muslims? That no one should check mosques to see what kind of hate-filled rhetoric is being vomited by muslim drones recruiting terrorists for terrorist organizations?

        Sod off, goat abuser.

  5. biff says

    Feb 26, 2015 at 2:01 pm

    Justin Trudeau truly is a JV team in the words of him immortal spiritual leader Hussein Obama.

    He’s Canada’s answer to the Kennedys. Light on their feet.

  6. Don McKellar says

    Feb 26, 2015 at 2:46 pm

    Justin Trudeau is the worst among feeble-minded leftists in my country. A pathetic “legacy” politician who has done even less than Obama to get to where he is now. Canada will be thrown into the Dark Ages if that simpering idiot were to gain power.

    • biff says

      Feb 26, 2015 at 5:05 pm

      Quebecers will vote for him in droves. No matter how awefull somebody is, the Quebec tribe mentality takes over.

      The list goes on and on of losers they will vote for.

      Pauline Marois, the Ferrari driving socialist is a good fit for Quebec logic.

      Quebecers are ready to vote in their own version of Berlusconi now. The idiocy knows no bounds.

  7. fritz mccain says

    Feb 26, 2015 at 4:42 pm

    He’s got the name of his father and the brain of his mother,,,,,,pathetic

  8. Beagle says

    Feb 26, 2015 at 4:48 pm

    Even the same religion is often not the same, or equal. Can anyone claim with a straight face that Torquemada, Thomas Aquinas, the Westboro ‘Baptists’, and John Polkinghorne shared a substantially common belief system?

    Which raises the issue of the meanings of religion. Is religion the texts, the beliefs of all the people, or a hybrid? A hybrid might be what beliefs are likely to spring from the texts based on the language, assuming different approaches to exegesis.

    In the case of Islam, no fair-minded person can deny the unfortunately clear commands to commit acts of brutality and violence if the plain meaning of the words is the only analytical methodology. Add in some historical context in order to claim the command was for a certain time and perhaps a verse is rendered harmless in some prople. Secular, nominal, Muslims ignore it.

    When Jihadi John, nee Muhammad Emwazi, the beheader, reads “strike the necks” — he does it. He is far from alone these days.

    Missing the Enlightenment, theocratic speech police, and the end of ijtihad centuries ago are a few factors which contribute to the problems in Islam which are almost unique on the modern world. On the other hand, problematic Islam seems to be winning, its sword kicking the pen’s butt. Genghis Khan was not a thoughtful scholar either. He did OK.

    • Kepha says

      Feb 26, 2015 at 8:58 pm

      @Beagle: My guess is that the people whom you listed would’ve assented to the following (although I don’t know Polkinghorne’s theology, and don’t really trust anything from a modern Anglican until I read it):

      (1) God is eternally Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

      (2) The three persons of the Holy Trinity are equally deserving of the worship of rational beings.

      (3) The universe is one way or another God’s creation and under His governance.

      (4) Man is born sinful and cannot save himself. He needs the grace of God to be saved.

      (5) The Son (Word) became truly man (and a Jew at that) for the sake of the man’s salvation.

      (6) Jesus Christ is and remains forever both fully God and fully man in one person forever.

      (7) Jesus Christ truly died for the sins of men on the cross, was buried, and on the third day rose again from the dead.

      (8) The Four Gospels, Book of Acts, Epistles of Paul, I Peter, James, I John are trustworthy witnesses to the life, death, resurrection, mission, and teachings of Jesus Christ and his closest earthly associates and are the New Testament (Aquinas, Torquemada, and Westboro would probably all affirm a higher and more comprehensive understanding of the divine nature and authority of the 27 books of the NT).

      (9) The Holy Spirit is the Comforter promised in John’s version of the Upper Room Discourse; has been with the church since Shevuot in 29 (or 30?) A.D., and directed men to pen the books of the Old and New Testaments.

      (10) Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are sacraments instituted by Jesus Christ to mark his church.

      (11) We will face a judgment by God after death–my guess is that Aquinas, Torquemada, and Westboro would also say that there is a physical resurrection of the dead at the end of history.

      (12) In the cases of Torquemada, Westboro, and Aquinas (Uncle Kepha, too), there would be agreement on the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. Westboro and Uncle Kepha would not accept the immaculate conception of Mary (the doctrine that Mary was preserved from original sin–NOT the doctrine that she was a virgin when she bore Jesus).

      Shucks. I’m getting tired, and have work to do. There’s probably a lot more that these and millions of other Christians throughout the ages would agree on. To that list, I might even add the mothers of several of the Mongol Khans (since you mention Chinghiz), who were members of the Church of the East.

      While I’m at it, Uncle Kepha will not “Takfir” or “heathenize” Torquemada or Westboro, even if I disapprove of some of the things they did or are now doing (in Westboro’s case). All Christians are sinners (like everyone else), and hence capable of doing wrong while on this side of Glory. Hence, there will be some things done by Christians at which many other Christians may rightly take offense and call for reformation (maybe a reason why we are to love each other and meet together).

      • James says

        Feb 28, 2015 at 12:39 am

        Kepha@
        >>>>12) In the cases of Torquemada, Westboro, and Aquinas (Uncle Kepha, too), there would be agreement on the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. Westboro and Uncle Kepha would not accept the immaculate conception of Mary (the doctrine that Mary was preserved from original sin–NOT the doctrine that she was a virgin when she bore Jesus).,,,<<<

        The Holy Spirit will grant us all our own 'immaculate conceptions' when we die, because early Jewish and Christians believed that from the physical remains of your Christian body, a child would spring this is a spiriitual child.
        Jesus calls these the 'children of God'
        Simeon saw this and he knew the course Mary's life would take.
        The Essenes knew this and their thanksgiving psalm no 5 explains it, the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter describes also an event of Jesus leaving his dead body.
        The Catholic Church only accept ONE immaculate conception and it is wrong because it is ubiguitous to all believers, the most important aspect is that the Word of God present in the believer causes the believer to become impregnated by the Word of God.

        James

    • james says

      Feb 28, 2015 at 12:14 am

      BEAGLE
      Even the same religion is often not the same, or equal. Can anyone claim with a straight face that Torquemada, Thomas Aquinas, the Westboro ‘Baptists’, and John Polkinghorne shared a substantially common belief system?

      Which raises the issue of the meanings of religion. Is religion the texts, the beliefs of all the people, or a hybrid? A hybrid might be what beliefs are likely to spring from the texts based on the language, assuming different approaches to exegesis.

      If all religions are not equal (and that is true) then each person in those religions are not equal either.
      I believe that people with mental illness can be mobilised for any religious agenda a ‘religion’ wants to promote, bear in mind that everyone in that religion knows the agenda of the ruling body of that ‘religion’ and as a group the laity ‘group think’ how it can be undestood.
      Modern Catholicism since Pius IX instigated a programme of Marian dogmas to promote her equality with God, something she would never condone, and which all subsequent Popes have promoted and which will lead to another Dogma . The Evolution of a Quaternary.
      During John Paul II tenure he sent a letter to every church saying “if anyone has a vision of Mary it is a sure sign of their salvation” 13000 -15000 apparitions were reported directly because of that and 99.9% were rejected, this was a blatant abuse of the mentally Ill by pope desperate for “miracles”.
      The people involved with this agenda were probably mentally ill, and trying to aspire to the assurance John Paul II gave, but they were not violent Jihadis, who are doing exactly the same thing,(but with violence) because that is condoned in Islam.
      Mental illness can be used to advantage by religions and it is a great get out of jail tactic. the great leveller in people who are mentally ill is that they just want to get better, do better, be thought of better, and just be normal, and they can be manuipulated.

      James

  9. cs says

    Feb 26, 2015 at 9:06 pm

    Well researched text.

  10. Xero_G says

    Feb 27, 2015 at 12:23 am

    History is at risk of repeating itself in Canada – similar to what happened in the USA with the election of Obama who had no executive experience whatsoever. A young, handsome candidate with a nice smile but with no experience (and dumb as a box of rocks) is gaining popularity with the uninformed masses. Sadly, elections in the West are becoming nothing more than a popularity contest.and pretty-boy Justin Trudeau is a slow motion train wreck coming to fruition.

  11. dumbledoresarmy says

    Feb 27, 2015 at 5:49 am

    From the article – “Those who believe that all religions are equal and, consequently, that all deserve the same measure of respect…”.

    There is another error that may be summed up as “Those who believe that all religions are evil – equally evil – and, consequently, that all deserve the same degree of contempt”.

    And curiously enough, Islam tends to be mainly seized upon, by such people, in order to be used to validate their campaign to against…Christianity and Judaism.

    • James says

      Feb 28, 2015 at 12:48 am

      DDA
      >>And curiously enough, Islam tends to be mainly seized upon, by such people, in order to be used to validate their campaign to against…Christianity and Judaism.<<

      This is true and has to be tackled by identifying the faith of a person (which cannot be repressed) who obeys the commadments, and is harmless and the false faith of a criminal mind.

      People should be able to spot the difference and not be bigots.

      James

  12. Laura says

    Feb 27, 2015 at 6:19 am

    I wonder if the time has arrived when we should deny all religions their legitimacy? Maybe we should be saying that,’ no, you can’t have special treatment and no, we will not meet your ‘religion based demands because there simply is no god, or gods, it’s all fiction.’
    Is there a scrap of evidence that points to the existence of a god? So, why should we allow adherents of a militant ‘religion’ to dominate, intimidate and control almost every facet of our lives?

    • MKG says

      Feb 27, 2015 at 5:41 pm

      Interesting comment Laura.

      The proof of God’s existence has been and will continue to be debated. For some, there is no debate whether for or against.

      The purpose of religion is to help us identify the causes of misery and human suffering. Then, provide guidance for avoiding that which causes misery. Most religions, even polytheistic pagan religions suggest that at the end of the road there is a peaceful respite or some form of punishment. Morale legalism comes into play for the benefit of fools, for without it, fools have nothing at all.

      Where religion becomes poison is when death and destruction is promoted as moral, or worse yet, when followers of a religion uses the philosophy to satisfy selfish interests. This goes equaly for those who are well versed and the ignorant.

      Have a nice day Laura.

  13. Lia Wissing says

    Feb 27, 2015 at 6:47 am

    Messrs Abbott & Harper are aware and awake. Thank God for them & their honesty. May they prosper exceedingly in their aims.

  14. Uncle Vladdi says

    Feb 27, 2015 at 7:54 pm

    Justin Turdeau IS pandering in public to someone’s fears – he’s willing to sacrifice the freedom of all Canadians to the currently still non-citizen Zunera Ishaq, who is demanding (even before she’s been confirmed as a Canadian citizen, with any possible rights to demand anything of any one of us!) to wear her face-covering Niqab to her Citizenship ceremony.

    In her affidavit filed with the court, Ishaq wrote that through research, she came to the conclusion that wearing a niqab was “mandatory to my faith” and “integral to the modesty that a muslim woman must show.”

    But only a small minority of muslim women wear niqabs in Canada.

    “I feel most at ease with myself and comfortable in my own skin when I am wearing my niqab,” she wrote. “In fact, there was one time when I had to call 911 due to the sudden birth of my second son at home. At the time when the emergency attendants came to my house I was not wearing my niqab, and my primary concern was covering my face before I could be seen. I did not leave the house until I was sure I be was covered.”

    OK, QUITE SIMPLY, SHE’S LYING – AND SO IS JUSTIN TURDEAU, ON HER BEHALF.

    “Judge” Keith Boswell is supporting wannabe but currently non-Canadian-Citizen Zunera Ishaq’s false claims that she feels “that the governmental policy regarding veils at citizenship ceremonies is a personal attack on me, my identity as a Muslim woman and my religious beliefs,” and that said governmental regulations didn’t agree with other governmental regulations, which require citizenship judges to administer the oath with “dignity and solemnity, allowing the greatest possible freedom in the religious solemnization or the solemn affirmation thereof.”

    The “judge” negligently errs in his total lack of assessment consideration of even the most basic, cursory glance into the official islamic source “reasons” – as given right in the Qur’an and sahih (official) hadiths – for a muslim women’s alleged requirement for covering up in public:

    The Hijab (or Niqab, as in this specific case) is not a religious duty or fashion trend, it’s only a prison uniform!

    It’s also a victim-blaming insult to both sexes; from Qur’an Sura 33:59, it is a slanderous statement that implies the muslim men (and all men, just like Muhammad himself allegedly was) are so at the mercy of their hormones, that they must molest and rape any and all women they can see; so it’s always the women’s own fault for not covering up.

    It also says the muslim men have a duty to molest and rape all the infidel women for not covering up!

    “O Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters and the believing women to draw their cloaks over their bodies. That will be better so that they will be known so as not to be molested. And Allâh is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Qur’ân 33:59)

    So, exactly HOW will they “be known,” in the freedom sack?!

    Certainly not as in: “Oh, I know her! Hi, Mary!” – but “known” as muslimas – as members of the gang!

    And why is this important? “So as not to be molested!”

    Which again implies that muslims DID and always WILL “molest” (i.e: rape,) all the NON-muslim (“infidel”) women!

    That it’s the infidel women’s faults, because they don’t cover up, that the muslim men “must” molest (rape) them!

    Muhammad also said women are created by allah as domesticated animals, created for men’s pleasure, and like fields to be tilled at will by men.

    So islam is also the “Religion of Rape!”

    ;-(

    Before Muhammad, covering up was optional; any fool could ignore it if they wanted to.

    The tafsir ahadith isnads (supplemental, explanatory material apending the Qur’an) explain that the Sura in question (33:59) arose because Moe’s wives were seen by moonlight as they went potty outside his tent one night.

    But, quite unlike any other self-respecting warlord, who would have had the peeping tom executed for spying on his wives, Moe agreed with the man and blamed his victims, (his own wives) perhaps because the peeper was a rich or influential member of an allied tribe.

    Bottom line: “Judge” Keith Boswell should be schooled that there is no inherent “dignity” whatsoever in Zunera Ishaq’s imaginings that she should be forced to hide in a sack, by sole dint of the fear of “inevitable” rape by men, as inflicted on her mental state by her own previous, habitually misogynistic, crime-culture background.

    FINALLY, AS FOR HER CLAIMS THAT MUSLIMAS MUST COVER UP IN FRONT OF NON-BLOOD-RELATION DOCTORS AND PHYSICIANS (PARAMEDICS) SHE ALSO FAILED TO DO EVEN BASIC RESEARCH:

    The Hedaya, (as first translated into English in Belgal in 1791) is the primary Haneefite sharia law manual, and, as such, was used for centuries to administer law to all the muslims in the world, under the control of the Ottoman Empire.

    From:

    The Hedaya, Volume 1, Book 6, Chapter 6, P.#290-291 (Divorce):

    “the carnal connexion, or other acts, as
    before stated, are peculiar to marriage, especially in the case of free
    women, since, with respect to them, they cannot be lawful but
    through marriage, – and, with respect to female slaves, they are
    sometimes lawful by right of marriage, and sometimes by right of
    possession: contrary to touching, or looking at the pudenda of a woman,
    without lust, because that is sometimes lawful without marriage, as
    in the case of a physician or midwife; and the sight of other parts than
    the pudenda sometimes happens to people who reside together; and as
    a wife resides with her husband during her Edit, if such an accident {291}
    were to imply Rijaat, he might then give her another divorce, to her
    injury, as it would protract her Edit.”

    …and:

    Volume 2, Book 7, Chapter 3, P.#51 (Punishments)

    *EVIDENCE TO WHOREDOM IS VALID, ALTHOUGH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACT BE UNLAWFULLY OBTAINED.*

    “If witnesses bear evidence of whoredom against a man, declaring
    that “they had come to the knowledge of it by wilfully looking into
    the person’s private apartment at the time of the fact,” yet such
    evidence is to be credited, nor is it to be rejected on account of the
    manner in which the knowledge of the witnesses was obtained, as
    their looking was allowable, in order that they might be enabled to
    bear evidence; they are therefore the same as physicians or midwives ”

    …and:

    Volume 3, Book 23, Chapter 2, P.# 35:

    “The defect
    may also be of such a nature as required the inspection of women or
    physicians: — but although the opinion of women or physicians be suf-
    ficient to prevent contention, yet it is not a sufficient ground for a
    decree of restitution: there is, therefore, a necessity for the proofs
    aforesaid; — unless, indeed, the Kazee himself witness the sale and per-
    ceive the defect, in which case there is no necessity whatever for those
    proofs.”

    AND, FINALLY AND DEFINITIVELY:

    From Volume 4, Book 44, P.# 97 & 98:

    *Rules to be observed by a physician in prescribing for women.*

    “A PHYSICIAN, in administering to a strange woman, is permitted
    to look at the part affected. It is, however, most adviseable that he
    instruct another woman how to apply the remedy, as the circumstance
    of an individual of one sex looking at another of the same is of less
    consequence. If he should not be able to procure a fit woman to in-
    struct, it is in that case incumbent on him to cover all the members of
    the woman, leaving exposed only the particular part affected, when
    he may look towards it; refraining from it however as much as is
    possible, since any thing the sufferance of which is prompted by ne-
    cessity, ought to be exercised with as much restriction as the circum-
    stances of the case will admit. — In the same manner also, it is lawful
    for a man, in administering a glyster to a man, to look at the proper
    part.”

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • Michael Copeland on Iranian Kurdistan: Muslim brothers behead their sister in honor killing over her romantic relationship
  • Walter Sieruk on Iranian top dogs approve bill to end UN nuclear inspections, increase enrichment
  • Dude on Muslim cleric: ‘We welcomed the takeover of ISIS because they wanted to implement the Sharia’
  • Infidel on Uighur leader: ‘We’re actually quite worried’ about what Biden might let China get away with
  • Infidel on Uighur leader: ‘We’re actually quite worried’ about what Biden might let China get away with

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.