In a rather interesting twist from the UK, known for its aiding of Muslim Brotherhood interests, persecuting truth tellers, and its suicidal immigration policy:
The government has been criticized for appointing a divisive counter-extremism campaigner to lead a fresh campaign to stamp out radicalism in Muslim communities…. Sara Khan will lead the new Commission for Countering Extremism
Sara Khan is deemed to be not “friendly enough” to the Muslim community, aka not pandering to the Muslim community.
In an obviously self-serving maneuver, former Tory chairwoman Sayeeda Warsi decried Sara Khan’s appointment as “deeply disturbing.” Warsi tweeted:
Sara has unfortunately been a strong advocate of the government’s policy of disengagement, a policy which many, including members of the police and intelligence services, consider has damaged the important battle to engage Britain’s Muslim communities.
Right off the bat, Warsi has pulled the “diversity” card to slam the appointment of Khan, whom she claims is not pro-Muslim enough. This is because Sayeeda Warsi has devoted herself to a one-sided kind of Muslim outreach. She is the first-ever Muslim woman to hold a cabinet position in the history of the UK, and has authored a book, The Enemy Within, in which she “reveals her unique perspective: as a British Muslim of Pakistani heritage, intimately connected to her faith and her community, and part of a government whose domestic and foreign policies were accused of alienating Muslims.” Warsi also advocates for the burqa, which is a security concern, not to mention degrading to women. Warsi’s sentiments about her coreligionist Sara Khan aren’t surprising considering all this.
What should be more “deeply disturbing” to Warsi than the appointment of Sara Khan is the shocking sex abuse coverups in Britain involving Muslim rape gangs victimizing up to a million young British girls, with many of their perpetrators referring to them as “worthless,” “trash,” and “easy meat.” The coverup involved social workers and police who were scared to offend Muslims, despite the sickening crimes being committed against young British girls. According to a Telegraph commentary: “men of Pakistani heritage treated white girls like toilet paper.” But in the language of the Muslim Brotherhood and their brainwashed following, “racism” can only be against Muslims. Even when criticizing Islamic supremacist and jihadi activity, the critic is judged to be “Islamophobic.”
Although Warsi condemned the attacks of the Muslim rape gangs, she was sure to remind everyone that “the grim fact of child sex abuse is that it is not limited to any country, community or creed.” She pointed to the Catholic Church abuses and “the cases of white television stars who have been convicted of the crime.” Warsi “forgot,” however, to point out that the rape of infidels is sanctioned in Islam, and that a troubling number of Muslims invoke such texts to justify their crimes, hence the contempt they expressed against the white girls who, they abused. She also “forgot” that the rape of girls is customary in areas of her own home country of Pakistan and that the girls are forced to remain quiet about it to protect the honor of the family.
Also condemning Sara Khan’s appointment was the Muslim Brotherhood-linked group, the Muslim Council of Britain:
Harun Khan, the secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “The fight against terrorism requires equal partnership between all parties, including Muslim communities….“This appointment risks sending a clear and alarming message that the government has no intention of doing so. Sadly it will be seen as a move to placate those small sections of society who see Muslims as foreign, alien, rather than as equal citizens in this country.”
There is a critical problem with Muslims importing sharia norms and damaging cultural practices to Western societies; this problem continues to be ignored. Groups such as the Muslim Council of Britain (like CAIR affiliates in North America) drive “Islamophobia” agendas to keep the size of this problem in the dark. A Muslim Brotherhood review ordered by the House of Commons in December 2015 established a strong connection between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Muslim Council of Britain, as well as many other so-called mainstream Islamic groups:
In the 1990s the Muslim Brotherhood and their associates established public facing and apparently national organisations in the UK to promote their views. None were openly identified with the Muslim Brotherhood and membership of the Muslim Brotherhood remained (and still remains) a secret. But for some years the Muslim Brotherhood shaped the new Islamic Society of Britain (ISB), dominated the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) and played an important role in establishing and then running the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). MAB became politically active, notably in connection with Palestine and Iraq, and promoted candidates in national and local elections. The MCB sought and obtained a dialogue with Government. MAB were active partners in a security dialogue with the police and collaborated with the police in ejecting Abu Hamza, the militant Salafist preacher, from a mosque in north London. The MAB have participated in the governance of this mosque ever since.
The Muslim Brotherhood has managed to pull the wool over Westerners’ eyes, in dominating the discourse as the voice on issues pertaining to all Muslims, when the MB should instead be marginalized and outlawed. The Holy Land Foundation trial in America was revealing, as it established a list of unindicted co-conspirators to terrorism, in the largest terrorism funding trial in the history of the country. Virtually every mainstream Muslim group was linked to the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). The MB’s “Explanatory Memorandum On the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America” should be common knowledge by now. Unfortunately it is not; instead, people are in denial, given its sinister objectives to subjugate Western countries to become part of the “House of Islam.”
The MB continues to work in every Western country with leaders of both the private and and the public sectors. Members validate themselves as representing diversity and inclusion. If they are not accepted by wise leaders, they brand them (using the media) as “Islamophobic” and/or “racist.”
Amina Lone, co-director of the think tank Social Action and Research Foundation defended Khan’s appointment, stating: “It’s quite incredible we have elected officials decrying an appointment which should be welcomed – which is of a young British woman, Muslim woman.”
Sara Khan’s added “problem” is that she is from the Muslim community and a woman. With those “traits,” Islamic supremacists and their supporters would be stronger in their rejection of her cracking down on their goals and fighting jihad. Another antagonistic Muslim female leader, Labor MP Naz Shah, stated about Khan that “here we have somebody who does not accept the concerns in the community.” Naz Shah once outed herself when she retweeted her advice to the abused girls of the Muslim rape gangs, to “shut up for the good of diversity.”
“Choice of new UK anti-extremism chief criticised as ‘alarming’”, by Jamie Grierson, Guardian, January 25, 2018:
The government has been criticised for appointing a divisive counter-extremism campaigner to lead a fresh campaign to stamp out radicalism in Muslim communities.
Sara Khan will lead the new Commission for Countering Extremism, the home secretary, Amber Rudd, announced, adding that Khan was “expertly qualified”.
The move was welcomed by some, including the former terror watchdog David Anderson QC.
However, the appointment of Khan, who is seen as being supportive of the government’s controversial Prevent programme, was immediately criticised by some, including from within the Conservative party.
The former Tory chairwoman Sayeeda Warsi described it as “a deeply disturbing appointment”.
She tweeted: “Sara has unfortunately been a strong advocate of the government’s policy of disengagement, a policy which many, including members of the police and intelligence services, consider has damaged the important battle to engage Britain’s Muslim communities.
“For the commissioner to be effective the person had to be an independent thinker, both connected to and respected by a cross-section of British Muslims. Sara is sadly seen by many as simply a creation of and mouthpiece for the Home Office.”
Harun Khan, the secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “The fight against terrorism requires equal partnership between all parties, including Muslim communities.
“This appointment risks sending a clear and alarming message that the government has no intention of doing so. Sadly it will be seen as a move to placate those small sections of society who see Muslims as foreign, alien, rather than as equal citizens in this country.”
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, the Labour MP Naz Shah, the vice-chair of the British Muslims all-party group, said: “Here we have somebody who does not accept the concerns in the community.”
Shah said Khan appeared before the home affairs select committee, of which the Labour MP is a member, and failed to allay concerns about her independence.
“She continues to profess she’s independent,” she said. “Even her book she wrote was in partnership with the Home Office. She has taken Prevent funding. She came out of nowhere after the coalition government without any experience.”
But speaking on the same programme, Amina Lone, the co-director of the thinktank the Social Action and Research Foundation (Sarf), defended Khan and the appointment.
“It’s quite incredible we have elected officials decrying an appointment which should be welcomed – which is of a young British woman, Muslim woman, when we say there aren’t enough women in leadership.”
Anderson, who was the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation for six years, defended Khan on Twitter, saying the idea that she was a “government stooge” was hard to reconcile with her opposition to the counter-extremism bill.
Khan, who describes herself as a counter-extremism and women’s rights activist, said she was “honoured and humbled”. She added: “I recognise the scale of the challenge we face in confronting extremism and I am deeply committed to this role.
“I will create a commission that is forthright in challenging extremism in the name of our shared values, fundamental freedoms and human rights. To those in our country who recognise the harm and threat extremism continues to pose in our society, I am eager to collaborate and engage.”
Khan, whose official title will be lead commissioner, is co-founder of the counter-extremism organisation Inspire. Her website describes her as “one of the UK’s leading Muslim female voices on countering Islamist extremism and promoting human rights”.
Announcing the appointment, Rudd said: “The Commission for Countering Extremism will form a crucial part of this government’s work to stop the scourge of extremism in all its forms and Sara Khan is expertly qualified to lead its important work.
“She will bring a wealth of experience and knowledge to the commission, which will prove vital as it works to identify and challenge extremism and provide independent advice to the government.”
Plans to set up the commission were announced by Theresa May after the Manchester arena bombing last May – one of five terror attacks in Britain in 2017.
The body will be tasked with identifying and challenging all forms of extremism, advising ministers on new policies and promoting “pluralistic British values”…..
John W says
I know nothing about this person since I am in the USA but to me the comments being made about her in the article are just more proof that Islam is not compatible with Western society. It’s all about what the muslims want and expect and demand. Granted, she self describes as a muslim herself, which doesn’t thrill me either. Is she what we would call a “peaceful” muslim? Clearly she doesn’t where a hijab.
If Christian or other groups went on an on decrying the appointment of somebody to a government post on the grounds that the person was not friendly to their community the left media would skewer said groups.
Emmanuel says
true
mortimer says
Right, John. Islam is CLEARLY incompatible with modern human rights codes, equality, pluralism, democracy, the rule of law (Sharia permits vigilante murders), the concept of ‘co-existence’ or the ‘fraternity’ of all people.
Islam places strict walls between Muslim males and inferior women and kafirs.
No philosophy is as incompatible with human rights and civil liberties as is Islam.
THEY APPOINTED ANOTHER FOX OVER THE HEN HOUSE.
mortimer says
Khan claims to be a practicing Muslim, but then describes herself as a counter-extremism and women’s rights activist.
So either she supports JIHAD which REQUIRED of all Muslims or she OPPOSES jihad and has left Islam.
How do you have it both ways, Khan? How do eat your cake and have your cake?
Hari Singh says
Perhaps Lord Mosley should have been made Lord of the Admiralty in WW2. That’s the kind of appointments Muslims one-those who will attack those who see Islam as a danger in preference to the cover up taqiyya types
Peter Buckley says
Like the vast majority of Brits, and Westerners in general, I am an “Islamophobe”:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/02/poll-islam-negative-britain
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_oIUHRRCTM
This doesn’t mean I hate muslims. It isn’t their fault they were born into Islam.
Sara Khan is a muslim for whom I have the utmost respect for one simple reason: She has publicly stated that she won’t be bringing her children up as muslims:
“I’m not raising my children as Muslims, I’m raising them as good human beings.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/article-5085119/Saira-Khan-life-easier-stayed-quiet.html
Muhammad himself predicted the collapse of Islam. If all muslims were like Sara Khan, the collapse would be swifter. Simple as that.
Jayell says
“This doesn’t mean I hate muslims. It isn’t their fault they were born into Islam.”
But it is their fault for staying with islam. I don’t see how one can separate a ‘faith’ from the disciple that professes it. By publicly owning allegiance to islam in any way at all, the muslim helps to perpetuate it and reinforce its destructive influence on our society. It is nice to hold positive and tolerant attitudes towards others so long as these can be seen to be reciprocated as part of a social contract binding on everyone as a guarantee of mutual respect and safety. A study of Islamic scripture and observation of reported muslim attitudes and behaviour in current UK society suggest that muslims are certainly not in a position to offer any such guarantee, and if we value ourselves and what our society is supposed to stand for we have no choice but to adopt an appropriate attitude towards those whose avowed ideology promotes disrespect towards us. Sorry, but we can’t have it both ways.
Monty says
Easy to say. No one is going to kill you if you turn away from your religion, if you have one.
Peter Buckley says
1. We are not yet at the stage when it is COMPLETELY safe for muslims to declare PUBLICLY that they are no longer muslims:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udfnP8nVnns
2. Most muslims’ understanding of Islam comes from their parents, who pass on half-truths, rather than Islamic scripture. Do you honestly think all people who identify as Christians have read the bible? Nope.
3. If you can’t understand the difference between muslims and Islam, read this:
Islam is an ideology – a set of ideas. It is not defined by what any Muslim wants it to be, but by what it is. No ideology is above critique – particularly one that explicitly seeks political and social dominance over every person on the planet.
Muslims are individuals. No Muslim should be harmed, harassed, stereotyped or treated any differently anywhere in the world solely on account of their status as a Muslim.
As an ideology, Islam is not necessarily entitled to equal respect and acceptance. Ideas do not carry equal moral weight. The feelings or number of those who believe does not make the idea true or good. Bad ideas can and should be challenged before they produce bad consequences
Islam is not simply a belief about God. Islam is a word that means submission. Islam is a set of rules that define a social hierarchy in which Muslims submit to Allah, women submit to men and all non-Muslims submit to Islamic rule.
Since we don’t live in a Muslim country – where censorship, intimidation and brute force are shamelessly employed to protect Islam from intellectual analysis – we are still free to openly exercise our right to debate the merits of the Islamic value system against Western Liberalism.
Are men really superior to women as the Qur’an says? Are women intellectually inferior as Muhammad taught? Does propagating material (the Qur’an) that openly curses people of other religions amidst random calls to violence really make for a better social environment? Is it right to keep women as sex slaves merely because the Qur’an goes well out of its way to permit this practice in numerous places? Should atheists and homosexuals have to choose between the noose and an outward profession of faith in Allah?
Yes, there are Muslims who take issue with these aspects of Islamic theology, but that doesn’t change what Islam is. Don’t confuse the ideology with the individual. Don’t draw conclusions about Islam based on the Muslims that you know, be they terrorists or humanitarians. Islam must be understood on the basis of what it is, as presented objectively in the Qur’an, Hadith and Sira (biography of Muhammad).
By the same token, don’t draw conclusions about the Muslims in your life based on the true nature of Islam. Like any other group, not all Muslims think alike. Even if there is no such thing as moderate Islam it does not mean that there are no moderate Muslims.
If my years of dialogue with literally hundreds of Muslims have taught me anything, it is that, irrespective of their confidence, most have only a superficial understanding of their religion. Some are secular and very few made the choice to even be Muslim. As with all religion, there are widely varying degrees of seriousness with which the teachings of Islam are taken.
As Ayaan Hirsi Ali put it, “Muslims as individuals can choose how much of their religion they practice.” For example, many Muslims in the West do not advocate amputating limbs over theft, even though this is plainly mandated in the Quran. Most simply choose to disregard (or explain away) what is inconvenient to their moral preconceptions.
The Muslims that you know are not terrorists. More than likely, their interests in life are similar to yours and they have the same ambitions for their children. They should neither be shunned, mistreated, nor disrespected merely because of their religion. Their property should not be abused, and neither should copies of the book they consider sacred be vandalized.
Prejudging an individual by their group identity (or presumed group identity) is not only unethical, it is blatantly irrational, since group identity reveals absolutely nothing about a person. Every individual should be judged only on the basis of their own words and deeds.
Treat the ideology with caution and candidness. Treat the Muslim as an individual. Don’t judge Islam by the Muslims that you know, and don’t judge the Muslims that you know by Islam.
“No matter how Muhammad and his gang tried, they couldn’t turn most of the human beings around them into monsters. Today, most Muslims—especially in the West—don’t allow and need not allow Islam to dehumanize them; they still retain their humanity. Unfortunately, they’re offered up as proof that Islam is just fine, when in fact it’s IN SPITE OF Islam that they’re not a threat to anyone.”
Ex-muslim Bosch Fawstin
Jayell says
“Prejudging an individual by their group identity (or presumed group identity) is not only unethical, it is blatantly irrational, since group identity reveals absolutely nothing about a person.”
In a free society such as our is supposed to be, we would normally assume that no person of majority age is compelled to subscribe to any organisation, group, or set of beliefs with which they do not agree. Therefore, if a person in any way openly declares or in any other way publicly indicates allegiance to a particular group or ideology with a clear set of beliefs that are known to be public knowledge, it is rational and logical for anyone else to presume that the person in question has made a decision to adhere to those beliefs and probably behave accordingly, otherwise why has the person in question made any such allegiance public knowledge if they do not wish others to draw any logically informed conclusions? And by the same token, it is quite outrageously ridiculous to presume anything about anyone who has not made or inferred any kind of public allegiance.
“Don’t judge Islam by the Muslims that you know, and don’t judge the Muslims that you know by Islam.”
So islam is meaningless?
Indiana Tom says
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves. By their fruits you will know them. Do you gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree produces good fruit; but the corrupt tree produces evil fruit. A good tree can’t produce evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree produce good fruit. Every tree that doesn’t grow good fruit is cut down, and thrown into the fire. Therefore, by their fruits you will know them. Matthew 7:15
The problem with good Islam or bad Islam is that it is still Islam. The problem with good Muslims and bad Muslims is that they are still in the thrall of Islam.
Terry Gain says
How is one to determine what a Muslim believes without asking all kinds of questions that the Muslim will find offensive. And since Islam condones lying how are we to know what the Muslim actually believes.
I don’t mistreat people unless I am defending myself or someone else but it makes no sense to ignore the tenets of someone else’s religion when dealing with them. When I deal with a Muslim I am aware that I am dealing with someone who adheres to an ideology that is at war with western civilization. I don’t wish to be offensive to any individual but when I interact with someone who is a member of an Enemy Ideology my trust must be earned.
Ray Jarman says
Unlike most Catholics who attend Mass once a week and maybe seek absolution for the sins that they have committed and go out and commit them again, muslims, as history has proven, never cease violent jihad. My parents were Baptist as were most of my immediate and distant relatives but when I professed to be an atheist, they did not try to kill me. When I later re-awoke to the ideals of Jesus Christ as role model that I have chosen through the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, none of my atheist friends have declared a fatwa against me and are still some of my closest friends.
When Christian nations go to war against each other and one eventually overcomes the other, there is no attempt to subjugate them as slaves or murder them as is the practice preached in islam. Quite the opposite as the aftermath of WWII or even the Hundreds’ Years War, the victors did not seek to destroy the former enemies. When islam renounces its vile practices such as pedophilia, honor killings, killing of apostates, subjugating of women and anyone not of the cult and preaching hate, muslims who claim to believe in cult’s book of hatred have no place in a civilized world.
Carol (the 1st) says
Peter Buckley…I wish you were correct when you posted:
“Sara Khan is a muslim for whom I have the utmost respect for one simple reason: She has publicly stated that she won’t be bringing her children up as muslims
“I’m not raising my children as Muslims, I’m raising them as good human beings.”
……….
Your link was to Saira (not Sara) Khan. Some hope there but not the right gal.
The Istanbulian says
Warsi and many others also forget to point out that it was the white and catholic communities that exposed and brought down the church and those tv stars.
StellaSaidSo says
The fact that the ludicrous Sayeeda Warsi, the appalling Naz Shah, and that well-known bunch of whiners, the Muslim Council of Britain, are all opposed to Ms Khan’s appointment suggests to me that Ms Khan might be the right person for the job.
Anne Smith says
Absolutely right Stella. The “Baroness” Warsi was only given a job in parliament because David Cameron – who gave her the undeserved peerage – wanted to suck up to the Muslim vote.
She was a total failure in Government and was soon got rid of.
Unfortunately she is still around making a nuisance of herself.
StellaSaidSo says
Yes, Anne – and what an embarrassment she is. Cameron, too. And Sharia May, in her hijab. It’s all about the Muslim vote.
martin says
MCB, MB. warsi etc etc express delight on the appointment of khan.
In a joint statement they said ‘this will surely assist stamping out the false teachings of jihad, violence, rape etc that have nothig to do with islam that ignore the peacefull teachings of islam and the examples of muhamad”.
No, that would give the game away…….
Charlie says
Hopefully she understands the doctrine she is confronting, and values the tenets of secular free expression far above the religious and censorial proclivities of her kin. Education is key.
Indiana Tom says
So Sara Khan is OK?
I imagine the true Muzrats will kill her off for apostasy.
katherine says
Precisely why her first task should be to push for procedures that will protect ex-Muslims from the illegal death sentences of illegal Sharia PRACTICES ( do not even call them laws ).
Also make it public knowledge that death for apostasy cannot be accepted as Sharia law or ANY law for that matter and reinforce the fact that under British law, Apostasy-Killing must be defined as a criminal CULT PRACTICE.
There must be many Sikh lawyers in the UK who will probably be not as cowed as the Christians and Hindus – they may be allies for the defense of British Law ( assuming it still exists in unmolested form ).
Karen says
“She came out of nowhere…”.
Sounds like Ms. Khan isn’t part of the cozy little group of insiders who don’t want the boat rocked.
And Amina Lone misses the point; Khan is simply the wrong kind of woman Muslim to suit the critics’ tastes.
What does it mean to not engage the Muslim community? Does it mean to not listen, not cooperate, reciprocate, or communicate? No one can seriously believe that is the case in Britain. More likely it means to not give in to an endless list of demands.
I doubt Ms. Khan can accomplish much of her objective, but if she is an irritant to the MB, that is some consolation.
StellaSaidSo says
‘…if she is an irritant to the MB, that is some consolation.’
My sentiments exactly, Karen. I don’t trust her, and I found her attitude towards Tommy Robinson deeply offensive (revealed in a YT vid I saw, maybe a couple of years ago, can’t remember the name of it), but if the MB doesn’t approve of her, that is a mark in her favour. She will need to watch her back.
Carol (the 1st) says
On YouTube there are Tommy Robinson interviews with SAIRA Khan (former model and TV personality) but none with SARA Khan. Seems the two are being confused with one another.
I would worry about any muslim being appointed to a governing/policing position. How it adds up to votes is probably what to watch out for.
mortimer says
“MODERATE” Muslims can have their own opinions, but they are UNABLE to modify the PRIMARY, SOURCE TEXTS of Islam, because they are ‘perfect, complete, and eternal’.
Since the PRIMARY SOURCE TEXTS of Islam cannot be modified, the problem of Islamic supremacism remains until those texts are branded HATE SPEECH in a court of law and deemed ILLEGAL under the UK’s existing hate speech laws.
The KORAN is not “CONDUCIVE TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST”. Ha!
Jaladhi says
As long as Muslims continue to follow Quran, there cannot be any “moderate” Muslim. It is the fanatsy of the stupid Western governments who continue to peddle the illusion of “moderate ” Muslims.
There are no moderate Muslims.Period.
martin says
Please let us know if you ever find a moderate muslim, that on testing does not prove they are doing jihad with the tongue… WARFAR LYING, to disguise islam.
Mark says
Khan seems to accept that the Muslim community had done responsibility, and spoke out against others who claimed that victims of Islamic take gangs are to blame.
Clearly this is not listening to Islamic concerns
Lydia Church says
From what I have seen, whenever they turn their target towards ‘extremists,’ it never means muslims or others, but it always means us; Christians and other truth tellers. We have seen that before, nothing new there… like on social media and other places.
Sam says
Nothing will happen until it is declared that Islam not a religion but an evil lie by western authorities. Islam must be declared illegal as any other dangerous cult. Until then just get a gun and protect yourself from the religion of peace and the clueless enabling lefties.
The awful truth says
Christianity is a Western religion because Muslims got rid of it from most of the near East. Dawkinistas and Muslims will probably see it’s eradication in Europe. This Khan is a pretty face appointed to make the government seem like it’s doing something. British authorities are swiftly caving into Muslim demands by repealing laws to moderate Islam about as fast as their announced. Good luck Sara. Not many would like your job in the present millennial madness.
sidney penny says
Harun Khan, the secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “The fight against terrorism requires equal partnership between all parties, including Muslim communities….“This appointment risks sending a clear and alarming message that the government has no intention of doing so. Sadly it will be seen as a move to placate those small sections of society who see Muslims as foreign, alien, rather than as equal citizens in this country.”
Why is it the government’s job?
Why can’t Muslims make themselves equal citizens?( and do whatever it takes and with their own money)
Why do Muslims play the victims all the time?
martin says
Acting innocent, playing the victim (to get concessions), was muhamads own example, untill he had attracted enough followers (by promising them a share in the rapes and possessions of raiding arab camel trains) to stop acting THEN SLAUGHTERED.
LR says
“Christianity is a Western religion because Muslims got rid of it from most of the near East.”…
All Abrahamic religions are ‘Western’, Judaism, Christianity, Islam…These are differentiated from the ‘Eastern’ religions…But, I know what you were getting at…
martin says
Islan is plainly not abrahamic it was just another lie designed to try to get jews and chrisitians to pervert to islam.
Robeaver says
Another million girls to be groomed, coming soon to a town near you. Keep vigilant. Watch them all the time. Write down numbers, arrival and departure times. Take pictures. Take a written description as you watch. But binoculars.
Keep the Watch.