That’s a useful first step. There are indeed Muslims who are “driven by an ideology” and other Muslims who “practise their own religion in their own way with their own family and their own friends,” that is, Muslims who are bringing Sharia to the UK and advancing the cause of political Islam, and those who are not. What, however, is Sajid Javid doing to confront the exponents of political Islam and Sharia? So far, British officialdom has been consistently supine before them. And how does Sajid Javid propose to determine which camp Muslims in Britain fall into? Without any reliable way to distinguish “Islamists” from “those who practise Islam,” how does making this distinction in the abstract help secure the survival of Britain as a free society?
“Sajid Javid defends deportation of grooming gang members,” by Matthew Weaver, Guardian, December 26, 2018:
…Javid also highlighted the benefits of immigration. “It might sound strange coming from a home secretary – I’m a big fan of immigration and what it means for our country, in terms of how it makes us stronger … I see people all the time today and they really don’t care if their doctor is of Pakistani origin, what they care about is that they are getting a good service and these are people that they do really see as British. I do think society has changed very positively like that.”
He said Islam was compatible with British values. “There are many Muslims that I know who are very devout … that are model citizens in terms of what they do their job, how they care for others.”
But he condemned those who saw as Islam as an ideology, saying he would make a distinction between “those who practise Islam and those who you might describe as Islamists, that are driven by an ideology, rather than practise their own religion in their own way with their own family and their own friends. They see it as their duty to spread to ideology and also to disrespect at the same time the laws of the country that they have chosen to live in.”
PRCS says
ISLAMIST:
an advocate or supporter of Islamic militancy or fundamentalism
How many Muslims–around the world–support a kinder, gentler, pick and choose Islam?
Lydia Church says
Pot-ay-to…. pot-ah-to…
There are muslims who go by the book… and muslims who don’t.
That is the difference.
PRCS says
It’s a simple question.
How many Muslims–around the world–support a kinder, gentler, pick and choose Islam?
will Rodgers says
Your muslim pologists say the radical make up only 10% . Well that means there 300 million of them who will cut your head off. Far worse is that all muhammadans practice and believe in slavery. Muhammadans are the largest group of sex slave owners in the planet.
mortimer says
Lydia, I like your short explanation … ‘By the book’ … that’s a brilliant summary.
Zeynab Bedawi (BBC news interviewer) called this watered-down Islam :
“ISLAM-À-LA-CARTE” … with delicious, condescending disdain.
I will now ask Muslims this question: “Do you practice Islam ‘by the book’ or do you practice “ISLAM-À-LA-CARTE” ?
PRCS says
It’s not whether they practice Islam a-la-carte, but whether they support a kinder, gentler, pick and choose Islam, which would require changing Qur’an and sunna.
J D S says
Linda..but still a Muslim is a Muslim…if Muslims continue reading the Koran keep attending mosques and listening to imams and other Muslim rhetoric from those who want Sharia law..eventually the ones who might want a milder islam will be dragged into the islam that wants to rule the world…..The answer is…there is no answer…except…..laws passed to ban any portion of Islamic teachings that have any teachings in it that in any way try to overthrow our Constitutional government…but in reality the laws are already there….Our constitution already outlaws all the bad stuff in Islam…..So just apply it. I mean really APPLY IT!
Roger woodhouse says
Getting someone to change their religion is impossible.They habe been brainwashed since childhood and only exposed to the ‘nice’ parts.Most have no idea about the cruel parts or the sexuall appetite if their ‘beloved perfect man’Mohammed.When the truth is finally revealed to these muslima they cannot believe it and deny it vehemently.. For many the reaction is to become violent.Its only possible for muslims to ‘leave ‘their evil religion through education and exposure to Christianity.But it can
happen and is happening.We must stamd strong against this evil ideology.Our governments cannot be trusted to act on our behalf.Only by voting them out do we stand any chance of maintaining our way of life.
pakundo says
And what is the litmus test to determine which is a practicing and which is a non-practicing Muslim–before the practicing one decides to commit Jihad? Answer: there is no such litmus test.
Jayell says
“How many Muslims–around the world–support a kinder, gentler, pick and choose Islam?”
Answer, none, if they call themselves ‘muslims’. They are told quite clearly that they are NOT allowed to pick and choose, and they are instructed through the rules of abrogation which of their many conflicting texts to follow and which to reject. If they wish to present themselves in a more civilised ‘Christian’ light (even going as far as plagiarising Christian texts, which they have done more than once), then it has to be understood that they are ignoring the rules of their so-called religion and (again, following the commandments of their ‘religion’) they are most probably lying – as indeed Javid is doing here in order to sell himself to the British public as a future PM when May finally falls on her sword. And, of couirse, Javid knows full well that he is conning British public.
The problem, of course, is obvious. What do these nice, civilised disciples of the ‘Religion of Peace’ (sic) do once they’ve conned themselves into positions of influence? Why, they suddenly realise, maybe under some (apparent) pressure from their saintly imams, that they should be following the ‘true path’ as ordained by their ‘Holy Prophet’ with the ‘incorrect’ bits left out after all. And that, of course, would mean that EVERYBODY, irrespective of their opinions about the ‘Holy Prophet’ and his ‘pure teachings’, would have to follow the ‘true path’ or else life might start getting a bit difficult or/and expensive. Which sounds just a little bit like the experiences of quite a few people around London’s East End after they had made the acquaintance of the Brothers Kray. (Interesting thought – has any reputable academic thought of doing a comparative study of the careers of the Kray twins – or Al Capone – and Mohammed?)
Rufolino says
What he is saying is the equivalent of, “Christianity is OK as long as people don’t put into practice what it says in the New Testament. Logical nonsense.
Wellington says
Completely bogus. In effect, grasping at straws. What other religion has to make such a distinction? For instance, Christians and Christianists?
So sick of any attempt to make Islam OK or legitimate for it surely is not. Oh yeah, let the Great Pretend Game (GPG) continue—to no one’s benefit and for what defensible purpose? So that Muslims can both keep their faith and participate in a free and open society? A fool’s errand, a desperate errand, a fallacious errand if ever there were one.
All of Islam is rotten. Start from there and you will come to correct conclusions about Mo’s creed. Don’t start from this premise and all subsequent assessments of the worst religion of all time will be rooted in error from the outset.
Kepha says
There is a very great divide in what was once Christendom between theological liberals and theological traditionalists. However, I will grant that both sides have a wide range of social and political views. For example, it is rarely acknowledged that the Deutsche Christen who fell in line with Hitler did so from a stance of supporting the higher criticism of the Bible and the revision of major doctrines (“liberalism”); earlier, many American Protestants who would be called “fundamentalist” were fierce opponents of getting involved in WWI.
I freely admit to being an old-school confessional Reformed (“Calvinist”) believer myself, who doubts that those who see the God of Muhammad as the same as the God of Jesus Christ as Christians; I certainly will not see someone who denies the hypostatic union of the human and divine in Christ, Christ’s atoning death on the cross, and his resurrection as a Christian.
But I will continue to refrain from deciding who’s a “real Muslim” and who isn’t.
Wellington says
No need, Kepha, to worry about such refraining, since any Muslim, however devout or just formalistic, adheres to the religious version of Nazism.
Divisions among Christians, respecting sects, fine-tuned theological points, etc. are interesting for debate purposes, but, bottom line, Christianity is not a menace to mankind. Islam surely is.
I think we will have no disagreement here: Would every Muslim wake up tomorrow a devout Christian (whatever sect) life here on earth would be so much better off.
Hope you and family had a memorable Christmas, though I know during the Commonwealth and Protectorate Christmas was not to be celebrated. But I see no harm in it. Besides, in addition to the religious Christmas and the often obnoxious commercial Christmas, there is also Christmas as a frame of mind. I embrace this last Christmas and would contend that the Islamic world has never produced the equivalent of this “version” of Christmas as a mindset, as best exemplified by Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, the finest film version of which is surely the masterpiece 1951 version with Alastair Sim in the lead role as Scrooge.
Take good care, my Christian friend. Happy New Year.
gravenimage says
I also love the Alistair Sim version of a Christmas Carol most of all. My husband and I will be watching it tonight.
Jayell says
Islam a ‘religious version of Nazism’? It is the original proto-nazism with its loosely-concealed racist-imperialist totalitarian political agenda. The ‘religious’ bit is merely a plagiarised bogus front contrived by the Great Prophet in order to validate himself in the eyes of an uneducated, superstitious population and further his megalomanic political ambitions. We’ve seen similar ‘religious enterprises’ in more recent times (e.g., the ‘Divine Light Mission’ perhaps?) but these have been exposed as relatively harmless pseudo-religious economic scams.
Phil Copson says
“….Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, the finest film version of which is surely the masterpiece 1951 version with Alastair Sim in the lead role as Scrooge….” (and) “….gravenimage says “I also love the Alistair Sim version of a Christmas Carol most of all.”
————————————————————————————————————–
I have to agree with Wellington and GI here – a word of advice though for all those now looking on eBay for a copy of this superb film; as well as looking for it under the title – “A Christmas Carol” – (make sure you include the name “Alastair Sim” in your search, as well as the title – there are lots of versions) – also try looking for it under the name “Scrooge” – the Sim version has been released on DVD under both titles. And make sure too that you get the black-and-white version – much more atmospheric than the colourised version created years later.
Apart from Alastair Sim himself, my favourite actors in this are Kathleen Harrison as down-trodden charlady, Mrs Dilber – shrieking with fright and running from the room with her apron over her head, convinced that Scrooge has lost his senses when he wakes on Christmas morning to find that he is still alive after all, and is suddenly transformed into a man full of the joys of life – and Roddy Hughes as Mr Fezziwig, the decent, caring employer who “would rather stick to the old ways and die out with them.” than embrace the hard new commercial world embodied by financial shark and embezzler Mr Jorkins (Jack Warner). It’s only a small role, but his look of sadness as he sees the facia-board bearing his name finally being taken down when his business is acquired by his one-time employee Ebenezer Scrooge, helps underline the chill-wind that will henceforth blow around those unfortunate enough to be in the employ or the debt of Messrs Scrooge and Marley.
Ernest Thesiger as the undertaker – disappointed with the eight shillings he receives for the watch and other personal items he’s pilfered from the dead man – and Miles Malleson as “Old Joe” the rag-and-bone man buying everything that Scrooge’s attendants have stolen from him – right down to his bed-curtains and his best night-shirt in which he’d been laid-out in for burial – are also excellent in supporting roles.
As my Christmas present to JW staff and readers, I’ll use this film as a spring-board from which to recommend several other excellent films, mostly featuring Alastair Sim: Get onto eBay or wherever else you shop, and invest a few pounds, dollars, euros etc in improving your state-of-mind. “The Happiest Days of Your Life” (1950) starring Alastair Sim as Wetherby Pond, the head-master of Nutbourne College who finds that a girls-school under their redoubtable head-mistress Margaret Rutherford, has been accidentally sent there by the Ministry. Richard Wattis as “Billings” the cynical maths-master, and Guy Middleton as “Hyde-Brown” the sports-master – ( exclaiming enthusiastically: “I must say – some of you girls are bang-on for seventeen!”) are excellent. Also get the follow-up films “The Belles of St Trinians” – in which Sim played the headmistress Millicent Fritton in the absence of Margaret Rutherford, as well as Miss Fritton’s equally dubious brother Clarence Fritton – and “Blue Murder at St Trinians – this last film no longer with Alastair Sim but gaining the wonderful Terry-Thomas.
In “The Green Man” you get Alastair Sim and George Cole , who played the young Ebenezer Scrooge, and in “School For Scoundrels” you get both Alastair Sim and Terry-Thomas. If you buy nothing else, get “School For Scoundrels” – also starring Ian Carmichael and Janette Scott, with supporting roles for Dennis Price, Peter Jones, Hattie Jacques, John Le Mesurier, Irene Handl and others – to see England as it probably never was, but should have been.
Also get “Happy is the Bride” to see Janette Scott teamed with Ian Carmichael again as a young couple – and you will see Miles Malleson – (“Old Joe” from “Scrooge”) – as a wonderfully dotty magistrate. (To see more of Miles Malleson, also get “The Naked Truth” a comedy with Dennis Price as a black-mailer preying upon Terry-Thomas and Peter Sellars, and “Kind Hearts And Coronets” (1949) a black-comedy in which he plays a similarly bumbling hang-man to Dennis Price as aristocrat the Duke of Chalfont, convicted of having carried out the one murder for which he wasn’t actually responsible, despite having murdered poor Alec Guinness about seven times over…Worth seeing too for Joan Greenwood as the future Duke’s enticing mistress Sibella, and Valerie Hobson as his coolly-elegant but not especially-enticing intended Duchess. Valeried Hobson was a top British actress of the time and later married in real-life to disgraced Conservative government minister John Profumo, of 1963’s “The Profumo Affair” notoriety, involving the Astors’ “Cliveden set”, a Russian naval attache, and party-girls Christine Keeler and Mandy Rice-Davies.
A third Janette Scott film – “Forever Young” in which she plays a lonely school-girl who elopes with a car-mechanic, brings you Jack Warner (“Mr Jorkins” in “Scrooge”) in a more usual salt-of-the-earth role, plus a minor part for caddish Guy Middleton as “Uncle Hector” – Janette Scott’s mother’s boyfriend.
Another excellent comedy with Alastair Sim is “Laughter in Paradise” in which he plays Captain Denniston Russell, ex-Army, who strives to keep hidden his shameful secret that he is a writer of trashy crime novels, from his fiancée of 13 years, the determinedly unappealing Joyce Grenfell, whilst all the time unaware that his secretary is in love with him. Further “Scrooge” connections here, are George Cole as a timid bank-clerk, and Captain Russell’s love-lorn secretary – actress Eleanor Summerfield – appears at Scrooge’s nephew Fred’s Christmas party, seated next to her suitor.
Guy Middleton, here as man-about-town Simon Russell, is excellent, actress Beatrice Campbell ,to whom he proposes in the belief that she’s an heiress, is rather beautiful, and this film was also Audrey Hepburn’s first film appearance.
A final “Scrooge” connection is “The Fast Lady” – a 1963 comedy starring Stanley Baxter as innocent young Scottish civil-servant “Murdoch Troon”, who falls for Julie Christie as “Claire Chingford” – daughter of irascible James Robertson-Justice as local magistrate Commander Chingford – and buys a vintage 3-litre Bentley from fellow-lodger, dodgy car-salesman “Freddie Fox” (Leslie Phillips) in the hopes of impressing her. The “Scrooge” connection is that Troon and Fox’s land-lady is played by Kathleen Harrison – Scrooge’s char-lady .
These films are old, most are in black-and-white, but they are all the better for it, and together they make up a little armoury of innocent amusement that it’s good to escape into once in a while. Happy Christmas.
gravenimage says
Thank you for your analysis Phil.
A Christmas Carol, as well-known as it is, is actually quite emotionally complex. For one thing, it struck me that Scrooge is both the villain *and* the hero of the piece.
You have to see both how awful he is, and yet care enough about him that you want to see him change.
And then,his change has to be gradual and believable–not always an easy thing to do.
One of the things that carries through the story is its sense of humor, which you find throughout–which spares its being too dark.
Many versions get part of this right–Scrooge is properly grim, but his transformation is too sudden and not organic, or else he is just a slightly grumpy fellow and the change is not that momentous, etc. There are some other very good versions, but none of them really compare.
Sim’s version gets just about everything *exactly* right–it is a tremendous achievement. And all of the secondary characters are wonderful, as well–Bob Cratchit and Mrs. Dilber and Fezziwig and all the rest.
Even though you cite it as a highlight, the *only* thing I am not fond of in this version is adding the scene of Scrooge ruining Fezziwig–this was *not* in the book, and I think is completely unnecessary. People of good will can certainly disagree on this small point though.
And I agree about the undertaker, the laundress, and the charwoman at the Rag and Bone shop–they are like the cackling fates. This is both a disturbing and darkly comic scene.
And one cannot forget the source material–what an amazing story by Charles Dickens–it did a great deal to form the Victorian Christmas, which is what the modern Christmas is based on. It is also one of the very earliest stories that looks at a character’s childhood and how it shaped his adulthood.
And even though I watch a lot of vintage films, I am not familiar with “The Happiest Days of Your Life”, “The Green Man”, or “School For Scoundrels”–although I did see the “St. Trinians” films with my English mum as a child. Time for a revisit, I think.
I will keep an eye out for these movies, and the other ones you mention.
I am always struck by what a wealth of knowledge Jihad Watchers bring–on the subject at hand of course, but on more general topics, as well.
Phil, this was especially delightful.
I hope you had a wonderful Christmas, and a Happy New Year to you and yours!
gravenimage says
True, Wellington–and who talks about Jews and Judaists, or Hindus and Hinduists, or Buddhists and Buddhaists? The whole thing is absurd.
And as I’m sure you know, “Islamist” used to just be another word for “Muslim”.
Phil Copson says
“…even though I watch a lot of vintage films, I am not familiar with “The Happiest Days of Your Life”, “The Green Man”, or “School For Scoundrels”–although I did see the “St. Trinians” films with my English mum as a child. Time for a revisit, I think.
I will keep an eye out for these movies, and the other ones you mention….”
—————————————————————————————————————
GI – thank you for your reply – what can I say ? – find these, and you are in for a treat!
“The Happiest Days Of Your Life” isn’t part of the “St Trinian’s” series – and is generally less anarchic – but is ideal to watch first as it introduces several actors/characters – Alastair Sim, Richard Wattis, Joyce Grenfell, and George Cole – who appeared later in the “St Trin’s” films.
The first two are the best in my view – “The Belles of St Trinian’s” and “Blue Murder at St Trinians” (though Lionel Jeffries is no substitute for Alastair Sim) – and I’ll stretch a point for the third – “The Pure Hell of St Trinian’s”, but thereafter, the series ran out of steam. The fourth – “The Great St Trinian’s Train Robbery” is the last gasp of the originals – it was made in ’66, is in colour, and is really for the “complete-ists” out there. Definitely don’t watch any of the ghastly attempts at re-making them in the 2000’s – the anarchic comedy of the 1950s originals was now just grubby and unfunny – I gave up part-way through.
“The Green Man” starts slowly, but is worth staying with – Alastair Sim’s feigned enjoyment of the hotel’s entertainment (“I never heard a trio play with such brio”) and Terry-Thomas – arriving in a Jaguar XK sports-car, as all self-respecting bounders should – are both in good form.
“School For Scoundrels” is just great – (the original – not the Billy Bob Thornton film) – slower-paced than an American comedy-classic such as “Some Like It Hot”, but every bit as well-directed – Janette Scott – (“Lovely day, Henry!”) – pretty much defined the “English Rose” in this film, I would say.
Also well worth getting “Innocents in Paris” to see Alastair Sim again teamed with Margaret Rutherford (plus “Murder At The Gallop”/“Passport To Pimlico”/”Miranda” for more Margaret Rutherford).
Getting back to the “Christmas Carol” theme, “Bob Cratchit” was Mervyn Johns – definitely get “Dead Of Night” – a spooky “portmanteau” film; the last of the ghostly stories with Michael Redfern is an absolute classic. Also worth getting “The Captive Heart” which reunites Mervyn Johns with Jack Warner (“Mr Jorkins”), and “Jigsaw” plus ”The Blue Lamp” with Warner in his most familiar “British bobby” role.
And for no good reason, I will also recommend another current favourite – Natasha Parry in “The Dark Man”, 1951 b/w, and Michael Caine in the 1969 original of “The Italian Job” – a timeless classic that absolutely shreds the ho-hum 2003 Mark Wahlberg version.
GI – all this film-talk is great, but we’re trespassing – you are very welcome to talk “old films” with me at jagmanphil@ntlworld.com if you wish….
Happy New Year to all JW staff and readers.
gravenimage says
Phil, I agree–this is delightful but too off-topic to pursue at greater length here. I will say that will look for all these films.
Happy New Year to everyone here at Jihad Watch!
mortimer says
My dear Wellington, Fr Henri Boulad SJ a missionary in Cairo, responded to your question (‘why distinguish between political and non-political Islam?’):
“Islamism is not a caricature nor a counterfeit nor a heresy nor a fringe or atypical phenomenon versus classical, orthodox, Sunnite Islam.
To the contrary, I think Islamism is naked Islam, Islam without a mask and without paint, Islam perfectly consistent and true to itself, an Islam that has the courage and lucidity to go all the way to its ultimate conclusions and final implications.
Islamism is Islam in all its logic and in all its rigour. Islamism is present in Islam as the chick is present in the egg, as the fruit is present in the flower and as the tree is present in the seed.
But what is Islamism?
Islamism is political Islam, the bearer of a project for a model society and whose aim is to establish a theocratic state based on Sharia, the only legitimate law—since it is divine—since it was revealed and enshrined in the Koran and Sunna—it’s a law that applies to everything.
Here is an all-inclusive and all-encompassing project, one that is total, totalizing and totalitarian.”
– Fr Henri Boulad, SJ, Alexandria, Egypt
somehistory says
The King snake and the Coral snake have the same colors. The King snake is considered a “friend” as it kills other snakes, but is not harmful to humans. The Coral snake is very poisonous to humans.
Since they sport the same colors, one must know in which order the colors appear to know the difference.
islam is a snake. Its adherents are children of that snake. They all wear the same colors. How is anyone to know…for sure…that any particular moslim is “harmless” to other humans?
gravenimage says
+1
IanB says
Excellent analogy.
Dave says
It must therefore be wiser to treat all Muslims as Coral snakes.
somehistory says
He said that some just practice with their “family and friends.”
How many times…count them up…has a moslim gone on an attack, and then his “family” came out saying they couldn’t believe it? And how many of those…count them up…have also been found to be plotting or have had criminal activity in their past?
Anyone who believes that islam is the way to go, the way to “walk” in life, is a danger…to his family if he makes them go along, to his “friends’, to his co-workers, his neighbors, to society in general. He will act upon it in one or more ways…to make the goal of islam be closer than without him.
gravenimage says
Important point.
DHazard says
I don’t think there was ever a decent poll that actually asked Muslims these questions:
1. Do you believe Islam is the best religion and will remain so forever?
2. Do you believe everyone will eventually convert to Islam, either by choice or force?
3. What do terrorists believe that is not Islamic? Give me an example.
On the surface Islamists appear to be “extreme” Muslims. But when you just scratch the surface of many “average” Muslims polls (Pew) show they share many of the same, important beliefs with hard core terrorists.
So to me an Islamist is an honest Muslim. They just talk about Islam more and are more likely to commit Islamocide (suicide/martydom/mass murder all in one).
gravenimage says
UK Home Secretary draws distinction between “those who practise Islam and those who you might describe as Islamists”
………………………….
Unfortunately, for pious Muslims waging violent Jihad and trying to impose brutal Shari’ah law are key parts of practicing their faith. As a Muslim, Sajid Javid must know this. So this is just more Taqiyya.
thebigW says
“There are indeed Muslims who are “driven by an ideology” and other Muslims who “practise their own religion in their own way with their own family and their own friends,” that is, Muslims who are bringing Sharia to the UK and advancing the cause of political Islam, and those who are not. ”
I beg to differ. All Muslims are advancing the cause of Islam (for one thing because it’s the same damn thing as “political Islam”). A lot of Muslims are just doing the advancing in ways that seem okay, and one way to see how successful they are is the fact they’ve fooled Robert Spencer into thinking they’re not advancing “political Islam” (same damned thing as Islam).
James Lincoln says
thebigW,
Interesting analysis.
I guess the real question would be is it possible to be a Muslim, even “in name only”, and not be at least indirectly advancing political Islam.
Even Muslims who are not particularly devoted to their faith show up in population statistics and invariably vote for Muslim candidates seeking public office, etc.
Thoughts?
PRCS says
Re: your guess, no statistics to work with. But…not likely.
thebigW says
The “Muslims in name only” are part of the army of Islam and when they feel like they’re able to, and when they feel like it’s the right time, they will kill us. That time probably won’t come in our lifetime or even our kids or grandkids lifetime. But it will come as long as Muslims are here in the West. There’s no way to tell the difference. It’s insane to keep making distinctions among Muslims, but the Counter Jihad still does it all day long. Say bye bye, West.
Jay Jamieson says
Excellent point. It’s shocking how easily the Muslims who ran for Congress got elected so easily. There must be an enormous number of ‘token’ muslims ….or there are a huge number of SJW’s who feel that that muslims are victims and would be good at representing the down trodden.
gravenimage says
thebigW, both Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald have referred to stealth Jihad here many times, over to course of many years. Your are mistaken in believing they are fooled by this.
thebigW says
well then Robert Spencer doesn’t really mean what he says in the quote I quoted (and how about the other day when he says “there are secular Muslims” in the US?) What in blazes is a “secular Muslim” ? I’ll tell you. It’s a Muslim who has fooled Robert Spencer.
gravenimage says
I think a “secular Muslim” is a virtual apostate.
And I don’t think Robert Spencer is fooled by much of anything when it comes to Islam.
I hope you have a very Happy New Year! I have very much appreciated you contributions to Jihad Watch this year.
lebel says
“All Muslims are advancing the cause of Islam (for one thing because it’s the same damn thing as “political Islam”). A lot of Muslims are just doing the advancing in ways that seem okay, and one way to see how successful they are is the fact they’ve fooled Robert Spencer into thinking they’re not advancing “political Islam” (same damned thing as Islam).”
They have not “fooled” Robert Spencer. He has done his best to get you to think exactly in the way that you do, he just wants plausible deniability. As in “I never said that no Muslim can be trusted and I am not responsible for the comments on this site”
Meanwhile Hugh Fitzgerald (paid by RS to write for jihadwatch) makes it clearer: “No, in one sense we learn nothing, except that now it is harder for the denialists, those who keep thinking we can rely on the “good Muslims” to be our true-blue friends and “help us” against the “violent extremists” when, of course, it is all those who believe in Islam who must be treated as our enemies, for it is they who are raised up in the belief that between Muslims and Infidels a state of permanent war must exist, that Dar al-Islam must push back and eventually swallow up Dar al-Harb”
thebigW says
And who “got” you to think the way you do lebel?
(or should I say “Patti Labelle” ’cause I just remembered what I said in Nov:
thebigW says
Nov 4, 2018 at 12:43 pm
It’s Jihad “Watch” not a place to set policy. I’ve been watching Islam since 9/11/01 and I can’t see why Robert Spencer and his supporters want to agree with Patti Labelle here that deporting Muslims is a bad thing. Maybe I’ve been watching a different channel than y’all.
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/11/robert-spencer-a-message-to-my-critics
gravenimage says
lebel wrote:
They have not “fooled” Robert Spencer. He has done his best to get you to think exactly in the way that you do, he just wants plausible deniability.
…………………….
Ah…right. We’re all just indoctrinated by the evil Mr. Spencer–after all, who otherwise would object to Muslims raping or murdering us if we had not brainwashed? Bad, bad dhimmis!
mortimer says
There are two groups of Muslims:
1) Muslims who practice ALL of ISLAM including AL WALAA WAL BARAA and JIHAD.
2) Muslims who do not practice ALL of jihad, but who limit their jihad to VERBAL JIHAD … namely, group 2 CONCEALS and DISSEMBLES about jihad while inwardly APPROVING OF JIHAD against the dirty kufaar.
Muslims in GROUP 2 are what Mohammed called ‘hypocrites’. They are lackadaisical Muslims. Mohammed asked his followers to KILL the ‘HYPOCRITES’ and promised Allah would reward them.
Most Muslims today are in GROUP 2 … namely, lackadaisical Muslims.
mortimer says
How easily Sajid Javid is deceived by the ‘nice’ Muslims he assumes do not practice ISLAMIC HATE DIRECTED AGAINST KAFIRS.
Sajid Javid has never read or heard the ESSENTIAL ISLAMIC DOCTRINE called AL WALAA WAL BARAA … the teaching of Islamic APARTHEID. Muslims generally ignore it and CONCEAL IT from the dirty kufaar. Sajid Javid cannot conceive of such a horrid doctrine, so he wipes away the suspicion of it and substitutes his FANTASY-LAND COTTON CANDY VERSION of Islam. APARTHEID IS A NORMATIVE PART OF ISLAM.
Baraa is a COMPULSORY ATTITUDE Muslims are required towards KAFIRS. It is …
– To Hate
– To keep distance from
– To be enemy to
– To desert
– To decline to help
– To disrespect
– To put down
– Not to ally with
– Not to support
Allah ordered Muslims to have Baraa (to be cleansed) from the dirty kufaar and from kufr and shirk.
-Imam Abdul-Latif ibn Abdur-Rahman Rahimullah said, “It is not possible for someone to realize Tawheed (Islamic faith) and act upon it, and yet not be HOSTILE against the mushrikeen (i.e. wrong worshippers). So anyone who isn’t HOSTILE against the mushrikeen, then it cannot be said that he acts upon Tawheed nor that he realizes it.” [ad-Durar as-Saniyyah 8/167]
Walter Sieruk says
The word “Islamism” is a fake word that used that was made up after September 11, 2001 in order offend or upset non-violent Muslims. The real, actual, word is just “Islam.” Likewise, the world “Islamist” is also a bogus word that was made up after 9/11 in order not to offend or upset peaceful Muslims. To keep with reality, terms should better be used as “Islamic terrorist” or “Muslim terrorist” . Let’s call people and thing as the really are.
Furthermore, Furthermore, the terms “Radical Muslim” and “Islamic extremist” is actually a misuse of terms. “Moderate Muslim” are actually Western term and not that well known in the Islamic Middle East. This is because what In the Islamic mindset in the Muslim Middle East as well as in Indonesia and other Muslim controlled countries what the non-Muslims of the Western nations view as “radical and “extremist” the Muslims of those places in the world see as “Normal” and even Devout and committed to the Cause of Islam”. Likewise they view those who Westerns see as “Moderate Muslims” those of the Islamic worldview and non-devout and non –committed Muslims. The violent jihadists even see them as “hypocrites.” Therefore, this explains the jihadist chant of those jihad-minded Muslims in different Islamic terror organizations. When they chant out loud “Death to infidels and hypocrites.” Meaning Death to people who and not Muslims and people who are non- jihadist Muslims.
James Lincoln says
Walter,
Excellent fact-based analysis, my compliments.
The truths that you so accurately state are also very terrifying.
PRCS says
I prefer “violent jiahdist”.
No reason to preface jihadist with Islamic or Muslim.
Dave says
Let us never use words created by muslims: Islamophobia; moderate muslims; the ‘religion of peace’; Islamist.
thebigW says
All Muslims are jihadists, some use the sword others use words and other behaviors that seem not to be violent, but they’re all supporting and expanding the jihad. Too bad most of us can’t see that including most of us here at Jihad WAtch.
Crusades Were Right says
As far as I can tell, an “Islamist” is simply a Muslim who practises Islam the way Islam says he should.
Georg says
Seems as good a time as any to quote the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy since November 2014:
“Islam belongs in Europe. It holds a place in Europe’s history, in our culture, in our food and – what matters most – in Europe’s present and future,” wrote Mogherini, before adding, “I am not afraid to say that political Islam should be part of the picture. Religion plays a role in politics – not always for good, not always for bad. Religion can be part of the process. What makes the difference is whether the process is democratic or not.”
-Federica Mogherini
Fun Facts:
* A member of the Italian Communist Youth Federation, upon joining in 1988. In 1996, Mogherini joined the Youth Left after the dissolution of the Italian Communist Party and its transformation into a Social Democratic Party.
* Mogherini earned a degree (1994) in political science from the University of Rome after she completed a thesis on the intersection of politics and Islam.
* During the mid-1990s she was a volunteer with the Council of Europe’s “All Different, All Equal” diversity campaign
As an aside, Javid’s compartmentalizing of Islam and its strains of hate isn’t worth a warm glass of spit as you can’t “pick a terd up by the clean end.”
Jim Austin says
The distinction would be between those who take their religion seriously and those who don’t. Problem is, those in the second category often move to the first category.
Quran’s exhortations to kill infidels exercise a pull on all Moslems. Those moderates who not serious about their ethical imperative feel themselves morally compromised as opposed to those pure minded souls who go on killing sprees. Moderates are vulnerable to extremist arguments from shared premises. Extremists have no such vulnerability. At any time, some miserable moderate will undergo a crisis of conscience and decide to become consistently righteous and join the carnage.
Relic says
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is83WB7Ue1Y
Riker says
The cowardice of UK’s Home Secretary official is blatantly on display for everyone to see. Instead of pointing out the truth that Islam is intrinsically violent and a threat to British society, he chose to engage in a kind of verbal gymnastic, and invent some ridiculous distinction between “those who practice Islam” and “Islamists” Are the adherents of Islam following a different religion from those who are Islamists ?.
dan christensen says
The conclusion must be, that islam is best practised when the rules and regulations of islam are ignored.
What Sajid Javid is confessing in public, is that muslim people who practise what they are preached, become either a homicidal maniac or stark raving mad.
Very puzzling religion – I think it is best for all Christians to keep islam on the end of a very long pole!
Ian Marshall says
Hmmm……
The day Sajid Javid was appointed Culture Secretary (after thinking WTF?) I found a Wiki page about him. Here, he was quoted as saying that he was `proud of his Muslim heritage` but that he did not now practise any religious observance. Just throwing that into the mix……………..
Tried Wiki again today, but got “The page “Sajid javid” does not exist.” I know Wiki is not the fount of all knowledge, but when it has articles on many other politicians it makes you wonder why SJ is not among them.
Mr. Maxwell S. J. Fenton says
Throughout our history, Western thinkers have always defined those who submit to Islam as Muhammadans, in doing so we immediately understood these people followed an Arab warrior called Muhammad. In forcing the more elusive definition of Muslim we end up being vague and obscure in our conceptualisation of it.
We have ceased to care about defining ideas objectively and now merely accept anyone’s definition.
Everything in Islam orbits Muhammad, Allah, their ancient moon god is simply eclipsed by him.
Michael Copeland says
Evidently Sajid Javid is not a true Scotsman.
Michael Copeland says
Sharia reality check:
Muslims who “practise their own religion in their own way” are not muslims.
“It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision:”
Koran 33:36
Muslims who “practise …. in their own way” are classed as “hypocrites”. They count as apostates, who have to be murdered (Manual of Islamic Law, “Reliance of the Traveller”, o8.4). No innovation is permitted.
A man in Iran held Koran classes in his home. He recommended taking figuratively the story of Jonah and the whale. He was hanged.
Irshad Manji, who proclaims her own brand of Islam, is forbidden to set foot in Indonesia. If she were to do so she would be murdered.
Javid is talking through the hat he is not wearing.
Michael Copeland says
Sajid Javid said Islam is “compatible with British values”.
Not so.
Islam is defined by its rules: they are referred to as Sharia: “Sharia is Islam, to be clear”, explains Fouad Belkcem of Sharia4Belgium.
Sharia is “incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy”, said the European Court in 2003.
Sajid Javid does not know better than the European Court.
Michael Copeland says
Javid claims that these “Islamists” are “driven by an ideology”.
Shock!
And what “ideology” is that? He does not say. Instead he artfully gives the IMPRESSION, without actually saying so. that it is not Islam. He never explains how the two can be distinguished, but instead dishonestly implies that the “Islamists'” behaviour is their own personal choice.
“They see it as their duty to spread to [sic] ideology…. ”
More shock!
What Javid omits is that they see it as their duty because that is what they are INSTRUCTED. it is Islam’s MISSION to spread Islam. It is EVERY muslim’s duty. Nothing else will be accepted:
“If anyone desire a religion other than Islam never will it be accepted of him” – Koran 3:85.
“… also to disrespect the laws of the country that they have chosen to live in.”
Shock! And more shock!
What Javid omits is that Islam INSTRUCTS that Sharia is superior to any “man-made” law:
“If we are practicing muslims we are above the law of the land” – Mustafa Carroll, CAIR Dallas
Javid utterances need careful dissection. He is well practised at giving deliberately misleading impressions.
Carol the 1st says
It’s a DOG WHISTLE (similar to an inside joke) from a “designer” politician-at-the-ready. The MB has always wanted the ground troops to carry themselves as “lambs” until sufficient strength is obtained. Looking gentle and pretending you respect kafir law is just an extension of that (until democracy and such laws can be used to hoist kafirs on their own petard of course – bloody or no).
Daniel Greenfield just came out with an article based on his review of Jihad Psychopath by Jamie Glazov and it sheds light on Islam’s exploitive behaviours that are actually feeding on the natural empathy of kafirs (like a cuckoo bird in our nest) e.g. “Like psychopaths, Glazov argues, Islamic terrorists create *the illusion of a mutual relationship* while viciously exploiting and eventually destroying their victims by degrees.”
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/12/the_islamist_terrorist_as_psychopath.html#ixzz5bE1II5co
infidel says
this is another Trojan worm that has wormed itself deep into the power corridors of the UK.
Roger woodhouse says
Hes just being a typical ‘tory’politician of the old school.He believes the tory faithfull out there still believe their leaders.They WANT to believe him .like they disbelieve those more enlightened about Islam who try to educate them about the ‘real’Islam.Millions of Brits are in complete darkness about the very real threat Islam poses to theiir quiet lives.
Dawne says
I have worked with Muslims and have dealt with Muslim customers through my work – these people were clearly not jihadists. BUT there is still a huge problem with the Islamic ideology. As an example, my husband worked for a bank and many years ago worked in a branch in Southall, London where there was a very large Indian & Parkistani community. Many of his colleagues and customers were Muslim. It was standard practice, even then in the mid 1980s, to ensure that all of the Muslim customers being interviewed re their applications for business loans and mortgages were interviewed by a Muslim member of staff. These respectable business men, who had no thoughts of beheading or blowing up anyone, were known to lie routinely to non-Muslim staff members. Because the Koran tells them it’s fine to do this.
I think this is why we have Muslim paedophile rape gangs too – these taxi drivers and takeaway owners almost certainly won’t be blowing up trains and shops, or going to Syria for Jihad – but ALL Muslims, however respectable, still consider non-Muslims to be inferior to them. I (as a white woman) have encountered this attitude in Muslim (Pakistani) doctors within the NHS.
Carol the 1st says
Well if it’s good for muslims to get ahead then what can possibly be wrong with any WHOPPERS that help them personally advance?? It’s not like they want a Judeo-Christian society where mutual trust is a cornerstone. Didn’t one on the American founding fathers say that democracies should ONLY HAVE CHRISTIANS AS THEIR LEADERS. Makes sense if we do, doesn’t it?
lebel says
As we can see from the comments here ALL muslims are essentially evil, some are honest others are using taqqiya. All want the same thing. Well done, Jihadwatch. Well done, Robert Spencer.
People wonder how genocides get started. It’s very simple. The other need to be dehumanised and it is important that no distinction be made between any of them so that you can kill them and their children (future jihadis). That way no one is innocent and it is OK to do “whatever needs doing” to get rid of the menace.
Wellington says
Again you set up a straw man, lebel, and knock it down. Not all Muslims are evil, though all are confused, but some Muslims are evil and Islam is most definitely evil. And no need to invoke the genocide “option.” No one of sense and knowledge here wants to see the genocide of Muslims. What they do want is for Islam to be viewed as the iniquity that it is, much as one might look upon Nazism or Marxism or the KKK.
Taking the last as an example, I certainly don’t want a genocide of KKK members but neither can I applaud anything they stand for and they need to be called out for belonging to a heinous organization. Ditto for Muslims where Islam is concerned. If you’re going to criticize those who find Islam malevolent, as I certainly do, you can at least be accurate in describing what people like myself think about the matter.
lebel says
“Again you set up a straw man, lebel, and knock it down. Not all Muslims are evil, though all are confused, but some Muslims are evil and Islam is most definitely evil. ”
The problem is that you are very selective in the comments you choose to acknowledge.
lebel says
“Ditto for Muslims where Islam is concerned. If you’re going to criticize those who find Islam malevolent, as I certainly do, you can at least be accurate in describing what people like myself think about the matter.”
I never said Wellington wants to see genocide, people like you will opt for forced deportation (which will necessarily involve violence) of all Muslims.
Violence has been part of the jihadwatch solution (via Hugh Fitzgerald) for a long time. Do you remember when Mr. Fitzgerald use to bring up the example of the Benes decree or collective punishment?
“In war punishment is inflicted on a collective enemy. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan both contained populations of people mostly sympathetic to the war aims of the Nazis and of Kodo militarists, but even those who were not sympathetic were made to suffer in the general infliction of ruination on both countries. ”
This is where Hugh Makes the case for the collective annihilation of people who happen to be born in the middle east (or any other “Muslim” part of the world)
“And when the tolerant and advanced state of Czechoslovakia under Edouard Benes and Jan Masaryk instituted the “Benes Decrees,” including the most important of them by which, in 1946, 3 million ethnic Germans were permanently expelled from Czechoslovakia in order to safeguard, for the future, that state from German aggression and agents within the country who identified with Deutschtum, one understood.”
Clearly calling for ethnic cleansing
“The enemy here is a doctrine, and those who adhere to that doctrine of Jihad and support violence as the best instrument. But even those who support other means, or who continue to identify themselves in a way that makes clear that despite everything they will think of themselves in the end as adherents of Islam, are no more immune to retribution than were inhabitants of Tokyo, or Dresden, or other cities, during World War II.”
No Muslim is innocent, all are targets
So no, Wellington would opt for more “humane” measures, but many others would not.
Wellington says
I don’t want even forced deportation, lebel, though deportation of Muslims who commit crimes here in the US, yes then I wouldn’t mind this option at all, ditto for illegal immigrants coming from Latin America who commit crimes or from wherever.
But, on a more expansive note, I want you to grasp once and for all that I and many others think Islam the one major religion which is evil. Now, what should be done about this? First of all, Islam needs to be widely viewed as evil, as say Nazism is. Then, finding whatever legal and constitutional pretext possible, end further Muslim immigration to America (just as is the case with Neo-Nazis and adherents of other heinous creeds). Finally, make Muslims feel as “uncomfortable” about being Muslim as KKK members are made to feel. No coddling. No smiley version of Islam anymore than there is a good KKK. Thereafter, social ostracization will take place as it should. There is no reason to pretend something is good when it isn’t. And Islam is certainly not a good thing. It is a mortal enemy of freedom, equality under the law, the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, et al.
What would you have anyone do, lebel, once they conclude Islam is wicked? Why should wickedness in some kind of pretend mode be looked upon as something good? No need for genocide. No need for mass deportation. But definitely a need for Islam to be seen as the malevolent religion which it is. Grasp all this, lebel, and quit setting up straw men as is your wont. Do so. Of course, you could try and argue that Islam is a good thing, not injurious to freedom and equality under the law. Go ahead, lebel, why not try to argue this? I’d be interested in your “arguments,” especially the ones about how Muslims are free to convert to another religion without fear of death and people in general can criticize Islam with as little fear as they might criticize any other religion.
Remember what I said to you earlier about that “third threat” that is unique to Islam. Virtually all religions threaten what is going to happen in the next life if you don’t believe or do this, that or the other thing. Virtually all religions also issue that second threat, i.e., that the deity they believe in might do something injurious to you in this life. Here Islam is no different from other religions. But only Islam issues that “third threat,” i.e., in its theological blueprint is the instruction for its faithful to use force in this world to insure Islam’s dictates. No other religion has this in its theological blueprint and this is why Islam is such a menace to liberty and pointing this out is merely pointing out the obvious about Mo’s disturbing creed.
Your turn, lebel. And no more straw men.
FYI says
“People wonder how genocides get started.It’s very simple”
Yes,it is very simple:dehumanize and curse people like the koran k9:30 does for the Jews and christians.
Did you miss…?
SAHIH MUSLIM #6985 islam’s call for a GENOCIDAL war against the Jews
{currently in full swing..}
THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE 1914-1923
Where oh where lebel does such murderous antisemitism and anitchristianity come from?You know perfectly well don’t you?
the koran k9:30 allah CURSES Christians for believing in Jesus
the koran k2:65 The Jews are “apes to be despised and hated”
the koran 2:191 non-muslims are to be wiped out even though k2:256 “there is no compulsion in religion”
Re-read your last paragraph lebel and apply it to Sahih Muslim 6985 and the Armenian Holocaust:do you see?It’s very simple.That is PRECISELY how islam has behaved.islam CONSTANTLY calls for Genocide and has done so for 1,400 years of koranically-mandated mass-murder and mayhem.Jews,Christians,Hindus,Buddhists:and it is STILL going on today.
islamic hatred and policy of Genocide comes straight from the ‘holy’ koran.
It’s very simple…
Both nazism and islam have the same father:the father of Lies and you lebel are an ardent apologist for islamic evil.
nazism: a secular ideology of hatred and racial supremacy promoted by a violently antisemitic antiChristian murderous psychopathic false messiah “prophet” hitler
islam:a religious ideology of hatred and religious supremacy promoted by a violently antisemitic anti Christian murderous psychopathic false messiah “prophet” muhammed
Of course ALL muslims don’t subscribe to that.That’s just being ridiculous.
In fact there are plenty of Ex-muslims of my acquaintance who have seen the truth about islam…who show that it is islam itself rather than people who just happen to be muslim that is the problem.
Sajid Javid is telling porkies:islamic supremacist ideology and terrorism comes straight from the koran and the example of muhammed:Mr “I have been made victorious through terror”{Bukhari 4:52:220}.It seems Javid must think he can fool the sheeple and perhaps become the P.M..
gravenimage says
The dishonest lebel wrote:
As we can see from the comments here ALL muslims are essentially evil, some are honest others are using taqqiya. All want the same thing. Well done, Jihadwatch. Well done, Robert Spencer.
…………………………..
Robert Spencer has never said any such thing. He has noted what Islam itself dictates–that does not mean that all adherents to that creed practice every aspect of it, nor has he ever claimed that they have.
But it is worth noting that Islam demands violence, and that all too many Muslims practice this core aspect of their creed, and that others are happy to lie to non-Muslims about this–that there are even doctrines urging Muslims to do so.
But lebel says that we have no right to take notice of such things–and certainly under Islamic law we would’t.
More:
People wonder how genocides get started. It’s very simple. The other need to be dehumanised and it is important that no distinction be made between any of them so that you can kill them and their children (future jihadis). That way no one is innocent and it is OK to do “whatever needs doing” to get rid of the menace.
…………………………..
Talk about projection! It is pious Muslims who regularly murder Infidels in violent Jihad–the claim that it is actually Infidels murdering Muslims is simply grotesque, This *is not happening*.
More, in reply to Wellington:
“Again you set up a straw man, lebel, and knock it down. Not all Muslims are evil, though all are confused, but some Muslims are evil and Islam is most definitely evil. ”
The problem is that you are very selective in the comments you choose to acknowledge.
…………………………..
No poster can reply to every comment here–it would not be logistically feasible, so this is just an absurd criticism. But clearly lebel is angry that Wellington would dare to question his bs.
More:
This is where Hugh Makes the case for the collective annihilation of people who happen to be born in the middle east (or any other “Muslim” part of the world)
“And when the tolerant and advanced state of Czechoslovakia under Edouard Benes and Jan Masaryk instituted the “Benes Decrees,” including the most important of them by which, in 1946, 3 million ethnic Germans were permanently expelled from Czechoslovakia in order to safeguard, for the future, that state from German aggression and agents within the country who identified with Deutschtum, one understood.”
…………………………..
Germans were, of course, *not* annihilated in Czechoslovakia in 1946, nor was there a call for their to be so–does lebel think we are ignorant of history? Of course he does…
Those who have defended against invasion usually ask the invaders to leave–lebel would consider the French asking the Nazis to pull out of Paris to be “genocide”.
Just sickening.
Moreover, lebel’s pretending that Islam is an ethnicity is ludicrous–it is an ideology, not a race.
Dave says
Ethnic cleansing is like pulling apart two fighting dogs. Better for both dogs.
gravenimage says
“Ethnic cleansing” often means genocide. That is what lebel is accusing us of doing to Muslims.
Steve says
‘Islamists’ practise Islam, indeed more fully than those who shirk the Islamic duty of jihad. They also arise from the body of Muslims generally. Immigrant Muslim Javid is a big fan of immigration – surprise surprise!
With ‘protectors’ like that, who needs enemy agents? And this guy might be the next ‘British’ PM???
Dave says
Steve, this is too awful to contemplate. Even if Javid it says he is non practicing that is probably a case of Taqiyya
“It might sound strange coming from a home secretary – I’m a big fan of immigration and what it means for our country.” I would prefer a Home Secretary who was not so keen on immigration. The UK, having just signed up to the Global Compact on Migration, I imagine he will open the floodgates. According to the document it will be the human right for anyone to move anywhere. Any criticism of this will be a criminal offence.
[Javid] condemned those who saw as Islam as an ideology, saying he would make a distinction between “those who practise Islam and those who you might describe as Islamists, that are driven by an ideology, rather than practise their own religion in their own way with their own family and their own friends. They see it as their duty to spread to [sic] ideology and also to disrespect at the same time the laws of the country that they have chosen to live in.” Is he talking about all muslims here? Who are practising their own religion in their own way with their own family and their own friends, and what way is that? They either practice their religion or they don’t. To quote the Small Faces: “All or Nothing!”
Carol the 1st says
Javid says he’s a “proud” and “non-practicing” muslim. This indicates that he wears blinkers and will have an “iffy” identity to help him fit in in proper “cuckoo” manner. He has a Christian wife and she is raising their children as Christians. Pretty convenient PR there!
David Noakes (ran for UKIP but was later accused of some cancer scam) has an interesting video called “The Truth About The EU “BREXIT” Illuminati, Rothschild”. The site recommends going to the longer version (listed on intro page are “Ten EU truths we must tell the public”). Since there are so many strange treacheries going on by British leaders maybe this video is worth some consideration:
David Noakes on Edge Media TV FULL ‘Exposing The EU Dictatorship’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J75BKicnVBo
Robin Datta says
Jihadists act in accodance with the guidance of the Quran and Sunnah. None of them act to violate the tenets of Islam. By their acts shall ye know them.
james reid says
They all follow Islam & read from same texts. Therefore, they want every non-Muslim murdered, raped or subjugated & extorted from. That is Islam. The only historically famous, (or infamous if you prefer), I’ve found to endorse Islam has been HITLER! I wouldn’t trust this Home Secretary as far as I could throw him.