Getting in with the “wrong crowd” at the mosque

You be the judge.

You be the judge.

This blog has said it so many times: in Islam, devoutness is equivalent to radicalisation.

Where do you find devoutness? In the mosques. And that is where you will find the extremists as well.

The Parramatta shooter obtained his weapon from his local mosque. If someone had murdered a policeman after obtaining a weapon from any other supposed house of worship, like a church, a synagogue or a temple, you can bet your bottom dollar it would have been raided immediately and everyone arrested.

But none of that was going to happen given the kid-glove manner in which Islam is always handled.

So in this story (h/t JW), which is a typical piece about litigation jihad to extract jizya from the infidel, a small detail was overlooked, namely that the girl in the story “fell into the wrong crowd at an Auburn mosque”.

This “wrong crowd” ended up convincing the girl to go to Syria where she was killed. I wonder how many other “wrong crowds” there might be in mosques in the West. My guess is that there is such a group in every single one of them.

The “wrong crowd” at the local church might play their gospel music a little too loudly, but they wouldn’t go out and kill unbelievers.

It’s time to deal with extremism at its source – the mosques.

P.S. It’s interesting that the father of the girl, despite the death of his daughter, cannot help lying to the infidels, claiming it was his daughter who got him in to the religion. I would suggest his beard and zebiba (prayer mark on forehead) say otherwise.

Maybe he just got in with the wrong crowd…

Sydney: Islamic conference speakers support beheadings, child rape and wife beating

[Click to enlarge]

[Click to enlarge]

Maybe these folks need to learn a bit more about Islam so they are not so ‘uninformed‘, eh, Craig Laundy?

Oh wait, they’re all experts in Islam!

Like I said yesterday, the more you know about Islam, the more concerning it becomes.

And don’t forget when you read this, it’s us, the kafir, who are the filthy degenerates, according to the Qur’an. [Read more…]

Parramatta gunman radicalised at Sydney mosque

Training up the soldiers of Allah for the fight against the infidels

Training up the soldiers of Allah for the fight against the infidels

Politicians and police will be scratching their heads for days at this one.

Surely Islam is a ‘religion of peace’? they will wail.

No, Islam is a political ideology of violence and conquest.

How could he be radicalised at a ‘place of worship’? they will plead.

Because mosques aren’t places of worship like churches, they are barracks for the soldiers of Allah.

In Islam, devoutness = radicalisation. The higher one ascends the ladder of Islam, the more violent one inevitably must become towards non-Muslims, because the Qur’an and Mohammed command it. [Read more…]

In Islam, devoutness ≡ radicalisation, so stop expecting Muslim leaders to drive an Islamic reformation

Would they really side with the kuffar against Muslims?

Would they really side with the kuffar against Muslims?

That symbol, ≡ , which looks like an equals sign with three lines, is a mathematical expression that means ‘is identical to’.

Western governments have not worked out that in Islam, devoutness is indeed identical to radicalisation, and therefore still believe they must get Islamic leaders and imams onside in order to ‘tackle’ radicalisation. [Read more…]

Rob Burgess: litany of excuses for Islamic terrorism

Rob Burgess - making excuses for Islam

Rob Burgess – making excuses for Islam

This is the kind of moral equivalence that apologists love to play on: equating the few extremely rare terrorist atrocities carried out by non-Muslims with the thousands of acts carried out in the name of Islam and the global jihad.

Rob Burgess, journo from the Business Spectator, gives a series of examples of the genre: [Read more…]

Muslim leaders ‘denounce’ anti-terror laws

Calm and measured response

Calm and measured response, as usual

Of course they do! How can they spread Islam in Australia and other non-Muslim countries with pesky laws designed to foil the necessary violence and intimidation, and which put ‘man-made law’ above sharia?

And why would they ever support anything done by this kafir government anyway? Don’t forget, non-Muslims are the ‘worst of beasts‘, so the last thing any self-respecting Muslim leader would do is be seen agreeing with the infidels.

But, in the spirit of coexistence (little joke there…), let’s see what the various Sheiks and Imams have to say:

1. These laws clearly target Muslims and they do so unjustly. Whilst the language of the law is neutral, it is no secret that in practice these laws specifically target Muslims. Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s commentary in selling these laws also makes this clear.

Why do you think that might be? Go on, have a guess!

2. The primary basis of these laws is a trumped up ‘threat’ from ‘radicalised’ Muslims returning from Iraq or Syria. There is no solid evidence to substantiate this threat. Rather, racist caricatures of Muslims as backwards, prone to violence and inherently problematic are being exploited. It is instructive that similar issues about Australian troops travelling abroad to fight or Jews travelling to train or fight with the Israeli Defence Force are simply never raised.

OK, let me just digest that for a minute, because my brain has just blown a number of tiny fuses. As the attorney general stated, two-thirds of those Muslims who returned from Afghanistan were later found to be involved in home-grown terror plots. And you think that those returning from the barbarism of the Islamic State would all come home and open florist shops? Do me a favour.

The caricature is all yours. What race is Islam again?

And in your view the armed forces of democratic states (like Australia or Israel) are just the same as IS terrorists? Is there any point in going on?

3. These proposals come in the same style as those which have preceded since the Howard era. An alleged threat is blown out of all proportion as the pretext, further ‘tightening’ of the laws is claimed necessary and rushed through, without proper national debate or community consultation [translation: without giving Muslims the right to veto it] The reality of the alleged threat is also exposed by the lack of correspondence between the official ‘terror threat’ level, which has remained the same since 2001, and the hysterical rhetoric from government ministers.

Probably not a good idea to use the word “blown” relating to anything Islamic – just sayin’. Muslims are in every way superior to infidels, so the starting point is that anything done by the kafir has to be ok-ed by Muslims. Unfortunately, Western democracies don’t work like that. We don’t consult with other minority religious or immigrant groups on matters of national security. You’re lucky you got a face-to-face with the PM… oh, wait, that’s right, you turned it down.

4. The Muslim community is being asked to sign off on laws and policies that have already been decided. Prime Minister Tony Abbott is merely seeking approval under the cover of consultation. He seeks that the Muslim community be on board because the policy entails the community policing itself. We refuse to provide such a rubber stamp on what is an unjust and hypocritical policy.

In your dreams! To expect the government of a democratic state such as Australia to obtain ‘sign off’ from the biggest security threat we face? Fox, chickens etc.

We also reject government attempts to divide the Muslim community into ‘radicals’ and ‘moderates’ and to use the community for its agenda.

That’s right, because there is no difference. Islam is Islam is Islam. There is no moderate Islam. Are you therefore saying that every Muslim is a dormant radical just waiting to be activated by some offensive event? Like an infidel being in front of you in the queue at Woolies?

5. As Muslims, we are as concerned about peace and security for all [Muslims?] as anyone else. At the same time, we are not naïve. We are not fooled by those who speak against violence and terrorism but are its proponents at an institutional level through military and foreign policies. We are not fooled by those who speak of peace but maintain cordial ties with dictatorial regimes abroad [translation: Israel] and who support and justify the most heinous of violence inflicted on innocent people as seen recently in Gaza.

Like firing rockets at civilians from schools and hotels? I give up. There is no way to reason with this kind of bizarre moral relativism.

It is time for the wider community to take stock and properly debate these matters, instead of continually being misled by the politicians and their fearmongering.

Translation: stop telling the truth about Islam.

If matters continue as they are, we all stand to lose.

Translation: you stand to lose, infidel.

Note that there is not one, single conciliatory statement in the entire release. Not one. Nothing. Just endless complaining.

It’s time for this country and this government to move on and deal with this issue, and if it’s without the support of ‘Muslim leaders’ then so be it.

‘My flag is the flag of Allah. That’s my flag.’

"That's my flag!"

“That’s my flag!”

Doesn’t sound very ‘Team Australia’, does it?

And that, of course, is at the heart of the problem. Where do Muslim loyalties really lie? Would they dob in a neighbour they knew was involved in a terrorist plot? Would they report hate preaching at their local mosque to the Australian police? Do their loyalties lie with their country of citizenship, over and above the global Muslim umma?

If the answers to any of these questions is ‘no’, then that person cannot be trusted, since, by their acquiescence, they are indirectly aiding and abetting the spread of Islam to non-Muslim countries, which after all is their duty.

[Read more…]

%d bloggers like this: