Tucker Carlson said, “I think its important to acknowledge a baseline and that is there have been an awful lot of attacks where actual people died in the United States and in Europe committed by people saying really clearly that we are acting in the name of Islam and other Muslims say you don’t act in my name and you’re perverting our religion or whatever but there’s still people who have killed a lot of other people in the name of Islam. So it’s not like some mass fantasy that law enforcement is acting out of. This is a real thing and I don’t understand why groups like yours won’t acknowledge the reality of that. Cuz it is there. It’s true.

Blair Imani responded, “I don’t understand why other groups won’t acknowledge that violence isn’t something that’s exclusive to the Muslim community.”

Carlson said, “No one is saying that.”

Imani said, “It’s not exclusive to Islam. It’s not exclusive to my religion, which is Islam but we see people being targeted in a way that’s extremely unfair. And we also have this rise of white supremacist and alt-right violence that’s being committed.”

Carlson said,“O spare me, I mean that’s too dumb.”

Imani said, “It’s happening. You can’t ignore that’s happening Tucker.”

And then Carlson said, “If you are reading Salon all day maybe you have been convinced of that but the truth is there are hard numbers kept by the U.S. government, maybe there in on this plot too, that show exactly the number of people who died and how in terror attacks in the United States. And the truth is there is no comparison. There actually is a problem with people self-identifying as Muslims murdering other people in the name of Islam. I don’t think you’re implicated in that and I’m not saying you are but I just don’t know why you’re not more upset at them. I’m an Episcopalian. If there are Episcopalians setting off bombs in the name of…”

Imani said, “I’m not saying that I’m not upset Tucker.”

Carlson said, “Ok, but what you are doing is coming on and lecturing the U.S. government for being racist and mean to Muslims. I understand but there’s a real problem in our community. We’re trying to do something about it but maybe you should stop surveilling us so much. That would be a fair thing to say. Instead it’s always the fault of the larger society and that’s just silly.”

So far, in our four part series called Racist Name Calling, we first identified this technique as a way to distract the public while either political Islamists or sneaky leftists move in and make their selfish grab for power—thoroughly illuminated the tactics of the left in part two and then defined the Islamic threat in part 3. In this fourth and final episode, we’ll explore the incompatibility of Shariah with Western law and further demonstrate why we should resist both Islam and leftism with everything in our civilized power. I’m Matt Tullar and here’s my opinion.


Ad will display in 09 seconds

While I have never been a practicing Jew nor Christian, I am a devoutly spiritual American, born and raised, who clearly understands not only the indispensable fundamental contributions of these two religions on American greatness but also the gross incompatibility of Shariah with the American way. It’s an unnecessary mistake for good kind Americans to think that either Islam or the left can significantly improve our culture or our time tested system of government. Most of their ideas are generally a bunch of dangerous nonsense. In spite of way too much socialism, we still have the greatest country and the greatest system ever and people who call us racist or claim the existence of shortcomings like systemic racism are not only wrong but also either ignorant or up to no good or both. Many Americans are well aware of that sage advice when you point a finger there are three fingers pointing back at you. Of course, the idea is to look within yourself for the faults before you start pointing them out in others. So beware of both the Islamist or the leftist who refuse to follow this advice as they fulfill their intention to destroy American liberty as we know it.

In a 2018 article titled “Sir Roger Scruton: How to Preserve Freedom in the West,” Rev. Ben Johnson writes, one of the leading philosophers of our time said Western culture will have to be handed down outside the ivory towers and college lecture halls. Scruton found the dissident, underground student communities of communist-dominated Europe had a greater thirst for truth and Western culture than their contemporaries in the politically correct West. Through accidental circumstances, he came to give underground lectures in Prague and other Soviet-dominated nations during the Cold War. His pupils, blacklisted from Marxist universities for refusing to countenance the regnant or predominate mythology of their society, huddled in little rooms, with the secret police standing outside the door, waiting to pounce at any moment. And pounce they sometimes did.

Scruton found himself detained and then expelled from Czechoslovakia in 1985, but Vaclav Havel, writer, former dissident, last President of Czechoslovakia and the first President of the Czech Republic awarded Scruton the nation’s Medal of Merit in 1998. Scruton said, “That was an extraordinary thing, to recognize that there really is such a thing as free inquiry. That is what leads to knowledge. The lesson of this for me is that real knowledge and real culture can be transmitted outside the universities, and must be transmitted outside the universities when the universities are in the control of the indoctrinating Left.”

Scruton said, “I’ve enjoyed the increasing certainty that there is a real distinction between true and fake knowledge, between truth and ideology, between the affirmation of an inheritance and resentment at one’s inability to receive it,” he said. “The culture, which has been entrusted to the universities to pass on is no longer passed on, because those charged with doing so no longer believe in it. The new curriculum is a curriculum of foregone conclusions, and amounts to nonsense. Nonsense is extremely useful, as I’m sure you’ve all realized, if you want to affect a major change in the culture,” he said. “If you’re speaking nonsense, nobody can correct you.” In a 2011 program on Youtube from Oslo, Norway titled Christianity versus Islam, Scruton delivers an accurate and robust assessment of the United States and a genuine appreciation for the real America.

Scruton said, “Of course they’re a new country with a kind of political religion. The Constitution settles everything for them. Of course it means that liberals and conservatives never agree as to what the Constitution actually says but they have that sort of a constant point of reference. So they’re used to settling even the most extraordinary disputes by reference to that thing and it’s made them much more adaptable to changes, demographic changes, changes in people’s outlook and beliefs and so on because they can say what it is. What an American is. They unroll the document and say it’s somebody who subscribes to this and so they have a very positive active concept of what it is to be an American, which includes all kinds of recent immigrants. They’ve never had, until recently, a culture of multiculturalism. On the contrary, you come here to be American. You take the oath and this is your flag now. This is what you believe and you’re gonna set about making a life for yourself in this soil and there’s always opportunities. Opinion polls say that something like 85 percent of Americans think that this is the great country. This is the place to be and that life is going well for me. So it’s a very different thing. I should think a similar poll among Europeans would be extremely gloomy but that’s not necessarily a bad thing you know but I don’t know whether that helps. I tell you one thing that immediately strikes. I’ve lived in rural America which is the real America for the last six years. The first thing that strikes you is that your neighbors are interested in you. They’re not going to interfere with you but they take immediate pleasure in your success. You know in Europe the attitude is the opposite and you know that is something that leads one to really to appreciate America.”

Scruton points out a major difference between Islam and Christianity where Christians are taught to respect secular law and Muslims are not. So for example, when the holy Muslim law or Shariah commands the faithful to execute homosexuals, cut off the hands of thieves, or to beat their wives for highhandedness then Muslims will feel justified in carrying out these punishments regardless of the conflict with secular law. While Christians in the same situation who may be equally disgusted by the immorality of homosexuals, the behavior of theft, or the disrespectful behavior of their wives will refrain from such harsh punishments exactly because they are taught to respect the secular law that does not allow it, to love they neighbor as thy self and to practice their habit of forgiveness.

Scruton said, “All these things have left an indelible mark on our conscience regardless of whether we count ourselves as believing Christians. In particular, we inherited not just the Christian religion but the morality, the customs, the law, and the political order, which Christianity produced and I think that is a really important fact that people tend to overlook. One of the many things that Christianity gave to us is the idea of secular law. As I say, a law, which attaches to the territory in which we live but is not a law laid down by God or punished by him for its transgression. It’s a law, which is man-made but of an authority that nevertheless religion acknowledges. This same point was made at the very beginning of the Christian faith by its founder in the famous parable of the tribute money in St. Matthew’s Gospel when Christ said render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s. In other words, obey the secular law in matters of shared jurisdiction and the day-to-day commerce but recognize that your soul nevertheless is owed to someone outside this world. That way Christ was able to draw attention to the fact that we must never let our religious principles invade the sphere of secular order to its cost.”

And then Scruton said, “The secular order is not only an achievement but a benefit to all of us provided of course it allows that sphere of private right in which we can pursue our own salvation and I think this is a very important point about the Christian faith, which distinguishes it obviously from the Muslim faith, which does not recognize a distinction between holy law and secular law and or least a distinction of validity. But it also points to the fact that our legal systems still contain within themselves some of the Christian morality and the Christian spiritual inheritance. And I think this is something that again one can talk about without closing discussion or making it a private property of people of Christian faith. Most Christian communities recognize that our religion is founded on very simple principles, the rule of neighborliness. The two commandments that Christ said contain all others within them. To love God entirely and to love your neighbor as yourself. The first of those concerns your spiritual well-being. The second concerns the moral order in which you exist in on earth and this loving your neighbor as yourself goes with a habit of forgiveness. We’re commanded to forgive the faults of others. To forgive the aggression that’s wielded against us and indeed the Lord’s Prayer tells us exactly that. We asked God to forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass against us. In other words if you want forgiveness then give it and that is an extremely important moral observation which lies at the heart of our civilization and is contained here in one way or another in the background conditions of our legal systems.”

And of course leftist who advocate atheism, have only relative morals instead of real morals based on the fear of god. Their “morals” can be easily reinterpreted to justify almost any desire and indulgence in many activities that have been until recently considered immoral for thousands of years. However, both Islamism and leftism want to bring down American so they can take over and dominate. And as a result, they purposely confuse many young people of course already confused naturally and searching for meaning in their life or something to fill an empty spiritual void with all kinds of dangerous nonsense.

Remember that classifying a society into the oppressor and the oppressed to advocate for struggle, liberation, and equality is exactly what communism is all about. Fueling the divide and conquer strategy of identity politics is part of the plan to take America down. Now try to imagine the incredibly twisted irony of a young confused homosexual woman who converts to an Islam, which commands homosexual execution, wife beating, and the jihadi murder of innocent nonbelievers who go on American television as a spokeswoman for Muslim safe spaces and the problem of violence against women. Well, meet Blair Imani, the executive director of Equality For Her and see if you can recognize any nonsense.

Tucker Carlson said, “You see what I mean?”

Imani said, “Fair. I think its ridiculous, the idea that we can’t have those safe spaces like we were saying is something that’s out of the question. The truth is that Muslims are being targeted in ways and truly there are other communities that need safe spaces. The LGBT community. The black community. There needs to be places where people are free from being harassed.”

Carlson said, “I’m not sure you are here to speak on their behalf, too. I feel like I’m harassed a lot, whatever. I guess we’re all victims here. Here’s the question. What would Muslims say in safe spaces they wouldn’t say in public do ya think?”

Imani responded “Well I don’t speak for all Muslims and I actually am a black queer woman in addition to being a Muslim. So from my own experience when I go to the airport and I go to untangle a pair of head phones and I get visited by somebody from TSA (Transportation Security Administration). It’s that type of thing. We have to look at the fact that it’s not necessarily inflammatory taint, it’s their intention.”

Carlson said, “So you would untangle headphones in a safe space? No, no this is a sincere question. You’re asking for someone, not you I guess, to pay for a safe space so people can say whatever they want and I want examples of the kind of thing that Muslims believe they could only say in a so-called safe space and could not say for example on this show or on a street corner. Like what kinds of things would they be saying in these safe spaces?”

And then Imani responded, “I don’t think it’s necessarily something they couldn’t say elsewhere but spaces have internal community dialogues. To be able to hash things out. To be able to have these complicated discussions. And something else I really want to be out in the forefront that the Islamic Counsel of Victoria has also done in collaboration with the board of Imams is speaking out against violence against women. These types of internal community dialogues acknowledging that there is an issue of violence against women. And that there needs to be more …”

Carlson said, “In Muslim communities there’s a problem of violence against women, eh?” Imani said “In all communities, there’s a problem against women. “ Carlson said ‘Have you noticed that all identity politics kind of converges in the end. So it’s not just about Muslims, it’s about the LGBT community, it’s about Black Lives Matter?” Imani said “Well some of us, like myself exist in all of those communities. It’s not identity politics when it’s your life.” Carlson said “Don’t you also think that primarily you’re an American. Aren’t we all first and foremost Americans?” Imani said “I’m black first.” Carlson said “End of conversation.”

“Why Shariah Is An Evil Abomination: These Reasons Go To Eleven”

Here in an abbreviated version of a 2007 godofreason.com article titled “Why Shariah Is An Evil Abomination: These Reasons Go To Eleven.”

Reason 11,”explains that very little has been written about the Arab involvement in slavery because traditional Islamic culture still condones it. The Shariah, the codified Islamic law, which is based upon the teachings and examples of Mohammad, contains explicit regulations for slavery. One of the primary principles of Islam is following the example of Mohammad. Whatever Mohammad did, we must do, what he forbade, we must forbid, what he did not forbid, we may not forbid. As Mohammad himself traded in and owned slaves, accumulating multiple wives, even marrying a six year old, and having concubines, slavery, and the sexual exploitation of women is deeply ingrained in Islamic tradition. Muslim nations engaged in the slave trade for over 600 years before Europe became involved in the Trans-Atlantic African slave trade.

Slavery continued in Islamic lands from about the beginning around 600 A.D. to this very day. Muslim slave owners were specifically entitled by Shariah to sexually exploit their slaves, including hiring them out as prostitutes. Muslim rulers always found support in the Quran to call ‘jihad,’ partly for plunder, partly for the purpose of taking slaves. As the Islamic empire disintegrated into smaller kingdoms, and each ruler was able to decide what Islam’s theology really meant. Usually, he always found it in support of whatever he wanted to do.

Reason 10. Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped.

Reason 9. Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives. Generally, Shariah restricts women’s social mobility and rights, the more closely Shariah is followed. For example, in conservative Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to drive cars. In Iran, a woman’s testimony counts half that of a man, and far more women than men are stoned to death for adultery.

Reason 8. Islam allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge, physical eye for physical eye. In 2003, in Saudi Arabia a man had two teeth extracted under the law of retaliation. In 2003, a court in Pakistan sentenced a man to be blinded by acid after he carried out a similar attack on his fiancé. In 2005, an Iranian court orders a man’s eye to be removed for throwing acid on another man and blinding him in both eyes.

Reason 7. Islam commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off. This punishment is prescribed in the Quran, the eternal word of Allah. It does not exist only in the fevered imagination of a violent and sick radical regime like the Taliban. A Saudi cleric also justifies chopping off hands.

Reason 6. Islam commands that highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated. In 2002 Amnesty International reports that even though Saudi Arabia ratified the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in October 1997, amputation is still prescribed and Amnesty International has recorded forty-two amputations and two crucifixions in the last twenty years. It may be difficult to accept, but the Hadith says that Muhammad tortured these next people before he executed them. This scenario provides the historical context of Sura 5:33. Some people came to the Prophet and embraced Islam as they had turned renegades reverting from Islam and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away. The Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they died.

Reason 5. Islam commands that homosexuals must be executed. In its 1991 Constitution, Iran adopted the punishment of execution for sodomy. In April 2005, a Kuwaiti cleric says homosexuals should be thrown off a mountain or stoned to death. On April 7, 2005, it was reported that Saudi Arabia sentenced more than 100 men to prison or flogging for ‘gay conduct.’ These homosexuals were lucky. Early Islam would have executed them.

Reason 4. Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death.

During a 2017 U.S. Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing, Ayaan Hirsi Ali said, “Thank you for this opportunity to talk to you about a threat that’s endangering our Constitution, our freedoms and our way of life. Clearly, not all Muslims pose a threat but some do. How can we tell the difference? We can, by understanding the nature of Islam. Islam is part religion and part a political military doctrine. The part that is a political doctrine consists of a world view, a system of laws and a moral code that is totally incompatible with our constitution, our laws, and our way of life. In 2017, there are two major governments that apply Islamic law or Shariah, Saudi Arabia and Iran. As we sit here, we are also fighting a rogue entity that goes by the name of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or ISIS. ISIS implement Shariah in the most extreme or most pure form. Islamic law as practiced in these places negates secular law and demands submission to the ruler without question. Women are subordinate to men and are denied such basic rights as owning their own bodies and sexuality. They face discrimination in marriage, inheritance, and custody. Victims of rape must produce four witnesses and if they don’t many are flogged or stoned to death. Religious minorities are subject to second-class citizen existence. There’s the death penalty for homosexuals and apostates. There are no checks and balances and no free and impartial courts. There’s no rule of law. Dissent is brutally suppressed.”

Reason 3. Islam orders death for Muslim and possible death for non-Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even Shariah itself. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeni said, “An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam.” In 1989, he issued a fatwa or legal decree to assassinate Salman Rushdie, a novelist, who wrote Satanic Verses, which includes questions about the angel Gabriel’s role in inspiring the Quran. In 2007, the extremists in the highest levels in Iran renewed the fatwa.

In 2005, British Muslims campaigned to pass a religious hate speech law in England’s Parliament and succeeded. Their ability to propagandize has not been curtailed. Opponents of the law said that it stifles free speech that may criticize Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam. Here are the classical legal rulings. First, the Muslim deserves death for doing any of the following.

(1) Reviling Allah or his Messenger; or being sarcastic about ‘Allah’s name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat’; (2) Denying any verse of the Quran or ‘anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it’; or holding that ‘any of Allah’s messengers or prophets are liars. (3) Reviling the religion of Islam; or being sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law; or denying that Allah intended ‘the Prophet’s message to be the religion followed by the entire world.

It is no wonder that critical investigation of the true claims of Islam can never prevail in Islamic lands when the sword of Muhammad hangs over the scholars’ head. The non-Muslims living under Islamic rule are not allowed to do the following. Commit adultery with a Muslim woman or marry her; conceal spies of hostile forces; lead a Muslim away from Islam; or mention something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet or Islam. According to the discretion of the caliph or his representative, the punishments for violating these rules are as follows: Release without paying anything, or ransoming in exchange for money, or enslavement or death. Reason 2. Islam orders apostates to be killed. Apostates are those who leave Islam, like Salman Rushdie, whether they become atheists or convert to another religion. They are supposed to be killed according to the Quran, the Hadith, and later legal rulings.

Reason 1. Islam commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad. In the 10 years that Muhammad lived in Medina until his death of a fever in A.D. 632, he either sent out or went out on 74 raids, expeditions, or full scale wars. They range from small assassination hit squads to kill anyone who insulted him, to the Tabuk Crusades in late A.D. 630 against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a rumor that an army was mobilizing to invade Arabia, but the rumor was false, so his 30,000 jihadi returned home, but not before imposing a tax on northern Christians and Jews. In this case and in many throughout history, money flowed into the Islamic treasury. Here are some of the legalized rules of jihad found in the Quran, Hadith, and classical legal opinions.

(1) Women and children are enslaved. They can either be sold, or the Muslims may ‘marry’ the women, since their existing marriages are automatically annulled upon their capture. Jihadi may have sex with slave women. Ali, Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, did this. Women and children must not be killed during war, unless this happens in a nighttime raid when visibility was low. However, old men and monks could be killed. (2) A captured enemy of war could be killed, enslaved, ransomed for money or exchanged, freely released, or beaten. One time Muhammad even tortured a citizen of the city of Khaybar in order to extract information about where the wealth of the city was hidden.

(3) Enemy men who converted could keep their property and small children. This law is so excessive that it amounts to forced conversion. Only the strongest of the strong could resist this coercion and remain a non-Muslim. Meanwhile, civilian property may be confiscated and homes and fruit trees may be destroyed. (4) Pagan Arabs had to convert or die. People of the Book, Jews and Christians, had three options: fight and die; convert and pay a forced ‘charity’ tax; or keep their Biblical faith and pay a poll tax. The last two options mean that money flows into the Islamic treasury.

Thus, jihad is aggressive, coercive, and excessive, and Allah never revealed to Muhammad to stop these practices. Therefore, Islam is unjustly and aggressively violent and Shariah oppresses the citizens of Islamic countries.

Tags: Categories: Opinion