Monthly Archives: March 2017

An Open Letter to MP’s on Motion M-103


Dear Sir/Madam:

 Parliament’s passing Motion M-103 should shield Muslims from present and future Kaffir criticism (or even informed discussion) of Islam.  But while present and future are here covered, the Motion fails to address dangers from the past; a situation clearly requiring a follow-up Motion, one ensuring that public and university libraries, book depositories, and so on, remove from their shelves, and burn, all works in which sentiments liable to cause offence such as the following are to be found:

 From William Ewart Gladstone, nineteenth century Prime Minister of Great Britain: 

             ‘The Qur’an . . . an accursed book.  So long as there is this book there will be no peace in the world.’

       From Alexis de Tocqueville: 

              ‘I studied the Quran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad.’

       And Sir Winston Churchill: 

  ‘How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on it votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.’

       And John Quincy Adams, America’s most scholarly President, who studied Islam in depth:

              ‘He [Muhammad] poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. The essence of his doctrine was violence and lust; to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature. . . . As the essential principle of this faith is the subjugation of others by the sword, it is only by force, that his false doctrines can be dispelled, and his power annihilated.’

      And this from eighteenth century Scottish philosopher, David Hume: 

              ‘Let us attend to his narration [Muhammad’s in the Koran]; and we shall soon find, that he bestows praise on such instances of treachery, inhumanity, cruelty, revenge, bigotry, as are utterly incompatible with civilized society. No steady rule of right seems there to be attended to; and every action is blamed or praised, so far only as it is beneficial or hurtful to the true believers.’

       And British philosopher, Bertrand Russell: 

               ‘Mohammedanism [is] practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of the world. It was the duty of the faithful to conquer as much of the world as possible for Islam . . . the motive of their conquests was plunder and wealth rather than religion.’

        And nineteenth century novelist and historian, Thomas Carlyle: 

              ‘I must say it [the Koran] is as toilsome reading as I ever undertook. A wearisome confused jumble, crude, incondite; endless iterations, long-windedness, entanglement . . . insupportable stupidity, in short! Nothing but a sense of duty could carry any European through the Koran. . . . The man was an uncultured semi-barbarous Son of Nature, much of the Bedouin still clinging to him.’

        And twentieth century  philosopher and social scientist Anthony Flew:

             ‘ I would never never regard Islam with anything but horror and fear because it is fundamentally committed to conquering the world for Islam.’

        And Voltaire:

              ‘But that a camel-merchant should stir up insurrection in his village; that in league with some miserable followers he persuades them that he talks with angel Gabriel; that he boasts of having been carried to heaven, where he received in part this unintelligible book, each page of which makes common sense shudder; that, to pay homage to his book, he delivers his country to iron and flame; that he cuts the throats of fathers and kidnaps daughters; that he gives to the defeated the choice of his religion or death: this is assuredly nothing any man can excuse, at least if he was not born a Turk, or if superstition has not extinguished all natural light in him.’

        And the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer:

              ‘Consider the Koran, for example; this wretched book was sufficient to start a world-religion, to satisfy the metaphysical need of countless millions for twelve hundred years, to become the basis of their morality and of a remarkable contempt for death, and also to inspire them to bloody wars and the most extensive conquests. In this book we find the saddest and poorest form of theism. Much may be lost in translation, but I have not been able to discover in it one single idea of value.’ 

 These are just a few examples, from the rich store of past Kaffir opinions of Islam. The cleanup will be demanding, when the the new Motion passes; but I suppose those keen on anti-Islamophobia may be counted on to bend over backwards in the cause.

 Yours truly,

If I’m Islamophobic, what’s my punishment by Tarek Fatah

Here is my question to MP Khalid, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Ahmed Hussen, and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau:

Am I indulging in “Islamophobia” if I publicly choose to dissociate myself from these two verses of the Qur’an – Qur’an (5:33) and Qur’an (8:12)?

So, am I an “Islamophobe” for discarding these passages in the Qur’an, MP Khalid? What punishment do I deserve, Minister Hussen? As for you, Prime Minister Trudeau … oh, never mind.

Urgent Messages to the Muslim World

Tough love is badly needed when dealing with the Muslim world. We must say: No, we cannot accept your jihadist aspirations. We cannot accept you forcing your way of life on the world; your way of life is unacceptable to us. Before you send your refugees, you must end your “us against them” jihadist culture. The civilized world no longer finds your aspirations for an Islamic Caliphate tolerable.

If the West has the courage to do that, perhaps one day history will attribute the reformation of Muslim world partly to strength and conviction of Western resolve against tyranny and human suffering.

The Civil War is Here

The left is a treasonous movement. The Democrats became a treasonous organization when they fell under the sway of a movement that rejects our system of government, its laws and its elections. Now their treason is coming to a head. They are engaged in a struggle for power against the government. That’s not protest. It’s not activism. The old treason of the sixties has come of age. A civil war has begun.

This is a primal conflict between a totalitarian system and a democratic system. Its outcome will determine whether we will be a free nation or a nation of slaves.

Muslim Brotherhood Front Group Seeking Removal of Listing as a “Terrorism Entity” by Thomas Quiggin

The application for judicial review made by IRFAN and Majid also attempts to distance themselves from the Muslim Brotherhood. This seems a bit difficult. Hamas itself was founded as the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, according to Article Two of the Hamas Charter. This support for Hamas goes back to at least 1992.

Keep religion out of Canadian schools

As far as religious freedom goes, the laws need to explicitly define the realm of religious freedom. While all religions should be treated equally and fairly, religion should remain a matter of personal domain and no exemptions or accommodations should be allowed in any public educational institution. Students should be free to wear whatever they want, eat and believe whatever they want and practice whatever religion they want, but in no way should that mean a systemic accommodation. If students want religious education, they have the freedom to go to a church, mosque, synagogue or temple, and even their own home, but schools should remain non-religious institutions. This would not be a ruling against people of faith, but simply a rule that keeps Canadian society and values equitable and above everything else.

Islam and the Jihad in London It’s not non-Western. It’s anti-Western.

There is diversity in Islam, including millions of Muslims who adhere only to its spiritual elements or see themselves as more culturally than doctrinally Islamic. But when we speak of Islam, as opposed to Muslims, we are not speaking about a mere religious belief system. We are talking about a competing civilization — that is very much how Islam self-identifies. It has its own history, principles, values, mores, and legal system. Islam, thus understood, is not non-Western. It is anti-Western.