My Opinion

nothing but my opinion

Imams in Denmark are open calling Muslims to murder

If you religion teaches you to kill someone than you need to change your religion or start with yourself!

Imam Abu Bilal Ismail open called in Denmark the stoning of women who commit fornication. (Screenshot: YouTube/MEMRITVVideos)

The research of "Mosques behind the veil" ensures fierce reactions in Denmark. The television channel TV2 has recorded with hidden cameras several events in the Grimhøj mosque. The mosque is in Aarhus, the second largest city in the country, and their imams openly calling the believers to murder.

"Women who commit fornication must be put to death if they are no longer virgins," said Imam Abu Bilal Ismail. If they were still virgins, it is enough to whip them out. Even converts who turn away from Islam would have to be killed.

The problem is only that what this idiot speaks is against the law from the European countries. If one of his believers is following him then he will end up for the rest of his life in jail. In this case even not Allah is not able to help him because the local law is the primary law on which he get sentenced.

At another meeting in the mosque, women, learn what they should do with their children if they are disobedient and not want to pray. "Fear of Allah" is good for the little ones, says Imam Abu Bilal Ismail.

A woman asks him how to beat her child best. In no case too hard, so the Imam. Children's bones could break faster. It is also not allowed to throw children "on the wall" or "cut them with a knife". The children were beaten for training purposes and not for the sake of violence.

He is again ignoring the European law, because you are not allowed to beat your children. If the authorities get it that you are beating your children then your children get taken away from you and you'll end up in front of a law court. Again your religious believes will not be able to help you, because the law of the nation comes before any religious believes. You'll see your children never again in such a case. So why shall you follow such idiots? If you follow their instructions you'll get into troubles and the idiotic imam will laugh about you.

"I have the greatest pleasure to raze the Grimhøj mosque to the ground", the newspaper Berliner Morgenpost quoted the civil integration Minister, Inger Støjberg. However, it would be legally difficult. In addition, these Muslims would then simply continue underground.

According to Danish law, preachers of violence can not be expelled from the country and mosques can not be closed, even if they spread popular incitements like the Grimhøj Mosque.

More than 50 percent of the Danes are against Muslim immigrants. During the last EU elections, they made the country's strongest political force, the Danish People's Party.

The Imams from Aarhus defend their violence messages. According to Sharia law, stoning and flogging are permitted. Measures, on the other hand, were a repression of religious freedom which was unconstitutional.

In 2014, the Grimhøj Mosque in Aarhus expressed its support for the Islamic State (IS) fighters. And Imam Abu Bilal Ismail has prayed to Allaah in 2014 for the destruction of the Jews to Allah: "Count them and kill them to the very last one."

 

Dr. Saleh al-Saabdoon declares all Muslims to be rapists

Saleh al-SaabdoonThe western world has long been presumed that Muslims are rapists. The percentage of rape increases with the increase of Muslim refugees in the Western world. Now the suspicion got confirmed by the historian Dr. Saleh al-Saabdoon. He tried to justify the nation's ban on female drivers. He said during a TV interview given at the Saudi Rotana Khalijiyya TV that women who drive in other countries, such as the United States, don't care if they're raped and that sexual violence "is no big deal to them."

Saleh al-Saadoon claimed in the interview that women can be raped when a car breaks down, but unlike other countries, Saudi Arabia protects its women from that risk by not allowing them to drive in the first place, according to a translation posted online by the Middle East Media Research Institute.

The intelligence of the historian Dr. Saleh al-Saabdoon seems to be awesome and reflects the education system from the Muslim Universities and countries. He even did not think about it that women can get raped from their drivers too. Asked about this fact he replied: "There is a solution, but the authorities and the clergy refuse to take a note of it. The solution is to hire foreign women drivers for driving our women.". With other words: Only the driving woman will get raped and not the female passenger. Oh Lord, please let brain raining from the sky.

Saudi Historian Dr. Saleh Al-Saadoon at Rotana Khalijiyya TV (Saudi Arabia) January 11, 2015:

Saleh Al-Saadoon: Women used to ride camels, so one might ask what prevents them from driving cars. In Saudi Arabia, we have special circumstances. The city of Arar is 150 km away from Al-Jawf. From Al-Awf to Al-Ha'il it is 400 km. If a woman drives from one city to another and her car breaks down, what will become of her?

Reporter: Well, women drive in America, in Europe, and in the Arab world…

Saleh Al-Saadoon: They don't care if they are raped on the roadside, but we do…

Reporter: Hold on, who told you that they don't care about getting raped by the roadside?

Saleh Al-Saadoon: It's no big deal for them beyond the damage to their morale. In our case, however, the problem is of a social and religious nature.

Reporter: What is rape if not a blow to the morale of the woman? That goes deeper than the social damage.

Saleh Al-Saadoon: But in our case, it affects the family …

Reporter: What, society and the family are more important than the woman’s morale?

Saleh Al-Saadoon: Perhaps morale is part of the problem, but it is not the problem itself. There is also the religious aspect. I will give you two examples …

Reporter: The other guests appear to be in shock …

Saleh Al-Saadoon: Well, they should listen to me and get used to what society thinks. If they are really so out of touch with it …

Reporter: You are afraid that a woman might be raped by the roadside by soldiers, but you are not afraid that she might be raped by her chauffeur?

Saleh Al-Saadoon: Of course I am. There is a solution, but the government officials and the clerics refuse to hear of it.

Reporter: What is this solution?

Saleh Al-Saadoon: The solution is to bring in female foreign chauffeurs to drive our wives. Why not? Why not? Are you with me on this?

Such men can only get married with children. Normal thinking women would not chose them as their husband. These kind of men are simple too stupid for everything. Accordingly was the reaction of the international press and there was a recent interview about the international reactions:

Reporter: A few days ago, about a month after the interview, excerpts from the interview appeared in Western and European media and other outlets. The international press published detailed excerpts in various languages. Why did the interview raise such a great uproar, and how does Dr. Al-Saadoon respond to the international media coverage of his views on women's driving?

Saleh Al-Saadoon: [The media's response to what I said] was a surprise by any standard. I was especially surprised by the false translation. This was not an objective translation or a simple mistake. This was a deliberate and methodical falsification. I don't know if…

Reporter: How can you talk about falsification? They presented a video excerpt, not just something written. What was written was a detailed translation of the interview.

Saleh Al-Saadoon: They translated what I said. As you recall, sister Nadeen, we talked, but I did not say: "Women who drive cars do not care about being raped." The Daily Mail, for example, wrote: "A Saudi historian says that American women drive cars because rape is no big deal for them." This is not what I said.

I explained that they have no problem [with rape] from the religious and social aspects. Their problem is limited to their morale and to psychological aspects. I continue to maintain this. Western women are liberal. They are not governed by Christianity. They do not believe in Christianity.

Unless they are old, Western women are usually not religious – except for a handful of women who go proselytizing in Africa.

According to Islamic scholars, women are forbidden to ride in a taxi driven by a foreigner. If she does so, and the driver kidnaps and rapes her, she will be partially responsible, because she exposed herself to danger.

This is not my view. I'm just telling you the view of society. Don't blame me for conveying the views of 80% of Arab and Islamic society.

Reporter: Some people turn the victim into the criminal, but these views do not represent 80% of us.

Saleh Al-Saadoon: Many Saudis, Arabs, and Muslims hold this view – regardless of whether it is 70% or 90%.

As the reporter has been a woman does it look like the Muslim men have a defect in their gens. As soon as their little man is standing the body has not enough blood to serve their brain, but we know that the education in the Muslim countries has no quality. They are still at stone-age level as their law, the Sharia, reflects this impression too. Such people cannot get taken serious as long such stupidity does not get replaced from a little bit intelligence.

Here is another video in reaction to the interview above:

Transcription from the video:

Order Mad as Hell on iTunes Available now Now this story is atrocious in a lot of ways but it does have a funny element because the guy talking here what the Saudis call a historian and he's going to talk about why women are not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia and why they are allowed to drive in West and that's the most interesting part so the middle east media research institute reported this and the Huffington Post wrote about it recently.

His name Saleh al-Saabdoon and he claimed in a recent TV interview that women can be raped when a car breaks down but unlike other countries Saudi Arabia protects its women from that risk by not allowing them to drive in the first place. Oh that's why they can't drive cause if they drove there's a tiny percentage change that they would break down and then they would obviously be immediately raped so here is Saleh al-Saaboon Saudi historian explain the phenomena to us. He says about the westerners they don't care if they are raped on the roadside but we do. OK I was not aware of that but he is a historian so it's hard to argue he says it's no big deal for them beyond the damage to their moral in our cause. However the problem is of a social and religious nature. Isn't that amazing? Man he's saying like oh you got raped. I mean for the western women it's just a moral problem right, but for us it's also a religious problem. So it's much more serious. That's not really how I view rape. I think is the serious part you're religious views about it is a little less important but obviously he doesn't view it that way and even the anchors and one of them was a female anchors covered her head and was like oh my god what do you say? That's cause you can't really justify not allowing women to drive. It makes no sense. Whatsoever right so you have to come up with nonsense things like this. Oh yeah no no western women rape is no big deal to them. So now let's be fair to the guy he apparently did have a solution, because you know one of the anchors asked him. They said well what their male tribers rape. Good question. OK there is a solution but the government officials and the clerics refuse to hear of it. The solution is to bring in foreign chauffeurs to drive our wives. I don't know why I didn't think of that before. They how do you give women more rights give them female chauffeurs of course. Isn't this insane this is one of the top allies of the United States of America that we protect these guys to no end the ISIS they do beheadings so do the Saudis oh Iraq they did 9/11 no they didn't 17 out of the 19 high jackers were Saudis and you have people like this Saudi historian talking about why you should never let women drive and the only reason westerners do is because they don't mind the rape. OK by the way if women do drive what's the punishment. Well Saudi women face serious penalties if they are caught driving including lashing. So get a lot of this their idea of how to protect women. Is we don't want you to get raped. So if you drive we will beat you with a whip. We'll whip you. OK and it's not theoretical right. Now two women who defined the ban on driving last year, Loujain al-Hathloul and Maysa al-Amoundi, who by the way are amazing heroes are being tried in a court that handles terror cases but that is fitting cause for the Saudi royals and the government and the people in power in Saudi Arabia. That is what strikes terror in their hearts a liberated woman. On the lighter side of things we did find the exchange with Saudi government of the issue of women driving and other rights. They might have and this a Young Turks exclusive. So we want to show it to you so you can judge for yourself if Ferengi females could wear cloths in public then they can leave their homes. If they can leave their homes then they can go to work. If they go work they can make profit. What's the matter? Quark afraid of a little competition? OK that might not have been the Saudis, but the Saudis do make similar claims as the Ferengi that the rest of us humans shamelessly cloth our women and want the other to unclothe them. Isn't it sad that there is a legitimate comparison between the Saudis and the Ferengi.

 

"Allahu akbar" - and what an unbeliever thinks about it

KaabaI can understand how bad it must be for a peace-loving, believer when murdered somewhere in the world in the name of his god. "Allahu akbar" means "God is great" and is simply an act of faith, which probably pronounce every Muslim at prayer or at different occasions.

Every time a suicide bomber calls "Allahu akbar!" before he ignites his explosive belt or with the machete man starts, like a stitch must for a believer feel the heart. One harmless but important religious phrase is robbed the innocence, it is made to their war cry. The situation is already as bad as you cannot bring the sentence itself, without getting suspicious.

If you once whisper innocently "Allahu akbar" in the tram, bus or at a public place, all the bystanders wince overlook a suspiciously or take even panicky flight. No, it cannot be pleasant. Probably wants to be on some days when ruling on all channels the terrorist messages prefer crawl home.

I can also understand how much it must annoy a peace-loving, devout Muslim, to be pushed back again and again after each attempt to distance himself from the assassins. "Well, what do you say?", You will probably demand a challenging tone several times a day - from close friends as well as by casual acquaintances, in the work break in the cafeteria, in the school yard and on Facebook.

So, as if you are related to the terrorists, like as if one had only yesterday phoned them or as it is otherwise responsible somehow for the behavior of wild strangers. I can understand why the questions getting asked. Why should have a devout Muslim to violence a different opinion as a devout Christian, a staunch atheist or else a normal sentient human? Assuming that not already the question is from a kind which makes a Muslim co-responsibility and pushes him accusingly in a corner from which it is hard to disentangle, without getting moral scratches?

What I completely cannot understand is that not much more vigorously defend the million peace-loving, righteous, devout Muslims throughout the world against what terrorists do with their faith.

I imagine ungodly before, strange guys would kidnap my God, in his alleged order to commit the most atrocious crimes, they would all that I hold sacred twist, pervert and abuse for their own destructive purposes and then then even claim they have the for "all Muslims", i.e. done for me - then you can make it happen without objection that yet! If one has because if one is a believer, not the heartfelt desire to take his God in protection?

Will you not defend your God against his perverted fans? Is it not necessary to protect your God and his name against the murders and rapists? Why are you allowing to burn down in his name? "Nobody kills in my name!", takes a stand on the banners that Muslims around the world millions of times held in the height (at least where it is safe to do so). "Our God is not your God!", would preachers, politicians, scholars or other tribunes call the IS. Or: "You are not Muslims!"

People of faith will not do all this to make themselves popular to unbelievers or distance themselves from their God. They would do it because their God and their religion would be so important for them. Are people not only using their religion for their own purpose if they are not distance themselves from terrorists and criminals? Which value has the religion really for such people? Which value can have a religion with such a kind of followers? Who will trust into the teachings from such a religion? Isn’t it a nice kind of promotion for a religion?

But perhaps all that follows merely a logic that can occur only from an unbeliever…

 

The true face of Facebook

Facebook CensorshipRegularly hear the accusation that Facebook practicing censorship. This is not about racism or incitement to violence. But practice to blocked profiles of persons criticism of Islam or immigration policy. Or to certain visual content, such as to the body, which are displayed in the "extremely adverse" way: So Facebook founded in May 2016, the deletion of a photograph with the obese US model Tess Holliday, who had campaigned for bikinis in oversize.

Facebook as an aesthetic education police? The social network as a machine which controls our perception, programmed by social engineers with connections to the elite of our countries? One is not paranoid if one sees Facebook as a global media power - at its 1.6 billion users. What allows this platform or not, democracy and cultural policy relevance.

Algorithms shape our perception long, and when the blocking of certain views or aesthetic variations to come, vigilance is required. Whether it is a cartoon of the "New Yorker", which was censored in 2012, because the nipples of a woman could be seen. Or to a Russian photo with kissing homosexuals that had to disappear along with a Turkish side that showed images of the Prophet Muhammad after the attack on the satirical magazine "Charlie Hebdo".

Or the latest example from Germany: The Catholic theologian and Islam critic David Berger commented after the assassination of Orlando critical of Islam, after his side was blocked. Berger told a Christian media magazine: "In Orlando a fanatical Islamist directed a bloodbath among gays, and Facebook disables users who criticize the Islamism." And further: "was the Inquisition compared to Facebook, a refuge of fairness and justice.”

Bergers reaction is understandable but exaggerated. There are no pyres for uncomfortable users. Also you can Facebook no homophobia or pro-Islam policy reproach. Rather, it seems as if depending on the country just a certain mainstream preferred. In the US and in Europe Facebook promotes integration devout views that want to provoke any division among Muslims in the West, no matter how many deaths the last stop cost. One preferred images that speak for a productive public health and obesity. And of course favored Facebook "pro choice" and "pro gay", including nearly 100 gender options offered to us the network gender conformity.

It should be clear that everything that disturbs here disappears from the platform.

No, this is not a conspiracy. Facebook shows its true face, ironically against the initial vision. Mark Zuckerberg sought a platform to show the human face. He wanted the "Face" of our world, to share around the globe hopes, beliefs or concerns. Now it becomes clear: on Facebook man should not show his true colors, because it is in the end not to the people but to support and projection of very specific ideas and interests.

This makes Facebook a reflection of today's society, which constantly motivates us, corrected and optimized. The ideal of the present: the voluntary self-exploitation. The productive psyche from the creative team of the company. It should be clear that everything that disturbs here - too personal, too bulky to integration critically - disappears from the platform. And not just from Facebook. There we find it easy even to, at least temporarily.