Everyone remembers the puzzlement over the poster that appeared first in Winchester, Massachusetts in mid-September, and then in many other places in North America and Europe. It read simply: “Islam is RIGHT about women.” There was considerable consternation. Some thought it might have been put up by a Muslim, in which case it would have been acceptable, even admirable, and the message perfectly correct; others thought it might have been put up by someone sarcastically endorsing the misogyny of Islam, and in that case, it would have been intolerable, “racist” and “islamophobic.”
But what was most welcome was the discussion that the poster prompted, for it gave people a reason to talk and argue about the position of women in Islam, to bring to bear all they knew about it, including such things as the right of Muslim men to “beat” their wives if they merely suspected them of disobedience, to “manage their affairs” because “Allah has made the one superior to the other,” to practice polygyny, to obtain a divorce simply by uttering the triple-talaq. A daughter ordinarily inherits half that of a son. And a woman’s testimony is worth only half that of a man, which Muhammad himself explained was justified because of the “deficiency of her – woman’s – intelligence.” All of this can be adduced in the most outwardly amiable way, in a kind of youth-wants-to-know spirit, in order to disarm Muslim defenders of the faith. And those who listen in on such conversations, live or online, will come away with an understanding of that Islamic misogyny that Muslims would prefer be kept undiscussed.
There are many other posters that might be put up, not to offer a puzzlement that prompts discussion, but simply to familiarize people with the most disturbing parts of the Qur’an, one verse at a time. Here are some possibilities that come swimmingly to mind:
2:191. And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-al-Haram, unless they fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.
3:151 We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with Allah, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Zalimun [evildoers]
4:89. They wish that you reject Faith, as they have rejected (Faith), and thus that you all become equal. So take not Auliya’ (protectors or friends) from them, till they emigrate in the Way of Allah. But if they turn back (from Islam), take (hold) of them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither Auliya’ (protectors or friends) nor helpers from them.
5:51: “O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.”
8:12: Your Lord inspired the angels: I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes…
9:5: Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then kill the Mushrikun [wrong-doers]wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform Salat, and give Zakat, then leave their way free. [for they have become Muslims]
47:4. So, when you meet those who disbelieve, smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly.
98:6: Surely the vilest of beings in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve.
These are a mere handful, a kind of starter kit, of the verses that could be made into legible posters, with large easy-to-read-from-afar letters, to be placed on utility poles, trees, bulletin boards – wherever it will do the most good. The sura and ayat should come after the verse.
Thus:
Your Lord inspired the angels: I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes… (Quran 8:12)
So, when you meet those who disbelieve, smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly. (Qur’an 47:4)
And a few quotes from the Hadith could be put on a single poster, such as the following:
Muhammad said: “War is deceit.” (Sahih Bukhari, 52:269)
Muhammad said: “I have been made victorious through terror.” (Sahih Bukhari, 4:52:220)
Let’s see what can come of these conversation pieces. Go ahead. It’s worth a try.
Kenek says
Without the votes of western feminazias, the death cult of islam would not be infecting the western world today. Giving women the right to vote equally with men (without taking any responsibility for the country) was the beginning of the end for the western world. Women are 100% responsible for the sharia law that will soon rule the western world. Islam is right about women. They are selfish, arrogant, entitled, non-contributers(other than making babies-assuming they do not abort them) , and should not be treated as adults.
somehistory says
The only people who are likely to agree with you on this site are moslims. That puts you in great company. May as well convert and be done with it.
Eur says
you are a sad and self-conscious person. Women are the most beautiful thing in creation and of course they must have the right to vote, to preside over companies, to run countries … one of the problems of the West has been not knowing how to reconcile the incorporation of the Women to the labor world with maternal needs. The message that Western women have received over decades has been that they had to give up motherhood in order to develop their professional and personal facet. Now we find that Western women cannot and do not want to be mothers and who will fill that demographic gap? The women of an ultra patriarchal and autotitarian civilization such as the Islamic one. It is sad but the West will disappear because it does not want to continue having babies.
revereridesagain says
Now we are being told that we MUST be both individual human beings with rights AND mommies As The Good Book Sez! Islamic men will break our bodies, but you Christian men will break our hearts. Which does not matter, because you do not care.
gravenimage says
Not all or even many Christian men are like this, luckily.
Jean (old) says
Kenek
Yes, it would, because islam is here in response to a spiritual vacuum. Westerners lost their faith in the Christian God during the two world wars, this is the real problem. It is a fatal disease if not cured, and it reveals itself in many spiritual deformations (multiple forms of self-harm and death-wishes) of which femarxism is one example, and your embittered comment another.
Also, consider your own words: If your position is that women are 100% responsible, it follows that men are 0% responsible. Is that a realistic view of things?
The strength of the West has always been productive cooperation, including between the sexes. You should not believe the feminist myth that only men have responsibility for our common past. Women have had a huge influence on Western history, To mention just one example: Christianity. It was to a large extent spread by women during the first centuries… so much so that Christians were ridiculed in the entire Ancient world for it.
Jesus started this trend by treating women as adults to the enormous surprise of all around him. The benefits of this attitude have been indescribable. To the culture as a whole, mind you, not just to women. Much of our succes in building free and prosperous nations rests exactly on the supposition that each individual has a conscience and therefore a personal moral responsibility. Makes people do their best.
Islam lacks that supposition, and look where it got them.
Islam is wrong about humans, about animals (esp. dogs and pigs), and about God.
gravenimage says
Looks as if Kenek should convert to Islam now–he certainly agrees with Muslims’ views of women.
Note, too, that he doesn’t believe that women contribute anything other than making babies–also the Muslim view.
Dry Academy says
Kenek is Manosphere scum. They are the lowest of the low. Mindless cult members who spout the same sick propaganda of Roosh the Rapist and the morbidly obese fraud Matt Forney. And yes, they are Islamic to the core when it comers to women. Most of them are angry nerds who are unattractive to women and adopt the depraved Manosphere philosophy as a way of getting revenge. They are just like the hateful troll in a fairy tale who is seething with rage because the beautiful princess loves the handsome prince and not him. Sick freaks.
gravenimage says
Sounds like it…
Naildriver says
I don’t think it’d make a person a Islamic devotee to have a harsh opinion of women in general, in connection to our country’s foreign policy with Muslim countries and Islam in particular, any more than the promotion of violence against Islamic entities and their supporters would be hypocricy; such that a person of such thinking ought to just join Islamic ranks.
Nor would a man who’d vote to have male elements or even have polygamous privilege.
I concur such people are usually repugnant, but in our collective opposition to Islam, the focus should be upon Islam as the enemy, not the petty personal opinions from different sexual, ethnic or religious backgrounds. For example a Mormon’s idiotic religion — with repugnant foundations similar to Islam isn’t our enemy. As Mormons have a serious interest in preventing millions of Muslims flooding into our country as they will be perhaps more a target of Islam’s devotees than other groups owing to its preposterous claims of Smith and latter day saints.
Sexists as above are not a product of Islam but often far right Christian thinking — and not being but a century since women have achieved the rights from such thinking they are not going away as its still in the fabric of their Christian upbringing.
The real danger is Mormons, Christian fundamentalists etc become unified with Islamic devotees against those who are non religious, athiestic, or even agnostic — so as to pass laws that protects Islam along with fanatical non sense — as is seen now in Europe that erodes our Constitutional freedoms of speech. Islam of course, would be the only real Victor in such a rapproachment.
The above vilified guy does have a point if one looks at voting trends from women voters and gays.
Simply astonishing results have resulted from predation upon naive and mentally sensitive voters, such as the Obama presidency and these recent Muslim additions to Congress from a liberal women’s voting block.
gravenimage says
If a person has Islamic views on women, I see no reason that he should not convert to Islam. He will never be happy in the free west.
And luckily, most Christian fundamentalists are not allying with Islam–although there are some, who are just impressed with Muslims being “religious”, without ever asking what that means for devout Muslims.
Naildriver says
I disagree, Islam is not ok, Graven — I would never encourge anyone to convert to it, even with scorn. That was my point.
There are other evils in the world, but Islam is among the worst; and, for humanity to move forward Islam has to be dealt with and destroyed as an option. There need to be priorities.
Chauvinism as produced by Christian denominations as Southern Baptists may be annoying, but it’s not going down without a fight anymore than Islam; and so too are the popular liberal feminists and they aren’t going away idiotic as many of them are. Heck, if Bernie Sanders; idiot that he is, was anti Islam I’d be inclined to vote for him were some pro Islamic Republican his opponent — and there are plenty who might as well be.
Islam is a major enemy and people need to adjust their priorities and even make sacrifices to fight it.
.
gravenimage says
Naildriver, I very much agree that Islam is not OK. But if someone already has Islamic views, then it makes little difference.
And I know some Southern Baptists–even the most traditional are not demanding that women be stripped of the right to vote, nor blaming them for all the ills of society.
Dry Academy says
Ah! A Manosphere shithead! Hello, you infected sack of rectal pus! How is your God Matt Forney doing these days? Had to flee the country? Oh, too bad. What, your buddy Roosh too? I guess it’s not a good idea to boast about committing rape online. But sociopathic sacks of pus always overreach.
Jeff Gonez says
I sincerely hope you get the help you desperately need.
Infidel says
In most Muslim countries, women have the vote as well. So why hasn’t that undermined those countries completely?
UNCLE VLADDI says
I completely agree with you (and Muhammad!) as far as women are concerned.
Islam IS right about women, and here’s both how and why:
Everyone knows that to hold and impose double standards is wrong – as in unfair, immoral, inequitable, and criminal – and that the only people who endorse such things are those criminal hypocrites who benefit from them.
Such divisiveness is known in islam as “shirk” which proves the hypothetical Muhammad tried to understand, explain and condemn such things – but, being a criminal hypocrites himself, ultimately failed – and failed upwards, because there’s no money in solutions.
Apparently double standards are not, however, inherently wrong, when applied to different things and people with different inherent characteristics, such as between men, women, and children.
Women (having been evolved to Submit to the stronger, faster, and smarter if not more intelligent males – on order to perpetuate the species, have developed an innate lack of a sense of hypocrisy, as they must bo along to get along, and are programmed to actually enjoy being fucked and having their lives defined by their hormonal instincts to bear and raise children). In evolution, ever since we were amoebas, someone had to draw the short stick, and that was women. But men, too, had to evolve – the largest murderous brutes who killed off their own women didn’t get to reproduce much, and women developed ways and means to make them selves almost equal to men – in that men became lesser through wars, where the admirable alpha hero types genes died off and were replaced by those betas who in imitative hypocrisy like cuttlefish, pretended to agree with the women that all the other males (especially the boyfriend or husband the woman was complaining to them about, as they tried to finagle themselves a better provider or at least temporarily more proximate and less likely to roam mate) were indeed really all bad misogynistic brutes, a part of the very real Patriarchy who feared womens’ intelligence so much that they spent all their time thinking about and plotting against women in order to sequester, oppress and control them) while also pretending they alone were the only truly sensitive males who really empathized, cared about, and just wanted to help them – throwing all other men, as a group, under the proverbial bus, simply to get laid.
Thus, women who are natural hypocrites, cannot reconcile contradictions, such as in law, and so cannot be trusted to administer it to others, either. As in islam, they are deficient in morality and wisdom (if not in intelligence) and in “religion” as in the way Muhammad would have viewed it, as the be-all and end-all of trying to figure out the universal rules and principles of “God.” But, as in reality all religions are really ever only hypocritical crime and lying – speculation presented as fact – women are in fact more than equally qualified to be in charge of them.
Children are, of course, the only beings outside of the hypothetical One “God” (who, itself being the alleged First Cause and Prime Mover, always attacks every one and every thing every where else first) who by nature of their ignorance, are entitled to have rights without responsibilities, enslaving their parents until they reach the age of cognitive independence or “majority.”
Other than these categories, all humans should be treated and expected to have equal rights and reciprocal responsibilities.
And this means everyone agreeing to embrace the Golden Rule of Law, which most simply defines morality as Do Not Attack First.
This has nothing to do with group boundaries, whether genetic or territorial; and any “ethnic culture” (indoctrinating social education) which puts one in-group ahead of others, may only logically, morally and legally do so on their own turf, where they and their ancestors have developed the infrastructure (or not) and so no temporary unvetted and unapproved residents may be entitled to any benefits derived therefrom, beyond not being attacked first (where the definition of “attack” does not include not being expelled for overstaying one’s welcome, or for criminal behavior). In short, merely being present on another’s turf does not entitle anyone to loot the public treasury and receive any positivist aid, such as food, shelter, clothing; welfare.
==================================
Some people might shallowly presume that “religions” are all such similar, if not exactly the same, “things,” that they can all be accepted as such at face value, and so, if one is allowed, all must be (This is a problem with America’s First Amendment).
Such superficiality fails to investigate, discriminate, describe, or define even whether any of them are worthy of any such consideration at all (they are not: being lies – opinions proffered as facts – they are also frauds and thus crimes) much less what diverse and even contradictory approaches to regulating human lives and activities particular religions might differ in.
So, now let us examine a creed which endorses the precise and exact opposite of this rule-of-law-based mutually “common” law:
ISLAM does the exact opposite of all of these things, except in dividing the rights and responsibilities of women and men.
One cannot logically say “Having two-tiers of mutually agreeable laws, the secular or even Judeo-Christian, superstition-based traditional laws and sharia, is OK, because it’s always one’s free-will choice to submit one’s self to crazy religious rules.”
In reality, islam not only lies to proselytize (dawa is taquiyya) and so nobody joining it from an ignorant presumption of how “Muslims seem to admirably have more faith in their version of a god than weak Judeo-Christianity or Buddhism! etc., can ever have truly benefited from their Western common-law principle having a right to a fiduciary duty-of-care; being deliberately deceived cancels and subsequent contractual obligations; and of course leaving islam is forbidden to both those who join it “willingly” and to those born into the crime-and-murder cult (Sura 4:89) which is coercion in itself. Further, anyone who does willingly join islam, knowing and accepting its strictures, should immediately be arrested for endorsing its inherent threats.
gravenimage says
I don’t have time to reply to this vicious claptrap tonight, but I’ll get to it tomorrow.
gravenimage says
OK, let’s wade into this cesspool:
UNCLE VLADDI wrote:
I completely agree with you (and Muhammad!) as far as women are concerned.
Islam IS right about women, and here’s both how and why:
Everyone knows that to hold and impose double standards is wrong – as in unfair, immoral, inequitable, and criminal – and that the only people who endorse such things are those criminal hypocrites who benefit from them.
…………………
How do women hold double standards any more than men do? Of course, UNCLE VLADDI does not say.
More:
Such divisiveness is known in islam as “shirk” which proves the hypothetical Muhammad tried to understand, explain and condemn such things – but, being a criminal hypocrites himself, ultimately failed – and failed upwards, because there’s no money in solutions.
Apparently double standards are not, however, inherently wrong, when applied to different things and people with different inherent characteristics, such as between men, women, and children.
…………………
Who says this?
More:
Women (having been evolved to Submit to the stronger, faster, and smarter if not more intelligent males – on order to perpetuate the species, have developed an innate lack of a sense of hypocrisy, as they must bo (sic) along to get along, and are programmed to actually enjoy being fucked and having their lives defined by their hormonal instincts to bear and raise children).
…………………
Is *this* UNCLE VLADDI’s view of families? No, women don’t have to “submit” to men–most of the time when people have children it is consensual, and both parties want them.
As for saying that women “enjoy being fucked”, the fact is that most people of both genders enjoy having sex–that this appears to be an alien concept for UNCLE VLADDI is quite telling.
More:
In evolution, ever since we were amoebas, someone had to draw the short stick, and that was women.
…………………
What rot. Many situations are win/win–this is certainly true with loving relationships.
Women only have “drawn the short stick” if they have to deal with Muslims or with creeps like UNCLE VLADDI.
More:
But men, too, had to evolve – the largest murderous brutes who killed off their own women didn’t get to reproduce much, and women developed ways and means to make them selves almost equal to men – in that men became lesser through wars, where the admirable alpha hero types genes died off
…………………
Where to start? Firstly, UNCLE VLADDI seems to consider men who murder women to be “Alpha Males”. *Ugh*.
Then, the idea that heroism is purely genetic is *very* odd. In fact, while some traits may have a genetic component, being raised by admirable men and women is far more likely to result in a person of character.
And there is not just one kind of “Alpha Male”, in any case. What about Bill Gates, who is successful and wealthy but rather nerdy? What about a heroic man who is low-ranking military? How about an intelligent or even brilliant man who is socially awkward? A muscular man who is blue-collar? A guy who is well turned out and has a smooth line but doesn’t have much of a career? All of these might be considered an Alpha Male–or not.
More:
….and were replaced by those betas who in imitative hypocrisy like cuttlefish, pretended to agree with the women that all the other males (especially the boyfriend or husband the woman was complaining to them about, as they tried to finagle themselves a better provider or at least temporarily more proximate and less likely to roam mate) were indeed really all bad misogynistic brutes, a part of the very real Patriarchy who feared womens’ intelligence so much that they spent all their time thinking about and plotting against women in order to sequester, oppress and control them) while also pretending they alone were the only truly sensitive males who really empathized, cared about, and just wanted to help them – throwing all other men, as a group, under the proverbial bus, simply to get laid.
…………………
So UNCLE VLADDI believes that any man who acts as though he is sympathetic to women is lying, and doing so only to get laid? Good lord…
And no–real men do not fear intelligent women. Why would they?
More:
Thus, women who are natural hypocrites, cannot reconcile contradictions, such as in law, and so cannot be trusted to administer it to others, either.
…………………
How is any of the above proof that women are natural hypocrites? As for the implication that women are incapable of being faithful, this is hardly borne out by statistics.
More:
As in islam, they are deficient in morality and wisdom (if not in intelligence) and in “religion” as in the way Muhammad would have viewed it, as the be-all and end-all of trying to figure out the universal rules and principles of “God.”
…………………
Actually, Islam says that women are deficient in intelligence and religion. UNCLE VLADDI cannot even keep this straight. This, from the Hadith:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
…I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.” The women asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?” He said, “Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?” They replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn’t it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?” The women replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her religion.”
Sahih Bukhari 1:6:301
…………………
Notice the circular logic here–women are deficient in intelligence because Islam says that the testimony of a woman is worth half that of a man; and they are deficient in religion because Islam says that they cannot observe the rites of Islam at certain times.
That UNCLE VLADDI considers this compelling evidence for inequality says a great deal about him, and none of it good.
More:
Children are, of course, the only beings outside of the hypothetical One “God” (who, itself being the alleged First Cause and Prime Mover, always attacks every one and every thing every where else first) who by nature of their ignorance, are entitled to have rights without responsibilities, enslaving their parents until they reach the age of cognitive independence or “majority.”
…………………
No, parents are not “enslaved” by their children–what a grotesque view of parenthood.
Note that, as with romantic and marital relationships, love does not appear to be a factor in having and raising children for UNCLE VLADDI, either. So sad.
More:
Other than these categories, all humans should be treated and expected to have equal rights and reciprocal responsibilities.
…………………
This is being said by someone who has just said that women are inferior to men–I guess he really does embrace contradictions…
More:
And this means everyone agreeing to embrace the Golden Rule of Law, which most simply defines morality as Do Not Attack First.
…………………
Well, this is a pretty reductive view of the Golden Rule–but considering the source, I am not surprised.
More:
Some people might shallowly presume that “religions” are all such similar, if not exactly the same, “things,” that they can all be accepted as such at face value, and so, if one is allowed, all must be (This is a problem with America’s First Amendment).
…………………
No, the First Amendment does not say that all religions–or all ideologies–are similar, or of equal moral or logical worth. It just says that the non-violent expression of them is safeguarded. Is it really any surprise that UNCLE VLADDI does not understand the Constitution and First Amendment?
More:
Such superficiality fails to investigate, discriminate, describe, or define even whether any of them are worthy of any such consideration at all (they are not: being lies – opinions proffered as facts – they are also frauds and thus crimes) much less what diverse and even contradictory approaches to regulating human lives and activities particular religions might differ in.
…………………
Believing in something that is not true is not in and of itself a crime. That UNCLE VLADDI believes that it is while pontificating about administering justice is deeply disturbing.
More:
So, now let us examine a creed which endorses the precise and exact opposite of this rule-of-law-based mutually “common” law:
ISLAM does the exact opposite of all of these things, except in dividing the rights and responsibilities of women and men.
…………………
Women have few rights in Islam, and are subject to genital mutilation, child marriage, forced marriage, rape, sex slavery, wife beating, “Honor Killing”, and stoning. Grotesquely, this seems to be the way UNCLE VLADDI likes it.
somehistory says
In some areas, it is illegal to post “bills” on poles, etc. It would be good to find out first so as not to break any laws.
Down at the local bus stop, there is an “InfoWars” icon on the back of the Stop sign and another on the back of the bus stop sign. However, they look as though they were made into the metal, as opposed to being stuck on.
Agostino Armo Pellegrini says
“Islam is RIGHT about women.”
In the context of islamic abuse against women and other human rights violations, such a statement is as offensive as saying “Hitler was right about the Jews.” With islam comes the sexual mutilation and forced marriage of muslim girls. Millions of muslim women are forced to “cover up” or risk prison or some social punishment like murder or mutilation (like acid in the face). Under islam women are treated like second class citizens, deprived of many of the freedoms and choices Western women take for granted. They can’t leave the house without male authorization, wear perfume, receive a full inheritance, they’re denied certain positions in society like being a judge or head of state, can’t marry a non-muslim or divorce her husband while her husband can divorce her on a whim. And here’s what the article I am referencing right now says about the rape of muslim women,
Sharia law is set up in such a way that when a woman is raped, accusing her rapist is often considered an admission of fornication, for which she may be whipped or even stoned to death. This is but one example of the abuses women suffer today in many Islamic states.
In the context of these horrors against women that little sign on a pole takes on a much more serious connotation. It comes from a mind that finds the abuse and unfair treatment of women a divine mandate to be followed, or if the sign was posted in jest, merely a joke to be laughed at. And that’s a dangerous thing in a world where the delusions of religion are too often considered superior to rational and humane thinking. Give people a godly excuse to hurt and abuse others and you’ve got yourself a revolution in thought. People LOVE to justify their hate and sin with religion!!! It exonerates them! It protects them from their own moral deficiencies, because in their own self serving minds they are doing god’s work. This to me underscores what islam is all about. It’s a religious and political paradigm that uses the god concept to compel submission to islam’s self interests and those who enforce them. It might be an imam seeking more prestige and power or it might be an angry and jealous mob on the dirty streets of Pakistan, but the result is the bloody same: people get hurt or killed to satisfy the hateful and selfish desires of others who use their religion as an excuse to do it.
To sum, I find that little sign as offensive as the worst things the KKK can conjure against people of color, or the Nazis against the Jews, or any other hate group that wants to promote their sick ideas. It is extremely vile because of the backstory that gives it meaning. Yeah, I know, they’re just words in our 1st Amendment nation. But we are a no-good people if we let islam’s hate stand uncontested and free to grow. We must confront it everywhere it rears its ugly head with good words and action, or we will end up like the backwater tyrannies that these muslims fled to save their lives in the land of freedom.
America is the best nation on Earth because we are the best people on earth! and I’m not ashamed to say it!
somehistory says
Why not write: “islam is Wrong about women.” That could start a conversation and would be proclaiming the Truth. It is never a good thing to tell a lie. Even for a good cause.
I am agreeing with you, just in case I have not made that clear.
David says
Any woman who willingly converts to Islam proves Muhammad’s assertion that women are stupid.
Agostino Armo Pellegrini says
One more thing, some of these Hollywood types are getting on my nerves with all their unbridled hatred for Trump. Robert De Niro comes to mind as one of them, saying of Trump, “He’s a punk, a dog, and a pig.” For cripes sake, he’s our president you silly over rated actor!
Fine, De Niro is entitled to his opinion, that’s the beauty of America, and I wouldn’t have it any other way. Let his inarticulate mouth make a fool of himself with his ad hominem insults. But what bothers me, do any of these leftist idiots ever give any concern for the underlying reasons that produce outspoken critics like Trump who love their country and aren’t willing to lie for islam? It’s true, Trump was indeed controversial with much of what he said, but wasn’t there much truth in it, too? of course there was, and there’s a mountain of dead and suffering to back it up. I’m seriously curious about their thought process, I mean these Hollywood types who work 6 weeks out of the year and make more than you or I in a lifetime. They are so quick to call Trump a hateful bigot, but they totally ignore the hate and bigotry in islam and also the left’s policy of unbridled immigration that brings in so much drugs, crime, and rape, and welfare dependance. They are hypocrites to me, people who want to seem good by pretending to love everyone but in reality hate their own nation’s people, our security, and our freedoms, d*mn communists.
Trump is far from perfect, but he was brave enough and caring enough to say what had to be said in defense of our nation against outside threats like islam. To people like me who utterly despise the ignorance and violence of islam he is a hero, someone who despite his notable shortcomings did a good deed that may just turn things around regarding that evil creed. He helped destroy that code of silence regarding the islamic threat, and with his bold and even crass denunciation of the hatred many muslims have for us he helped create a whole new awareness about islam’s darker side. I praise him for that, and sincerely hope that he stays the course in defense of our great nation against islam. To me De Niro is like so many others on the left who find solace and solidarity in slamming Trump because they don’t have to be smart, just vindictive. What I mean is, they try to achieve some of the social acceptance or career advancement they crave by dissing Trump because it’s fashionable to do so. But I find their criticisms too often unbalanced, unfair, even unhinged, in tone and tenor. They choose to not look at the deeper causes for concern that create critics of islam and rampant immigration, it might muddy their agenda if they dared be factual and real about this issue. Nope! let’s just have a hate party and call Trump a racist while all those who follow him are racist deplorables! because to look at things more circumspectly is way too much work for folks like De Niro. But for me Trump was an inevitable result of the fast-advancing threat of islam and leftist policy of letting everyone into our nation even though we can’t afford it without undue pain and suffering. We who object to islam’s tyrannical ways know what’s happening in Europe, we know the nature of islam, and we’re perfectly justified in our 9/11 environment to not want it or like it. Trump may not be the best we could imagine as our president, but he’s the best we could hope for among all available choices. It’s called reality, and I’ll take what I can get.
cornelius says
All good stuff Hugh. But the response of the apologists is utterly predictable: Such verses are “taken out of context”….(what an all-purpose cop-out).
I always liked Walid Shoebat’s comeback to such a response….
“What part of the word ‘kill’ do you not understand?”
James Troutman says
“Islam is a Satanic Death Cult.” Not as clever as “Islam is right about women.” But, it will do. Islam orders the death of those who oppose it in this world and it leads to the death of its adherents in the next world. “Islam makes Satan proud.”
No Muzzies Here says
Here’s what happens. If a Muslim put the poster up, it’s wonderful and everyone feels good. If a non-believer put them up, he is arrested for a hate crime.
This is the country in which the words “It’s OK to be White” cause a college to shut down.
gravenimage says
Yes–how insane is this?
“‘It’s okay to be white’ signs at a Tennessee university prompt probe”
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/it-s-okay-be-white-signs-posted-tennessee-university-campus-n1076596
revereridesagain says
If we ever posted those TRUE teachings of Islam on the telephone poles around here — “here” being about 40 miles east of Winchester — the “woke” brigades would be out with torches and pitchforks like a scene from “Young Frankenstein” looking for the “haters” who posted them. I shudder whenever I read a new account of a “we-just-want-to-talk” police raid in the UK against someone who has posted the same truth online because I know that all that stands between us and them are those truly sacred words in the First Amendment!
Daniel says
It was put up to make fun of liberal contradictions as they lose whichever way they look at it.
gravenimage says
Conversation Pieces
………….
Yes–the savagery of Islam needs to be exposed to everyone.
ET says
Male owners may have sex with his slave women, even prepubescent slave girls
Maybe some of the feminists might wake up if they read that.
ET says
Is it true a man may have fornwives and as many sex slaves as he wishes?
David says
Yes four wives + sex slaves, if he is a muslim.
E T says
What is thighing? Can a mature man marry a baby?
David says
Muhammad realised he could not penetrate 6 year-old Aisha, so he had to make do with sliding his member between her thighs and masturbating. He waited until she was 9, and had grown sufficiently for full sex. Disgusting, don’t you think?
Islam says it is all right to marry young girls. After all it was okay for Muhammad.What’s good for a goose…
ET says
Four wives
gravenimage says
All good suggestions, E T.
E T says
Women’s minds are deficient. Allah says
Tell that to Maxine Waters, Joy Behar, Whoopi, Madcow, all the wenches in Hollywood.
somehistory says
Some, or perhaps all, of the minds of those you named, may be. But, then there are so many males who fit that same description of having a deficient mind. The creep who originated islam is one of those. There are countless more.
gravenimage says
Spot on, Somehistory.
Bob Builder says
There is no such thing as a moderate muslim.
I said that.
David says
You are not the first to realise that. Actually what it means is those muslims who cannot be bothered to kill an infidel, but don’t mind if one of their ‘brothers’ does the job.Muhammad despised such individuals.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
One drawback with Hugh’s suggestion is “the pronoun problem” with Quran quotations. Looking at the eight cited Quran passages, the reader has no way to know the referents of the various pronouns: them; we, their; they, them; I, their; them, their. If only the author of the Quran were a better expository writer, or had a good editor.
SamB says
The conversation about women in the poster sums up Islam correctly. While it is a terse headline further analysis, whether in the Dar al-Harb or Dar al-Islam has the same consequences for women. The hijab(they say ) is to protect the sanctity of women in reality it is to trammel on their rights (in Western societies). Further, the rationalization of the poster juxtapose an Islamic context with a Western perspective of women. Muslim women (Sarsour, Omar Shaib, etc) are at liberty to accept their statuses (in the Dar al Islam) doing so in their new context is incongruent with the accepted norms. The poster in the greater conversation challenge Western laws or hegemony over Muslim affairs and there in lies rub. Muslims while seeking to live in Western societies are not prepared to be governed, by pigs, infidels and sinners…
E T says
What is qisas? Is it really 2019?
Angemon says
Right? Expert level trolling.