MUST WATCH: Suited Man's Hardheaded Response to Terrorist Wannabe on Commuter Train

Tweet

"I'll kill you, I'm from Afghanistan, I'll kill you, I'll stab you!"

Sorry to say it, but haven't you always wanted to do this, or at least see it done?

Q: "You want me stab you, Kafir?!"

A: BONK!!!

It reminds us of this, I think:

The Daily Mail gives some background:

A commuter was today hailed as a 'hero' after headbutting a man who had allegedly been fighting and making violent threats on board a train from London. 

The suited man, who was believed to have been travelling home, struck the bearded man on the c2c service between West Ham and Barking in East London yesterday. 

Commuters cheered and praised the suited man for protecting other passengers whom the bearded man was said to have been harassing on the train. 

The bearded man was restrained before police took him off at Upminster station in Essex, where he was arrested on suspicion of carrying a knife and theft by finding. 

Del Scott-Lewis, a passenger in his 40s from Ockenden, told MailOnline he was involved in trying to stop the bearded man from attacking anyone on the train. 

He told MailOnline: 'I'm looking round over my left shoulder, facing a girl sitting down. He's mumbling on about 'I'm from f***ing Afghanistan'. 

'Then an old workman behind him has got up and said to this guy 'leave her alone'. Then the guy punched him five or six times. I saw him fall backwards. 

'I turned round and shouted out: 'let's get him off at the next stop'. When I got to him I grabbed hold of his right arm and marched him to the centre of the train. 

'When I got him against the door, this bloke who did the headbutting grabs hold of his left arm. He started struggling. The heatbutt was needed, desperately needed. 

'When against the wall, he started saying 'I'll kill you, I'm from Afghanistan, I'll kill you, I'll stab you'. I was on the phone to 999 and saying 'we need urgent help'. 

'I put the phone down and went to restrain the guy. Before the headbutt comes, he was talking about killing me. Then the word 'stab' came up. 

'We saw no knife, but he made the threat to stab us. When he made the threat, no one had a baton - so we headbutted him.

The suited man helped to restrain the suspect until police arrived

 'If someone threatens to stab you, and you've got no baton on you, the only course available was to shut him up. 

'At that point some of the kids on the train started getting scared. I've never been in a situation like this before. It was a judgement.'

Mark Taylor, who said he was also on the train, told MailOnline: 'The guy was causing trouble. He had tried to sit on the divider between the seats. 

'When a bloke of about 60 asked him to stop he attacked him. The big bloke and some others pulled him off. The big guy restrained him for about five or six minutes while being permanently shouted at and abused. Finally he had enough. 

'No one could blame him and it did the carriage a favour. That's why everyone was laughing. He was hauled out at Upminster. Eventful journey.' 

The video begins with the bearded man having a heated discussion with the tall suited man, who appears to be restraining his fellow passenger with his wrists.
The bearded passenger then shouts at the suited man: 'Look at me I'm stupid!' – before the latter violently headbutts him, sending him forcibly flying backwards. 

The victim of the headbutt was visibly thrown down and backwards by the force of the blow 

Some passengers on the crowded train gasp in horror, while others cheered and laughed at the move. Later, commuters discussed the incident on social media. 

A witness said on Facebook: 'This guy was harassing and trying to provoke fights the entire journey until he was escorted off. 

'Everyone was ignoring him as it was a busy train and no one wanted any trouble. The final straw was when he jumped in between two seats and was practically sitting on a person's head. 

'The passenger simply told him to get down and the guy started laughing and started using horrible language towards him and a lot of other passengers on the train. 

'He then started pushing the passenger and a fight broke out, which was quickly dispersed. 

'After many more horrible and inappropriate comments later another passenger cornered him into the door so he would stop harassing people and said for him to get off the next stop - Upminster. 

'He then started pushing him and insulting him, which resulted in the final headbutt. When he was escorted off the train he still continued to make comments and insults.' 

Lindsey Walsh added: 'I'm in no way condoning violence. However, having witnessed the 15 minute build up prior to this head butt, I can confirm he deserved it. What you are seeing is the head butt with no context behind it.

'But that guy got on the train spoiling for a fight. He had a punch up with an innocent commuter and was abusive to everyone on the carriage. Again, I'm not condoning violence but the guy who gave the head butt was a hero.' 

A separate video also showed the man being pinned to the platform at Upminster station while police officers headed to take him away. 

A British Transport Police spokesman said: 'British Transport Police received a report at 3.35pm on October 3 of a man fighting and making violent threats to passengers on board a train. 

'He was restrained onboard the service and arrested when it arrived at Upminster station. Following a search, the man, aged 29, was further arrested on suspicion of carrying a knife and theft by finding. He remains in custody.'

BREAKING: Paris Police HQ Stabber Was Recent Convert to Islam

Tweet

Security personnel guard area near Paris police headquarters after the attack

Do non-Muslims ever go on sudden mass-murder rampages? Of course.

But in nations where Islam is on the rise, ideologically and demographically, these attacks by Muslims are common and predictable. It's literally part of how aggressive Islam instills fear in the rest of the population and reduces it to paralysis and finally resignation regarding the process of Islamization.

This morning, a man went on a stabbing rampage inside Paris police headquarters. Apparently he was an employee and thus had security clearances. Four police employees were killed, three of them officers, before the man was shot dead.

Who was he and why did he do it?

We are all familiar with the usual denials and obfuscations. The man waas not initially identified. Here is one of the initial reports from Sky News:

The motive is unclear but another police union leader, Jean-Marc Bailleul, described it as a criminal act - a "moment of madness" - rather than terror. 

Other media reports in the country have said the suspect had "tensions" with his supervisor.

Now some in French media are reporting that the attacker was a recent Muslim convert. This may have been part of the reason for the "tensions":

(Actu17 later retracted the information that the slain victim was the attacker's supervisor.)

It is now reporting that the wife of the attacker has been arrested.

Reuters is now confirming that the attacker was a recent Muslim convert based on a report from French news agency BFMTV.

"First Muslim Peer" Lord Ahmed Charged with Buggery Against a Boy Under 11 in Sheffield Crown Court

Tweet

Member of the British House of Lords Nazir Ahmed has been called (and has called himself) the "first Muslim peer". Apparently, this is technically incorrect, with two other Muslims beating him to it by a matter of weeks. (Apparently, appointing Muslims to the peerage was a thing in the Summer of 1998). There have also been a number of earlier Muslim hereditary peers, all converts, I believe.

But he is almost certainly the most well-known current Muslim Lord.

Last month he was charged with attempted rape against a girl under 16. It allegedly occurred in the early 1970's.

Fittingly, perhaps, his peerage is Rotherham, the site of the notorious Muslim mass "grooming" scandals.

Lord Ahmed was also sexually attracted to young boys. Or so it seems.

From the Rotherham Advertiser (4/18/19) h/t Gates of Vienna:

Rotherham peer Lord Ahmed charged with fourth child sex offence

ROTHERHAM peer Lord Nazir Ahmed has appeared at court — alongside his two brothers — charged with a fourth historical child sex offence. 

The peer faced the further allegation of buggery against a boy under 11 when he appeared at Sheffield Crown Court yesterday (Wednesday). 

Ahmed, of East Bawtry Road, Rotherham, appeared at the lower court last month charged with indecently assaulting the boy and two counts of attempted rape against a girl aged under 16 in the early 1970s. 

The former Labour politician would have been aged between 14 to 17 when the alleged abuse took place against the two complainants. 

No pleas have been formally entered but Ahmed’s solicitor told reporters at last month’s hearing outside Sheffield Magistrates' Court “he will be doing everything he can in order to prove his innocence”. 

His brothers (below L-R Tariq and Farouq) have denied sexually abusing the same boy between 1968 to 1972.

Mohammed Farouq (68), of Worrygoose Lane, Rotherham, denied at the earlier hearing four counts of indecent assault, said to have taken place when he was aged between 17 and 22. 

Mohammed Tariq (63), of Gerard Road, Rotherham, denies two counts of indecently assaulting the boy when he would have been aged between 14 to 16. 

A two-week trial date was set for December 2 and the men were granted unconditional bail.

Man Screams "Allahu Akbar!" at Croatian Easter Vigil Mass in Munich - 24 Injured in Panic

Tweet

A "dark-skinned" man or "person of African descent" screamed "Allah Akbar" at a Croatian Easter Vigil Mass at St. Paul's Church in Munich on Saturday evening. He attempted to make his way to the altar before being apprehended. At least twenty-four people were lightly injured in the ensuing confusion and panic.

St. Paul's Church is one of the larger churches in the city.

One German source claims the man hurled firecrackers:

Strongly drunken man, dark-skinned and with a beard, enters St. Paul's Church in Munich at the Theresienwiese during the Croatian Mass (Easter blessing), with a bottle of alcohol in his hand, lights a firecracker and throws it into the middle of the church and shouts "Allahu Akbar", everyone panics and throws the baskets where the Easter meal was in, runs out and screams. Children and adults were injured. The police and their squad came and arrested the man. They are shocking pictures that must be spread and not hidden. There were some injured. Many children in a state of shock. Merkur Online reports that 24 people were injured (from PolitikStube, translated by Allah's Willing Executioners, h/t Jihad Watch). 

However a Croatia news outlet reports that the man merely threw "stones". The Croatian Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs also claimed that the man was mentally-ill.

ZAGREB, April 21, 2019 - The person of African descent who disrupted Mass in St Peter's Church in the Croatian Catholic parish in Munich on Saturday evening by shouting "Allahu Akbar" and throwing stones, is mentally ill and not connected with terrorism, the Croatian Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs said on Sunday. 

The man was shouting and throwing stones at the congregation and around the church, and the people fled in panic. Twenty-five Croatian nationals were slightly injured in the confusion, the ministry told Hina, adding that police said that the man did not use firecrackers as some media reported. 

Croatian media at home and abroad said that it was a middle-aged man who was shouting "Allahu Akbar", which led many of the believers to think that it was a terrorist attack. 

Fenix magazine, the Croatian-language news website based in Frankfurt, said that several people had managed to overpower the man and stop him on his way to the altar before the police came in force. 

The Croatian ministry quoted the Munich police as saying that the incident had nothing to do with terrorism and that it was caused by a mentally ill person, who has been hospitalised after being arrested. 

Police stepped up security around the churches where Mass was celebrated in Croatian, notably around St Michael's Church.

Christchurch Mosque Linked to Two al-Qaida Members Killed in Drone Strike

Tweet

The Al-Noor Mosque in 2014

Below is a full reprint of one of a number of articles from 2014 linking the Al-Noor mosque in greater Christchurch, New Zealand - the main target of the recent anti-Islam terror attack that killed at least fifty - with organized Islamist terrorism.

In news stories of the recent terrorist attack, the Al-Noor mosque is listed as located in the suburb of Riccarton. But in some of the 2014 articles it is described as being in the suburb of Addington, just south. However, it is clearly the same mosque.   

New Zealander Daryl Jones and Australian Christopher Havard were converts to Islam who, according to their parents and others, met at and were radicalized at the Al-Noor mosque. They would subsequently travel to the Middle East where they joined al-Qaida, with Havard allegedly becoming involved in the kidnapping of Westerners. Later, they would both be killed in Yemen in a U.S. launched drone strike on November 19, 2013.

Here is an excerpt from another 2014 article in Stuff.cp.nz: 

Mosque leaders confirmed Havard stayed there and studied in 2011, but denied radical teaching took place. But a man who attended a converts' weekend at the mosque 10 years ago said a visiting speaker from Indonesia talked about violent jihad and plenty [?] shared his views. "Most of the men were angry with the moral weakness of New Zealand. I would say they were radical."

Of course none of this justifies the calculated mass murder of innocent children, women and men - many of them coldly and sadistically shot and shot again while attempting to flee, hide, protect loved ones and so on.

The full horror of what occurred on Friday is currently being censored by the New Zealand government and the American tech-media oligopoly. But one can well imagine it.

(You can read stories on the Christchurch mosque attack at the Newshub site, based in Auckland - the same media source from which the 2014 story, below, was taken.)

But the massacre, by a self-described "Eco-Fascist" or white pagan nationalist, should also not be allowed to bury the facts of what actually happens at mosques like Al-Noor.

From Newshub, 6 April, 2014:

A Christchurch mosque has been linked to the drone killing of New Zealand al-Qaida suspect Daryl Jones. 

The parents of an Australian killed alongside Jones say their son was taught radical Islam in Christchurch, where he also met Mr Jones. 

Christopher Havard was killed alongside Mr Jones by a US drone in Yemen last year. 

His parents, Neill and Bronwyn Dowrick, say their son told them he was first taught radical Islam at the Al Noor mosque in Addington. 

Mr Havard moved from Australia to New Zealand in 2010. He's remembered at the mosque by the name of Saleem Khattab. 

"[He was] no different than other people," says mosque president Mohamed Jama. "He was a normal man." 

Mr Havard's parents say it's at the mosque he met fellow convert Mr Jones, who was known at Muslim Bin John. 

But the mosque can't remember Mr Jones, and denies teaching radical Islam. 

It seems Kiwi spies may have had the mosque under surveillance. 

"I'm not going to go into the individual entities or the operations that the SIS or the GCSB conducted," says Prime Minister John Key. 

Australian Federal Police (AFP) began an investigation into Mr Havard's possible involvement in an alleged al-Qaida kidnapping of three westerners in Yemen. 

Documents show, "Mr Havard and Mr Nin John were of long-standing interest to the AFP due to their assessed activities in Yemen liked to al-Qaida". 

All that's known of Mr Jones is that he was 31 years old, a joint New Zealand-Australian citizen, and his family are still here.

The True Meaning and Context of that Koran Quote in the Vatican's New Document - "whoever kills a person is like one who kills the whole of humanity"

Tweet

Francis and Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan review a line of Muslim warriors at Abu Dhabi Airport

Yesterday, we pointed out that the Vatican's "Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together" was co-signed by a Muslim scholar who advocates punishing apostates from Islam with death.

The Document has already become infamous for a number of other reasons, including that it contained the obviously blasphemous and heretical claim (for a Catholic) that the "plurality and diversity" of religions are "willed by God in His wisdom."

But it also paraphrases an oft-quoted verse in the Koran:

In the name of innocent human life that God has forbidden to kill, affirming that whoever kills a person is like one who kills the whole of humanity, and that whoever saves a person is like one who saves the whole of humanity [this is the Document's gloss on part of Sura 5:32]

This is perhaps the most misunderstood and mis-cited claim in the entire Koran, though the reasons for that are clear - it seems to indicate that Islam is a "religion of peace", against murder and terrorism, etc.

Muslims have a clear incentive to roll this quote out at every opportunity when addressing Western audiences, and Western pro-Muslim apologists obviously have every reason to repeat it ad nauseam.

The Vatican just reproduced it in an official Church document.

The whole thing is a crock.

Far from being a peaceful prohibition against murder, Sura 5:32 originally functioned merely as a Koranic attack (yet another) on the Jews. And the rest of Sura 5 goes on to explicitly endorse, among other things, war and terrorism against non-Muslims.

I hope readers will indulge me if I again reprint an earlier Mahound's Paradise post, this time from 5 July, 2016.

On that Fake Koran Quote, "if anyone slew a person, it would be as if he slew all mankind"

"If anyone slew a person..."

After each horrific Muslim terrorist attack, apologists for Islam - Muslim and non-Muslim - can be counted on to trot out this alleged excerpt from the Koran:

If anyone slew a person, it would be as if he slew all mankind: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all humanity.

It sounds like a lovely piece of mystical Eastern wisdom, doesn't it? The problem is, the alleged excerpt doesn't appear in the Koran in precisely that form, and the context in which it does appear might surprise you.

First, a bit of background. Some imagine that the Koran systematically lays out a coherent ethical system. It does not. That's not a criticism per se - the New Testament is also not systematic in that sense - but it is important to note. Often critics of Islam are accused of taking the nasty sounding bits of the Koran out of context. But it is actually the apologists that almost always do this, and almost always for a non-Muslim audience that is largely unfamiliar with the Koran.

The alleged quote comes from Verse 32, Sura (or Chapter) 5 of the Koran - whose title is variously translated as "The Food," "The Repast," "The Dinner Table" and so on. There are two themes to the sura. The first is a fairly detailed exposition on what is and what is not permitted for a Muslim regarding food and the killing of animals.

But the bulk of it is on relations between Muslims and various non-Muslims groups - Jews, Christians, Polytheists and Pagans. The sura is almost uniformly hostile - in places aggressively and violently so - towards non-Muslims, which makes it all the more notable that apologists use one of its verses to argue that "Islam is a religion of peace."

To recap, the excerpt allegedly says:

If anyone slew a person, it would be as if he slew all mankind: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all humanity.

But what does 5:32 actually say?

On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person - unless it be in retaliation for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew all mankind: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all humanity. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.

(I have highlighted the parts that aren't usually cited).

The context is a discussion of a somewhat embellished version of the story of Cain and Abel - the murder of Abel is the precise slaying in question - which began six verses earlier. The context of that is a sort of list of various occasions where the Jews did bad things.

Thus, the context is actually yet another Koranic attack (of which there are literally hundreds) on those perfidious Jews. Allah originally ordained the rule in question for "the Children of Israel" and (as the previous verses make clear) they disobeyed him. Typical Jews.

Many commentators also view it as a warning to contemporary Jews.

Of course, even if the moral rule is meant to apply generally (which a number of other verses arguably contradict), the real verse contains an exception that you could drive a truck bomb through - or for spreading mischief in the land.

To underline the point, here is the very next verse (5:33):

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

That's right, the very next verse after "if anyone slew a person..." is a prescription for carrying out ISIS-style punishments on those who - as traditionally interpreted by Muslim scholars - resist or oppose the spread of Islam.

The rest of Sura 5 contains a number of other interesting verses, which strangely you never hear about alongside 5:32. For example, Verse 51:

O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors.

Another verse tells us that Allah punished some of the Jews by turning them into apes and pigs (5:60).

As if to rub it in, another verse tells us that Christians aren't as bad as Jews. It's the Jews and Pagans who are the worst. (Presumably when this late sura was released, Muhammed was strategically trying to cozy up to some Christian tribe.)

Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant (5:82).

Tucked into the anti-infidel stuff is a command to cut off the hands of thieves (5:38). Then we're back to rules about eating and the killing of animals interspersed with a few additional pokes against Christians for thinking Jesus was God.

Sura 5 and specifically Verse 33 was among the primary texts used by Muhammed to justify (before and after the fact) the assassination of opponents - the satirical poetess Asma Bint Marwan was impaled with a sword as she was nursing her child - and his aggressive military campaigns on the Arabian peninsula to conquer or wipe out all non-Muslims - such as for example, the Jews of Khaybar.

That apologists use a bowdlerized version of 5:32 for their "Religion of Peace" claim is ironic.

Ironic in a sick way.

As some readers may already been aware, the "as if they had killed there whole world" idea isn't exactly original with Muhammad. He got it from somewhere else. I'll look at that in Part 2.

[I never did that Part 2, which is why I edited that out of the new title. Maybe now I can finally deliver it.]

Vatican's New Document on "Human Fraternity" Co-signed by Imam Who Believes in Death For Christian Converts

Tweet

Francis and Sheik Ahmed Al-Tayyeb

The Vatican just issued a "Document" to mark the current "Apostolic Journey of His Holiness Pope Francis to the United Arab Emirates".

It's called "A Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together" and it's jointly signed by "His Holiness Pope Francis" and "The Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, Ahmed Al-Tayyeb."

As the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Sheik Al-Tayyeb is arguably the world's pre-eminent Muslim scholar.

He also is clearly on record (see below) as endorsing the punishment of death for apostates from Islam.

Notably, the current Document includes these lines:

Freedom is a right of every person: each individual enjoys the freedom of belief, thought, expression and action. The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives. Therefore, the fact that people are forced to adhere to a certain religion or culture must be rejected, as too the imposition of a cultural way of life that others do not accept;

Has Al-Tayyeb changed his mind? Does he now not believe in death to apostates, though he publicly reaffirmed that at least as recently as three years ago?

Are flying pigs halal?

Mahound's Paradise wrote on this issue in 2016, during some of the Vatican's initial dalliances with the wily Al-Tayyeb. We reprint that post in full, here:

Top Muslim Ally of Pope Francis Reaffirms that Muslim Converts to Christianity Should be Killed

Cheek to Sheik

Two months ago, Pope Francis welcomed Sheik Ahmed el-Tayeb, - the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University in Cairo, and the highest scholarly authority in Sunni Islam - to the Vatican.

And a week ago, the Pope sent a representative to Al-Azhar as a follow-up and to "relaunch dialogue."

The original meeting, which included discussions between larger delegations from Al-Azhar and the Vatican, was characterized as extremely friendly - a sort of "re-set" of Catholic-Muslim relations after the iciness allegedly set off by Pope Benedict's Regensburg remarks in 2006.

According to Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi, in their conversation

they had focused mainly on the theme of the common commitment of the authorities and faithful of the great religions for peace in the world, the rejection of violence and terrorism, the situation of Christians in the context of the conflicts and the tensions in the Middle East and their protection.

The Pope gave Sheik el-Tayeb a number of gifts including a copy of Laudato si.

Then they spontaneously embraced.

Sheik el-Tayeb is often described as a "moderate." He looks rational and reasonable, without the crazy smile of the fanatic. He supported el-Sisi against the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt and has made a number of public statements against violent extremism and in favor of human rights in general.

A few months before meeting the Pope he declared in front of the German Parliament that the Koran guaranteed religious freedom.

However, as the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies recently pointed out (as highlighted by Raymond Ibrahim in a recent essay), el-Tayeb has a history of saying one thing to Western audiences and another to Arabic or Muslim ones.

For example, during this past Ramadan, el-Tayeb reaffirmed on his television show that Islam mandates death for apostates:

Contemporary apostasy presents itself in the guise of crimes, assaults, and grand treason, so we deal with it now as a crime that must be opposed and punished…. Those learned in Islam [al-fuqaha] and the imams of the four schools of jurisprudence consider apostasy a crime and agree that the apostate must either renounce his apostasy or else be killed.

The plucky Institute made a public statement calling on him to renounce this position, also making the general observation that

Al Azhar adopts two contradictory speeches: one is open and directed externally, while the other supports violent extremism, and is directed internally.

Interestingly, it appears that the statement was not released in English or referenced on the English version of the site.

What are we to make of this?

Is Pope Francis aware that his new Muslim friend appears to believe that apostates from Islam should be killed? How does this comport with the "protection" of Christians in the region? Or perhaps the Pope, in his rejection of "proselytism," does not believe that Christian converts are worthy of protection, or should not be placed in the category of "Christians." Maybe it's more of an ethnic category.

Also, converts do tend to be a bit conservative, after all.

Actually, I suspect the Pope has no idea what el-Tayeb really believes or more to the point, doesn't really care. But he does seem to care very much about publicizing how dialogue with his quasi-peer distinguishes him from his predecessor:

In fairness to el-Tayeb, as the highest Sunni Muslim scholarly authority in the world it would be difficult if not impossible for him to declare to a Muslim audience that apostates shouldn't be put to death, as this is clearly stated in the Koran, the Hadith and Islamic history and tradition. In that context, advocating the death penalty for apostates is not an unusual or extreme position at all. Indeed, polls show that most Muslims in Egypt support it. Though, again, there is a tradition of not, as it were, making a big deal of this to Western audiences.

It may even be that el-Tayeb himself doesn't himself particularly want to execute apostates.

The problem with Islam is not that all Muslims are evil. It's that all Muslims are to one degree or another beholden to an evil ideology. Many Muslims (including most women) are enslaved to it.

So, why don't they just leave?

See above.

Who speaks for them?

Not Pope Francis, obviously.

Sharif Don't Like It: Facebook Kindly Informs Me that I've Been Censored in Pakistan

Tweet

I'm actually surprised this hasn't happened more often. Out of all the posts about Islam that I've made on Facebook (usually they are links to a Mahound's Paradise blog post, though not in this case) Facebook chose this one to censor, more than three years after the fact.

I had completely forgotten about it, of course.

The irony is that the post itself was written to draw attention to one of those ubiquitous temporary Facebook bans of prominent islamophobes. In that case the ban was against Bosch Fawstin, who had just won the Draw Muhammed Contest (itself the target of a partly preemptively foiled terror attack in Garland, Texas).  

Bosch Fawstin's page is still up. Miraculously he has survived on Facebook for the last three years. Please consider purchasing one of his drawings.

UPDATE: It appears that Fawstin was permanently banned by Twitter.

In and of itself, banning a three-year-old picture is of course silly. I doubt anyone, foe or friend, combs my Facebook posts that far back, though it's possible, of course, that this is part of some larger crackdown. I have no idea.

But the general issue of Facebook bowing to censorship requests from oppressive governments (to say nothing of Facebook's own censorship, quasi-censorship and news manipulation efforts) is very serious.

Would Facebook, had it existed at the time, have censored what the Nazis might have called "Jewish propaganda" in Nazi Germany? Of course they would have. They admit that they would have:

If, after careful legal review, we determine that the content is illegal under local law, then we make it unavailable in the relevant country or territory.

Facebook justifies this policy partly on the basis that having a partly censored Facebook in, say, country XYZ is better than having no Facebook in country XYZ.

Well, it's better for Facebook, of course.

But it's worse than that, Facebook isn't just in it for the money. Those in control at Facebook and at most of the other social media megacompanies see a positive good in suppressing "Islamophobia" - or "hate speech" as it is more generally called. They've said as much many times. Obviously for them, if posting a picture of a glowering Muhammed (complete with bloody sword) isn't hate speech, nothing is.

Western Civilization is destroying itself.

Brit Designer of Only Underwater Sculpture to Muslim "Migrants" Has Second Installation Destroyed by Muslim Natives

Tweet

The late Coralarium at The Fairmont, Maldives

Jason deCaires Taylor is a British "eco-artist" who is famous for creating underwater sculptures, most recently on a large scale - installations that have been dubbed "underwater museums" or "sculpture parks."

Here is an excerpt from the Biography on his website:

A prolific sculptor, he became the first of a new generation of artists to shift the concepts of the Land art movement into the realm of the marine environment. He gained international notoriety in 2006 with the creation of the world’s first underwater sculpture park, situated off the west coast of Grenada in the West Indies. Now listed as one of the Top 25 Wonders of the World by National Geographic the park was instrumental in the government declaring the site a National Marine Protected Area. This was followed in 2009 when he co-founded MUSA (Museo Subacuático de Arte), a vast collection of over 500 of his sculptural works, installed between Cancun and Isla Mujeres in Mexico. 

Other major projects include Museo Atlantico (2016), a collection over 300 submerged sculptures and architectural forms in Lanzarote, Spain, the first of its kind in European waters. The Rising Tide (2016 Thames London) and Ocean Atlas a monumental 60-ton single sculpture located in the Bahamas. 

The works are constructed using pH neutral materials to instigate natural growth and the subsequent changes intended to explore the aesthetics of decay, rebirth and metamorphosis. His pioneering public art projects are not only examples of successful marine conservation, but works of art that seek to encourage environmental awareness, instigate social change and lead us to appreciate the breathtaking natural beauty of the underwater world.

As part of the installation in Lanzarote, Spain, he designed “The Raft of Lampedusa,” which, according to PBS News Hour,

shows a group of people huddled in a raft in an homage to French Romantic painter Théodore Géricault’s painting “The Raft of the Medusa.” The piece references Europe’s current refugee crisis, according to a statement on the project.

“The work is not intended as a tribute or memorial to the many lives lost but as a stark reminder of the collective responsibility of our now global community,” Taylor wrote

As far as I know, of the many artistic tributes to "migrants," this is the only one built underwater - 50 feet underwater, to be exact.

One of the ironies of Taylor's work is that for all of his sympathy for marginalized global communities, etc., his sculptures are generally only accessible to wealthy Western tourists who can afford expensive scuba gear or who have the means to stay in pricey beach resorts.

Obviously, I disagree with much of the artist's politics as well as the New Age silliness of his philosophy. 

But all of that said, I also happen to think many of his works are quite interesting.

Or, rather, some of them are dumb, some are ugly, some are silly, a few are beautiful, but many are just, well, fun. 

I highly recommend looking at his website and checking out the photographs of his diverse creations. As I understand it, most of the shots were taken by Taylor himself who is also a skilled underwater photographer. 

One of his most recent works was unveiled in July. It is (or was) the partially submerged box-shaped Coralarium at the Fairmont Hotel Sirru Fen Fushi on the Maldives Islands.

Guests at the resort could swim to the installation and explore it's exposed or underwater parts, the proportion varying according to the tides. Human figures in various poses populated the interior and roof.

Here is one enthusiastic recent review on Trip Advisor:

And here is part of the blurb:

Today is Wednesday, 5:00 PM, Maldives Time. Why is it "Closed Now"?

It turns out that the Coralarium fell afoul of Muslim religious opinion:

Last week, Maldives police boated across to the installation and destroyed it with pickaxes and sledgehammers.

Their little escapade was chronicled by the British tabloid The Sun:

Yes, they literally dragged one statue off by her hair.

Why did they destroy it? There had been no underwater statue of Muhammed, nor, as far as I can tell, were there any completely naked women, etc. Rather, it appears that the work violated the general Muslim rule against artistic depictions of people. The various three-dimensional figures were "idols," according to outgoing Maldives president Abdulla Yameen.

I do not know whether the cage-like superstructure itself was or will be spared. But I hope they leave the stripped down version - with its fun and joy removed - as a monument.

To Islam.