Tag Archives: Muslim

Muslims can never Integrate – They Hate Us

14 Jan
We, kuffars, non believers, try so hard to be accommodating to Muslims and to get them to integrate into our society but with limited success.  So we feel guilt and that we must try even harder.
We will never succeed.  There is one simple but basic point that we kuffars fail to recognize again and again.
It is deeply fundamental to Islam that not only must you love Allah and the believers but you must also hate non-believers.
Otherwise you are not a true Muslim.
This is the doctrine of Al Wala’ Wal Bara’ (Love and Hate for Allah’s Sake).  We non-believers need to get to grips with this concept.
To be a true Muslim they have to hate us.
Muslims have six articles of faith
  1. One God;
  2. The angels of God;
  3. The books of God, especially the Qur’an;
  4. The prophets of God, especially Muhammad;
  5. The Day of Judgment (or the afterlife); and
  6. The supremacy of God’s will (or predestination).

One of the aspects of the belief in these six articles is “al wala wal bara” loving and hating for the sake of Allah Alone. It is one of the most important beliefs of Islam after belief in one God.

It explains why the moderates don’t come out against the extremists.  It explains why integration into Western society will never happen.

Basically, the moderates may not kill us but they still hate us, or, at least, they are exhorted to hate us at a very fundamental level.  And continuous exhortation must rub off.  Once we understand “al wala wal bara”  then maybe sensible policies can be set up to deal with Islam in the West.

Have a look at some Islamic writings (in blue):

The Prophet said: The strongest bond of faith is loyalty for the sake of Allah and opposition for His sake; love for the sake of Allah and enmity for His sake.

But what does this love and enmity exactly mean?

Loving for the sake of Allah means to love Allah and to show loyalty to Him by following His Shariah. It means to love all that is good and permissible in the Quran and Sunnah. This type of love requires one to defend Allah’s authority and to preserve it. It is to love those who are obedient to Allah and to defend and assist them. These are the party of Allah.

Enmity for the sake of Allah signifies showing anger towards those who oppose Allah, His Messenger, His authority, and the believers. It is to struggle and fight against them in order to uphold and spread the way of Allah and His Messenger.

Al wala wal bara requires one to ally oneself with Allah, His Messenger and the believers wherever they are found and against the disbelievers even if it is against their own relatives. We see this in the example of the Prophet, who fought against his own relatives and his own clan, all for the sake of Allah.

We non-believers probably have not heard of Al wala wal bara because it is hard to remember but it is all over the Islamic websites, even the so-called moderate ones.  An example from an Islamic Question and answer website.

Q.  Can I pray for a good Christian friend who is ill?

A.  You are straying from Al wala wal bara.  Why do you have a Christian friend?  No you may not pray for her.  You may only pray that she converts to Islam.

Even at this human level hate is encouraged.

Allah says in His Book:
Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoever does this has no connection with Allah unless you are guarding yourselves against them as a precaution. Allah bids you to beware of Himself. And to Allah is the journeying. (Surat Ali Imran 3:28)

The reason why “al wala wal bara” is so important in Islam is because, if it is taken into practice, it can remove all devine ignorance from the Muslim Community.  It guarantees the preservation of the Muslim Community, and it distinguishes the believer from the disbeliever. When one loves and hates for Allah’s sake only, they are raised degrees higher than those who love, hate, and act based on their own desires or fake gods or for other meaningless things.

Non-Muslim friends are not allowed.  So much for integration.

Allah commands:

And fight them until persecution is no more and religion is for Allah. (Suratul Baqarah 2:193)

Only the people who love and hate for the sake of Allah will act upon this command. These are the people that understand the meaning of al wala wal bara.

Al wala wal bara aims to purify the society and rid the people of all vices. For example, we are required to oppose the way of the disbelievers. One of their habits is wasting their time in pursuing their own material desires. A Muslim who does not act upon al wala wal bara will imitate this habit and therefore become neglectful of his duties to Allah. This will lead to a corrupt person, who will end up raising a corrupt family, which will corrupt the community in whole.

We call ourselves Muslims, but what exactly is a Muslim? We can’t just expect that belief in Allah and His Messenger is enough to be qualified for Paradise.

If we believe that belief in Allah is enough, then there is no difference between us and the pagan Arabs of the pre-Islamic period, who claimed to believe in Allah and at the same time, worshipped hundreds of other gods. Al wala wal bara is what distinguishes a believer from a disbeliever. A believer allies himself with Allah only and with his final Messenger and with the believers.

In order to be considered a believer, one must believe in Allah and His Messenger as well as show and prove that belief by assisting them and allying oneself with them against the enemies of Islam. The plans of the disbelievers are clearly exposed in the Quran:

They long for you to disbelieve even as they disbelieve, so that you may be the same as them. So do not choose friends from among them until they go out in the way of Allah. (Suratun-Nisaa 4:89)

O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends of one another. And whoever of you takes them for friends is one of them. Surely Allah does not guide wrongdoing people. (Suratul Maaidah 5:51)

Please remember that the Quran is the word of God himself.

We are warned to beware of the kaafireen (i.e unbelievers ) for, they say with their mouths what is not in their hearts (3:167).

They secretly plot against the believers to get rid of them and their divine religion Islam. They attack the Muslims and the people without the belief in al wala wal bara will support them against the believers and this is what we see in today’s situation.

If the believers join together as one brotherhood, sharing a mutual love and hate for the sake of Allah, Islam will come out on top regardless of how powerful their enemies may be. When the Prophet and his companions fought their battles, their enemies were always more in number and had better armour, but the Muslims were victorious as in the Battle of Badr. They shared one cause: fighting for the sake of Allah. 

Al wala wal bara is one of the more important aspects of Islam. It was because of this aspect that the companions and their Chief Leader Muhammad together, peacefully conquered lands and hearts all over the globe by the will and grace of Allah.

I love this idea of peacefully conquering lands.  Not even George Orwell in 1984 doublespeak could have said it so well.


Islam conquers the UK

3 Dec

What have we done to our country?  Look at this extract from a national newspaper.

The Independent, Wednesday 03 December 2014

Muhammed has become the most popular name for baby boys in the UK!

Research by the Baby Centre combined spelling variations to put it at the top of the list of the most used boys’ name in 2014!


The Office for National Statistics (ONS) came to the same conclusion with its official figures for England and Wales.

Oliver was the number one name until the spellings of 3,499 Muhammads, 2,887 Mohammeds and 1,059 Mohammads were combined, giving a total of 7,445 babies.

Some have argued that if those are to be taken as the same name, then so should British variations such as Oliver and Ollie, James and Jim, which would overtake Mohammed in all its incarnations.

Variations of Mohammed are the most popular boys’ names in the UK But Arabic experts say the comparison is a false one, because the differences with Mohammed arise only from the transliteration from Arabic (محمد) into Roman characters.

A spokesperson from the Arab British Centre, which works to improve understanding of the Arab world in the UK, said that despite its variations, Mohammed is unquestionably the same name.

“Because Arabic is a phonetic language, it means that when people spell it out the letters can’t directly represent the sounds so you end up with different vowels and things like that,” she said.

“Even though people write it differently it’s still the exact same name, unlike Ollie and Oliver, because people have shortened it.”

Variations can include Mohamad, Mohamed, Mohammad, Mohammed, Muhamad, Muhamed, Muhammad, Muhammed, Muhammet and many more. Shortenings include Mo and Mohd, which were not counted in the data.



See also:https://thoughtsforourtimes.wordpress.com/2014/07/06/we-will-out-breed-you/




Islamic State is not Islamic

1 Dec

This blog includes material from an article was published in The Times on 1st December 2014 quoting Desmond Swayne, an international development minister.

The acts of violence committed by Islamic State militants have been more than equalled by Christians down the centuries…

Yet, again we find the dreadful Tu Quoque argument so loved by Islam apologists.

So, the violence is OK, Christians did it too!

Excuse me, but both were wrong and the Christians have, at least,  grown up and stopped doing it. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

In a candid set of “personal remarks” at a parliamentary event last week, he also hit out at the BBC for using the term “Islamic State”, which he said was a “standing insult to a billion peaceloving Muslims” because it presumed that the militants were acting under the authority of Islam.

It doesn’t matter whether or not they have the “authority of Islam”. There is no equivalent of the Pope in Islam to give that authority. There is no “authority of Islam”.  The Quran is their inspiration and Mohummad(PBUH) is their role model. By their fruits you shall know them.

Of course it’s Islamic. It’s just not the Islam of the so-called moderates who delude themselves that their holy scriptures are not full of violent exhortations and hatred.

Passages in the Koran that appeared to advocate attacks on non-Muslims could be answered with “any number of bloodthirsty, ghastly, taken-out-of context quotes from the New and Old Testaments”, he added.

Oh, that’s OK then.

So what? Does it excuse them?

Islam is not inherently violent

30 Nov

On extremists, Lady Warsi, the UK’s first Muslim Minister, added: “Islam, like all other major religions, is not inherently violent. Passages from sacred texts must be taken in context. It would be possible to distort quotes from any religious text.”

What planet does she come from?  Has she never read the Qur’an?  It is full of violence against infidels and apostates.

But then she says the bit I love, “It would be possible to distort quotes from any religious texts.”

So firstly, all the exhortation to violence is a distortion!  No need to worry about that then, thank goodness. Secondly, other religions can also be said to exhort violence.  Oh well, that makes it OK then!

This argument is the classical and false Tu Quoque argument so loved by Muslim apologists. Tu Quoque means “You too”.  Of course, two wrongs don’t make a right.

Yes, other religions may have violent texts but the adherents of those religions don’t commit suicide,  blowing up churches, mosques, temples and public places.  They don’t take joy in using their texts to justify beheadings, stonings and honour killings.

And is it just coincidence that there are wars all the way from China to Turkey, whenever Muslim countries have borders with non-Muslim countries?  And even between Muslim countries?

Islam IS  inherently violent.

By their fruits you will know them.

A Betrayal of Islam

28 Nov

Lord Pearson of Rannoch is facing a formal complaint from Labour MP Khalid Mahmood, after calling on Muslims to “address the violence in the Qur’an.”

Speaking in the House of Lords, Pearson, the former UKIP leader, said: “My lords, are the government aware that Fusilier Rigby’s murderers quoted 22 verses of the Qur’an to justify their atrocity? Therefore, is the prime minister accurate or helpful when he describes it as a betrayal of Islam? Since the vast majority of Muslims are our peace-loving friends, should we not encourage them to address the violence in the Qur’an – and indeed in the life and the example of Muhammad?”…

…. Labour MP Khalid Mahmood said: “I find it absolutely offensive that this guy is still able to say this. I will actually tomorrow make a complaint formally to the lords speaker on this issue. This is not tolerable and it should not be tolerated at all.”

Here we go again, cry baby Muslims screaming “discrimination” and that they “have taken offence”crybabyto try to suppress discussion.  And they even try to suppress discussion in the House of Lords!

Was the atrocity a betrayal of Islam?  They quoted the texts.  By their fruit you shall know them.


The Dialogue with Islam

3 Nov


Islamic Obsession with Killing

3 Oct

I found this article.(http://www.answeringmuslims.com/p/jihad.html)  

It is quite articulate about Muslim obsessions with killing.  Here it is.

On November 5th, 2009, a Muslim Army Major named Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire at Fort Hood in Texas. Many innocent people died, and Hasan has been charged with thirteen counts of premeditated murder and more than thirty counts of attempted murder.

Shortly after the Fort Hood shooting, CNN posted an article titled “Murder Has No Religion” (by Arsalan Iftikhar), which claimed that such attacks are forbidden in Islam. The article began:

Most of the world’s 1.57 billion Muslims know that the Holy Quran states quite clearly that, “Anyone who kills a human being … it shall be as though he has killed all of mankind. … If anyone saves a life, it shall be as though he has saved the lives of all of mankind.

Notice that the article portrays Islam as a religion that condemns killing of any kind. But is this what the Qur’an actually says? Unfortunately for CNN’s readers, the author didn’t give a reference, so readers were left to find the quotation themselves. Yet when we turn to 5:32-33 of the Qur’an (the source of CNN’s severely edited quotation), we get a surprisingly different picture of killing in Islam:

For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our apostles came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land.

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement.

Two things are worthy of note in this passage. First, the teaching appealed to by CNN (“whoever slays a soul . . . it is as though he slew all men”) was given “to the children of Israel” (i.e. the Jews). It was not given to Muslims. Second, even if Westernized Muslims want to apply this verse to themselves, the verse obviously permits killing people who spread “mischief in the land.” Indeed, the very next verse commands Muslims to murder, crucify, and dismember those who wage war against Islam and “make mischief” in Muslim lands.

Since the United States is at war in two predominantly Islamic countries, knowledgeable Muslims understand that, according to Muhammad, U.S. soldiers meet the “mischief-making” criterion, and should therefore be killed. It’s no coincidence that Major Hasan targeted soldiers, many of whom were being deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Thus, CNN quoted two carefully edited portions of a passage that justifies the killing of enemy combatants and used them to show that Islam condemns attacks such as the Fort Hood shooting. While deceptions like this are easily spotted, there is much confusion in the world concerning the role of violence in Islam. This short pamphlet will clear up some of the confusion.


Muslims in the West are quick to point to passages such as Qur’an 109:6 (“You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion”) and 2:256 (“There is no compulsion in religion”) as evidence that Islam is a religion of peace. When confronted with harsher passages such as 9:5 (“Slay the idolaters wherever you find them”) and 9:29 (“Fight those who believe not in Allah”), Westernized Muslims interpret these verses in light of the more peaceful teachings of the Qur’an, typically saying something like: “Well, the Qur’an can’t be commanding us to kill unbelievers, since it says that there’s no compulsion in religion.”

Hence, Westernized Muslims pick the verses of the Qur’an they find most attractive, and they use these verses to sanitize the rest of the Qur’an. But is this the correct way to interpret the Qur’an? Unfortunately, the answer is no. The Qur’an presents its own method of interpretation—the Doctrine of Abrogation.

Qur’an 2:106Whatever verse we shall abrogate, or cause [thee] to forget, we will bring a better than it, or one like unto it. Dost thou not know that God is almighty?

Qur’an 16:101When We substitute one revelation for another—and God knows best what He reveals (in stages)—they say, “Thou art but a forger”: but most of them understand not.

According to the Qur’an, then, when Muslims are faced with conflicting commands, they aren’t supposed to pick the one they like best. Rather, they are to go to history and see which verse was revealed last. Whichever verse came last is said to abrogate (or cancel) earlier revelations.

What happens when we apply this methodology to Qur’anic verses on peace and violence?


When we turn to Islam’s theological sources and historical writings (Qur’an, Hadith, Sira, and Tafsir), we find that there are three stages in the call to Jihad, depending on the status of Muslims in a society.

STAGE ONE—When Muslims are completely outnumbered and can’t possibly win a physical confrontation with unbelievers, they are to live in peace with non-Muslims and preach a message of tolerance. We see an example of this stage when Muhammad and his followers were a persecuted minority in Mecca. Since the Muslims were entirely outnumbered, the revelations Muhammad received during this stage (e.g. “You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion”) called for religious tolerance and proclaimed a future punishment (rather than a worldly punishment) for unbelievers.

STAGE TWO—When there are enough Muslims and resources to defend the Islamic community, Muslims are called to engage in defensive Jihad. Thus, when Muhammad had formed alliances with various groups outside Mecca and the Muslim community had become large enough to begin fighting, Muhammad received Qur’an 22:39-40:

Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them; Those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause except that they say: our Lord is Allah. . . .

Although Muslims in the West often pretend that Islam only allows defensive fighting, later revelations show otherwise.

STAGE THREE—When Muslims establish a majority and achieve political power in an area, they are commanded to engage in offensive Jihad. Hence, once Mecca and Arabia were under Muhammad’s control, he received the call the fight all unbelievers. In Surah 9:29, we read:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Notice that this verse doesn’t order Muslims to fight oppressors, but to fight those who don’t believe in Islam (including the “People of the Book”—Jews and Christians).

Not surprisingly, we find similar commands in Islam’s most trusted collections of ahadith (traditions containing Muhammad’s teachings).

Sahih al-Bukhari 6924—Muhammad said: “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: La ilaha illallah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and whoever said La ilaha illahllah, Allah will save his property and his life from me.”

Sahih Muslim 30—Muhammad said: “I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah.”

Here again, the criterion for fighting people is that the people believe something other than Islam.

It’s clear, then, that when Muslims rose to power, peaceful verses of the Qur’an were abrogated by verses commanding Muslims to fight people based on their beliefs. Islam’s greatest scholars acknowledge this. For instance, Ibn Kathir (Islam’s greatest commentator on the Qur’an) sums up Stage Three as follows: “Therefore all people of the world should be called to Islam. If anyone of them refuses to do so, or refuses to pay the Jizyah, they should be fought till they are killed.”


Abrogation also accounts for shifting attitudes regarding Jews and Christians in the Qur’an. While Muslims are to be friendly to Jews and Christians when the former are outnumbered, the Islamic position changes when Muslims reach Stage Three, at which point Christians and Jews are to recognize their inferior status and pay the Jizyah (a payment made to Muslims in exchange for not being killed by them). Consider some of Muhammad’s later teachings about Christians and Jews:

Qur’an 5:51O 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.

Qur’an 9:30And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

Qur’an 98:6Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein. They are the worst of creatures.

Sahih Muslim 4366—Muhammad said: “I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.

Al-Bukhari, Al-Adab al-Mufrad 1103—Muhammad said: “Do not give the People of the Book the greeting first. Force them to the narrowest part of the road.

Needless to say, these teachings can hardly be considered peaceful or tolerant.


Since Muhammad obviously commanded his followers to fight unbelievers (simply for being unbelievers), why do Muslims in the West deny this? Here we must turn to Surah 3:28, which reads:

Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security.

According to this verse (which uses a variation of the word Taqiyya, meaning “concealment”), Muslims are not allowed to be friends with non-Muslims. However, if Muslims feel threatened by a stronger adversary, they are allowed to pretend to be friendly. Ibn Kathir comments: “In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship outwardly but never inwardly.” Abu Darda, one of Muhammad’s companions, put it this way: “We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.

Is Islam a religion of peace? No. Islam is a religion that pretends to be peaceful when Muslims are too weak to win a war. Of course, there are many Muslims who aren’t violent. Many Muslims in the West love peace and tolerance. But they didn’t get these values from Islam. They got them from the West, and now they’re reinterpreting Islam based on their Western values. For dedicated Muslims, however, there are only two possible situations to be in: (1) fighting unbelievers, and (2) pretending to be peaceful while preparing to fight unbelievers. Either way, fighting non-Muslims and conquering the world in the name of Allah is always the goal.

1400 abused girls

28 Aug

The police have time to research posthumously the sexual crimes of Jimmy Saville, imprison Rolf Harris and prosecute Dave Lee Travis. Yet 1400 young girls, children, are systematically abused and raped over a 10 year period in Rotherham and despite being told about it again and again, the authorities, police and social services do nothing. Nobody arrested, no one in jail! Scandalous.


And why? The perpetrators were Muslims of Pakistani origin and the police were scared of being called racists or Islamophobes. They did not want to upset “social cohesion”.

But the real question, and the one no-one seems to ask,  is why the police are so scared. Why does this group get special privileges?

It is because  Muslims totally overreact to every perceived slight and we let them get away with it.  They threaten death, riots and suicide bombers.  They are like petulant children, only they are not children and the threats have proven to be real.  So, unbelievably, the police back off.

Far better to let 1400 young girls suffer both sexual and physical abuse.



It’s happening in our country

10 Aug

The Muslim moderates are irrelevant. It’s the hard liners who call the shots.

The moderates will toe the line because they are scared of their more extreme brethren.

In Phase 2 of the jihad, Muslims have sufficient numbers to demand special treatment and here they are, trying to ban street dancing in Birmingham.

10th August 2014 in The Sunday Times

We will out-breed you

6 Jul

In 1980, we employed a decorator to paint our house.

He told us that there was a local shop owned by a friendly Muslim.

One day, the Muslim said to him, “You must understand that we are at war with you and we will be at war until Britain is an Islamic state. And we will win this war without any fighting for one simple reason. We will out-breed you.”

That was 34 years ago. Look at the statistics.

In this article below from The Times it points out that 1 in 10 of the babies under 5 years old in the UK is Muslim. 1 in 10!
Also the number of Muslims in the UK grew from 1.6 million to 2.7 million in just 10 years, from 2001 to 2011!

The name ‘Oliver’ is no longer the most popular name given to new born baby boys in the UK.  The most popular name is Mohummad!


In the same article, the main thrust is that the poor old mosques are too overwhelmed by other work to spend enough time stopping imams from radicalising their youth. Taqiyya or what! (See previous post). Oh, that’s all right then.

On the evening news on BBC1 on 14th July 2014, when discussing police demographics in London, it was stated without comment that 40% of Londoners are Black or Asian! 40% of our capital city!


See also: https://thoughtsforourtimes.wordpress.com/2014/12/03/islam-conquers-the-uk/