Archive for November, 2013

The Liar-in-Thief

November 19, 2013

The Liar-in-Thief


The Ten Comandments are really only The Ten Symptoms

November 11, 2013

Here’s the predictably obvious differences between raising tabula-rasa human children in an indoctrinating culture of  “THOU SHALT KILL!” as opposed to one of “THOU SHALT NOT KILL!”

Holy mobster Moslems only hate “infidels” because the Qur’an says “god” orders them to – Period.

Islam is a threat to everyone because IT says it is.

ALL moslems are criminals because, by their own rules, they must endorse in public every word in the Qur’an.

And the Qur’an tells them that they are so “superior” to all non-moslem humans, that it’s not only their right, but also their holy duty to their god, to extort, enslave, and murder all the non-moslems in the world, simply for the “crime” of not being moslems.

So the Qur’an is a clearly-written, us-versus-them hate-crime book, endorsing a permanent might-makes-right death-threat.

And all threats are psychological attacks (aka: coercion, duress, extortion, “terrorism”) and all non-defensive attacks are already classified as crimes.

After all, when you attack the Others first, then, by definition, you are the predatory criminal aggressor, and they are your innocent victims – there’s no two ways about it!

(Attacking second, or counter-attacking, in defense of one’s self and/or of innocent others, is always OK, and in fact such retaliation is the most basic and crucial, mandatory requirement for having any sort of deterring justice in the world at all, ever)!

In fact, one doesn’t need a god to agree to the basic principle embodied in the Golden Rule of Law which simply defines all sitational morality as:
Do Not Attack First.

Attacking second (Retaliatory counter-attacking to deter evil) is mandatory for justice.

And Threats – intimidation; coercion; duress; harrassment; activist agitation; extortion; terrorism – are (psychological) attacks.

We only have on real right – to not be attacked first – and one real responsibility – to not attack innocent others first. And that’s it; the entire social contract of Civilization.

In reality, it’s all about human reason and an ongoing, dynamic agreement to become situationally right (as in factually correct) as opposed to whining that one should be entitled to the static, idolatrous and victim-blaming right to remain irresponsibly wrong:

We in the West self-reliantly CHOOSE to agree to the Golden Rule of Law, which, by simply defining all situational morality as: “Do Not Attack First!” enables trust, progress, and Civilization.

(See all “Western” countries)!

Even the “Ten” Commandments are really only a bunch of listed symptoms, illustrating this simple binary; the first five are all cautions to “Fear and Obey!” while the second five are all admonishments not to steal! Thus, they, too, can be summed up as “Greed NOT; Be Fearful!” (or, as The Golden Rule of Law which defines all situational morality as: Don’t Attack First)!

But they in the East force everyone to obey the brazen rule of chaos, which embodies immorality as: “Our god says we always have to attack all ‘The Others’ first!” and so inflicts distrust, stagnation, and Barbarism.

(See all ‘moslem’ countries)!

So anyone who engages in the puerile, critical thinking logical fallacy of the Argumentum Tu Quoque, by falsely and slanderously asserting that “All Religions Are The Same!”

… is really only a coward who already knows, fears, and so Submits to islamic extortion; i.e:


…as if merely by listing and comparing two or more incidental cases of wrongs, would somehow magically turn one of them into a right!

Barack Obama to Aides: I’m Really Good at Killing People

November 5, 2013

From here:

We have reported on Barack Obama’s “Kill List,” his appointment of the first ever US assassination czar (who now heads the CIA), and his use of drone strikes which have killed hundreds of innocent civilians, including children. Criticism of Obama’s use of drones has come under serious criticism from his political opponents, as well as his political allies. However, according to a new book, Double Down: Game Change 2012 by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, Obama told his aides he is “really good at killing people.”

Really good at killing people? Seriously, this is what the leader of the free world thinks is good? I suppose we should not be surprised that he would be “really good at killing people,” since Obama is nothing more than a Chicago thug.

Nobel-peace-drone-ObamaThis Washington
report makes passing reference to the anecdote, saying that while speaking with his aides about the drone program Obama bragged that he was ‘really good at killing people.’

While the White House has not given any comment on the allegations of the statement, Senior Advisor Dan Pfieffer told ABC recently, “The president is always frustrated about leaks. I haven’t talked to him about this book. I haven’t read it. He hasn’t read it. But he hates leaks.”

As I’ve said before, I don’t buy that any leak gets out of the White House without Obama knowing about it and using it to his advantage.

According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, approximately 3,000 people have been killed in Pakistan as a result of drone strikes since 2004. Obviously that time includes some of the term of George W. Bush as well.

Among those 3,000, between 416 and 948 of those killed were civilians. That number is upwards of 1/3 of those targeted! One of those, was an American citizen, sixteen year old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki.

The irony in all of this is that Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize back in 2009 and in defending his use of drones which are killing not only alleged terrorists, but innocent civilians, including American citizens, he said back in May at the National Defense University, “Let us remember that the terrorists we are after target civilians, and the death toll from their acts of terrorism against Muslims dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes.”

Obama has had people on both sides of the aisle defend his actions, including the strike that killed 16 year old Al-Awlaki.

Congressman Peter King (R-NY) said that Obama’s kill list was “totally right and totally constitutional,” and then went on to say that the killing of Al-Awlaki was just part of “the breaks.”

Additionally, former Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was even more callous in speaking about the sixteen year old American’s death at the hands of the Chief Executive. “I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the wellbeing of their children.”

The problem in all of this is that the young man in question should not be held accountable for the sins of his father. Second, he was not engaged in any terrorist activities. Third, he was targeted completely separate from his father. Fourth, he was an American citizen and under law, if there was a reason to believe he was engaged in criminal activity, the Constitution provides a means for dealing with him under law. Yet, all we hear are excuses.

I continue to ask elected representatives, why they will not hold this man accountable to the law. I also continue to ask those who lead our military just how long will it be until you take care of the domestic enemy in the White House and hold to your oath to defend the Constitution against domestic enemies? Make no mistake, Barack Obama, and all those that support him in government are domestic enemies to the Constitution.

Tim Brown is the Editor of Freedom Outpost.

Fear at the Highest Levels: Gov Changes Navy Uniforms: “Too Closely Associated with Radical Groups”

November 5, 2013

From here:


The government of the United States has just provided clear evidence that they are absolutely terrified of the liberty-driven sentiment sweeping the country.

Following September 11th, the US Navy advised all of their special forces operatives in the Sea, Air and Land teams that their new uniforms would consist of a flag bearing 13 strips, the traditional rattlesnake of the Gadsden flag, and the words “Don’t Tread On Me.”

It’s purpose, says Michael Dorstewitz of Biz Pac Review, was to let America’s enemies know who they were dealing with when they faced a US Navy SEAL: “I’m an American warship — don’t tread on me.”

But now, amid the widespread outrage over government interference into the lives of Americans on every level, including our personal communications, individual health care choices, and our right to provide for our own safety and security, the Pentagon under orders from the Commander-In-Chief has decided it’s time to retire one of the longest standing symbols of the individual liberty that has for so long been the tenet of our free society.


Don’t Spy On Me

On October 22nd of this year Naval commanders received the following email, ordering them to have their men remove the jack worn so proudly by members of our armed forces.


WARCOM and GROUP TWO/ONE have pushed out the uniform policy for NWU III and any patches worn on the sleeve.

All personnel are only authorized to wear the matching “AOR” American Flag patch on the right shoulder. You are no longer authorized to wear the “Don’t Tread On Me” patch.

Again the only patch authorized for wear is the American flag on the right shoulder. Please pass the word to all.


Senior Enlisted Advisor
[Name Redacted]


Though senior commanders refused to speak publicly about the changes, one SEAL stated what should be obvious:

Why would our leaders sell out our heritage? Why would they rob present and future sailors of our battle cry?

When a friend of mine asked his leadership the same question, he was told, “The Jack is too closely associated with radical groups.”

We must assume that this thought policeman embedded in the SEAL community is speaking of the Tea Party, whose flag (which also dates from the American Revolution) depicts a snake with the same defiant slogan as The Navy Jack.

This begs yet another question: Who defines “radical group”? The last time I checked, all military personnel are under oath to “support and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” The Tea Party stands for constitutional rights and founding principles of civil liberties and limited government. Radical? Not unless you’re a leftist hell-bent on destroying the foundations of our country. Or as the President has stated as the objective of his presidency, “to fundamentally transform” America.

Via The Daily Caller

In 2009 the Missouri Information Analysis Center released an analysis of militias and revolutionary movements operating within the continental United States. It was dubbed the MIAC report, and detailed specific signs indicative of those who may have a proclivity towards domestic terrorism or rebellion.

The Gadsden flag, which closely mirrors the Navy Jack and shares the same motto, and which was also used during the American Revolutionary War, was identified as political paraphernalia often used by radical extremist groups in the United States.

The report called for law enforcement officials on the local, state and Federal level to be on the look-out for those displaying variations of the Gadsden flag, as well as bumper stickers supporting the U.S. Constitution and third-party candidates like Ron Paul.

What should be clear from the government’s latest move to wipe away any official association with the Gadsden rattlesnake and motto is that those supporting any movement not 100% in line with official narrative are to be considered potential terrorists.

In today’s America, supporting the wrong cause, wearing the wrong clothes, pasting the wrong bumper sticker on your car, or saying the wrong thing on the internet can very easily lead to you being added to one of the government’s many red lists and identifying you as an enemy of the state.

They may not be rounding people up just yet for their transgressions against the state, but orders can be given at anytime under the banner of Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act to detain those who could pose a threat to the greater good.

Of course, things like that only happen in places like Hitler’s Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Russia.

This is America… Land of the Free.

Mac Slavo is the Editor of

NBC Claims Taliban Oppose Suicide Bombings, Taliban Disagree

November 5, 2013

From Sheikyermami’s Winds of Jihad:

NBC Claims Taliban Oppose Suicide Bombings, Taliban Disagree

Posted By Daniel Greenfield On November 4, 2013  In The Point



A few days ago, NBC News ran an interview with a “moderate” Taliban leader.

“We have been tasked by our leadership to urge the public and clerics to boycott the elections next year,” senior Taliban leader and cleric Maulana Abdul Aziz told NBC News while on a visit to Quetta, just across the border in neighboring Pakistan.

He said bomb attacks against Muslims and innocent unarmed people were against the teaching of Islam but that “suicide attacks on U.S. and NATO forces” were justified.

The Taliban, who do nothing but carry out bomb attacks against everyone in sight, were offended by this and have decided to set the record straight. They have never heard of this Aziz person and are 100 percent for suicide bombings, anywhere, anyhow.

Zabihullah Mujahid, an official spokesman for the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, the official name for the Afghan Taliban, denounced an individual known as Mawlana Abdul Aziz who has purported to speak for the group. Aziz claimed two days ago that the Taliban’s top clerics have declared “martyrdom operations” as “unlawful.”

“That the Islamic Emirate does not have or recognize a scholar with such duties named ‘Mawlana Abdul Aziz’ in its ranks therefore it considers the above assertions as baseless and urges all media outlets to refrain from publishing such groundless and fabricated reports …,” Mujahid continued.

NBC News… the Taliban would like to talk to you and prove to you that they are absolutely on board with suicide bombings.

Why there is no such thing as a “moderate Muslim”

November 3, 2013

by sheikyermami on November 2, 2013

Peeling Back The Layers Of Taqiyah

By Ali Sina / thanks to the Tundra Tabloids for the tip

There is no such thing as moderate Islam. This is the ultimate taqiyah. This trap is deadly. It may cost your liberty and your life. Moderate Islam is an oxymoron. It is as attainable as perfumed dung; although I may be wrong about the latter.

Fitzgerald: Ten Things To Think When Thinking Of “Moderate” Muslims 

The link to the article,originally put up in 2004 and re-posted several times since, and comments pro and con, is here.  by Hugh Fitzgerald
George Whale: Ten Reasons Why “Moderate” Muslims Are Not The Answer 

At the website of the  Liberty Party (GB) here.– by Hugh Fitzgerald


Who has not heard of taqiyah? But did you know that it is onion shaped? Taqiyah sounds and means the same as the Sanskrit word thugee from the root sthag. They may be related.  The idea behind the taqiyah is to deceive the victim and when he is least prepared overpower him and subdue him.  This was also the philosophy of the Indian thugs.

Taqiyah has many layers.  The most common form is when Muslims deny that certain Islamic behaviors have anything to do with Islam.

On October 27, the BBC aired a documentary in which Mo Ansar, a Muslim activist in UK, was shown addressing a group of English Defense League members. He wanted to meet them in order to dispel their misunderstandings of Islam and to prove that Islam poses no threat to their country and their way of life.  How could he do that when Islam’s goal is to become dominant over all religions and nations? Well, he did it like any Muslim would do. He lied.  (Mo’s speech to EDL is at minute 10).

 mo ansar

Mo starts by saying “as somebody who was born in this country and is British, I think I uphold British values. I am also a Muslim.  Islam is not here to take over the country. Islam is not here to take over the world. That is not the Islam that I know. Islam that I know is one that believes in co-existence and honors and respects British values.”

Nothing can be further from the truth. The British and Islamic values are diametrically opposed. They cannot co-exist. The British values are based on democracy. Democracy implies equality.  Iranian Journalist Amir Taheri says, “Equality is unacceptable in Islam. Un-believers cannot be equal to believers and women are not equal to men. Even the non-Muslims are not deemed to be equal. The People of the Book (Jews and Christians) are accepted as second class citizens and allowed to live in an Islamic state provided they pay the protection tax; Jizyah. But the pagans, atheists and idolaters are not regarded as fully humans. According to the Quran, the idolaters are to be killed wherever they are found.” (9:5)

In the April 9, 2002 issue, The Wall Street Journal published the concept of blood money in Saudi Arabia. If a person has been killed or caused to die by another, the latter has to pay blood money or compensation, as follow.
100,000 riyals if the victim is a Muslim man,
50,000 riyals if a Muslim woman,
50,000 riyals if a Christian man,
25,000 riyals if a Christian woman,
6,666 riyals if a Hindu man,
3,333 riyals if a Hindu woman.

According to this hierarchy, a Muslim man’s life is worth 33 times that of a Hindu woman. This hierarchy is based on the Islamic definition of human rights and is rooted in the Quran and the Sharia. How can we talk of democracy when the concept of equality in Islam is inexistent?

This is not a quirk of Saudi Arabia. The prophet of Islam advised Muslims not to aid non-Muslims to seek justice if they are abused by a Muslim. In his much celebrated edict of Medina, he declared, “A believer shall not slay a believer for the sake of an unbeliever, nor shall he aid an unbeliever against a believer.”  The same document states, “Whoever is convicted of killing a believer… the believers shall be against him as one man, and they are bound to take action against him.”

The Quran 3:28 prohibits Muslims to take non-Muslims as their leaders, or even as friends. If Muslims tell the truth about their hostile intention, they will be kicked out from the countries that they intend to overtake. The same verse allows them to lie, “by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them.

Co-existence? Yes there is co-existence in Islam, but only if the non-Muslims are reduced into dhimmis, and accept to pay tributes to Muslims while feeling themselves humiliated and subdued. (Q. 9:29)

One characteristic of democracy is freedom of belief. This is utterly alien to Islam. The Quran 3: 85 says, “whoso desires another religion than Islam it shall not be accepted of him.”  The punishment of apostasy in Islam is death. No Islamic country allows its Muslim citizens to change their religion.

Mo also assured his audience that Islam is not here to take over the world. He lied. People often make the mistake of comparing Islam to Christianity and other faiths. All religions are personal. They are about enlightenment or relationship with God.  Islam is about world domination. The focus of Islam is on expansion. A hadith narrated by Bukhari (4: 53: 386) makes this clear. It says that when Umar sent Muslim army to Persia, “the representative of Khosrau came out with 40,000 warriors, and an interpreter got up saying, “Let one of you talk to me!” Al-Mughira replied, “Ask whatever you wish.” The other asked, “Who are you?” Al-Mughira replied, “We are some people from the Arabs; we led a hard, miserable, disastrous life. We used to suck the hides and the date stones from hunger; we used to wear clothes made up of fur of camels and hair of goats, and to worship trees and stones. While we were in this state, the Lord of the Heavens and the Earths, Elevated is His Remembrance and Majestic is His Highness, sent to us from among ourselves a Prophet whose father and mother are known to us. Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:– “Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master.”

The order to fight till the non-Muslims worship Allah has not changed. Muslims will not abandon their quest for domination until they succeed or they are defeated. They have no choice in this.  They are programmed to spread Islam through deception or war.  They can’t be a Muslim and not advance their religion. The obligation to spread Islam is on every Muslim.  We have the choice. We can submit to them, or fight back and defeat them.  But how can we do that if we are not even aware that we are under attack? Taqiyah is what Muslims do to keep us in the sedated state.

Muhammad said al Islamo deenun va dawlah, (Islam is religion and state).  The goal of Islam is to take over the world and establish a world caliphate.  Without this goal Islam becomes meaningless.  The whole idea of jihad, which is an obligation on every Muslim, is to expand the Islamic domain.  It is also said that the bigger jihad is the struggle against one’s self. This is a lie too. Many scholars of Islam have refuted this as an innovation, something that was never said by Muhammad.

Jihad is through war, through financing the war (zakat) and through deception. The disagreement between Muslims is not in whether the west should become Islamic or not, but in whether it should be annexed through qital (fighting) or through taqiyah (deceiving).

The Quran 9:33 says, Allah will cause Islam to prevail over all religions. One does not have to read the history of Islamic conquest and oppression of their vanquished nations throughout the last 1400 years to know Muslims have no regards for the human rights of the non-Muslims. A look at how the minorities are treated in Muslim majority countries in the 21st century can make that point clear.

When Muslims become the majority, they deny the minorities any participation in political life. No non-Muslim is allowed to run for the head of any Islamic country and where they are allowed to become a member of parliament, it is only as a representative of their people. They are like ambassadors of their co-religionists in the Islamic state. They have no role in how the country should be run, but only as a liaison between the state and their co-religionists who are regarded as second class citizens.

Some of the EDL members expressed their concerned about their daughters who had to married to Muslims and brainwash to cut their ties with their family.  Mo Ansar responded with more lies. He said, “If there are girls who have converted to Islam and are told you cannot meet your family; if that happens, I’d say now clearly, that it is not allowed in Islam.”

Mo should know that Muhammad ordered his daughter Zeinab to leave her unbelieving husband Abul As, until he was forced to convert. He told his followers to cut their ties with their families and to emigrate from Mecca. These stories are all recorded in the Sira.

Everything Mo said in that meeting was a lie.  Of course he is not an ignorant Muslim.  He just considered that in that gathering lying was more beneficial that telling the truth and that too is acceptable in Islam.

Muslims are permitted to lie even under oath to promote Islam and when the necessity justifies it. All they have to do for expiation of lying under oath is to feed someone or fast for three days (Q. 5:89). The Quran also says, “Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness (vain) in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts; and He is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing.” (Q. 2:225). So if the intent is to advance Islam all lies are permissible.

Imam Ghazzali (1058-1111), arguably the greatest Islamic scholar noted, “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If praise worthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible.”

Mo’s deception had no bounds. He even went as far as saying “I have been fighting for gay rights for 15 years. Many people are surprised by that.”  If it were true, it would be very surprising.  But it is not true.  In at least five places the Quran condemns homosexuality in the severest term and in 4:16, it says, punish them both, unless they repent and amend.

Mo’s audience however, was not fooled. One person noted, “He is just pandering to the audience, saying things he thinks the audience likes to hear. He thinks we are all dimwits.”

Was Mo Ansar really sincere? In the same documentary, (minutes 25) when Tommy Robinson said, there are certain verses in the Quran that glorify murder, rape and slavery and suggested that these verses should be phased out, Mo blamed the lack of understanding of the Quran and not the Quran itself. How can “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them, let them find harshness in you,” or beat your wife if you fear she is thinking of disobeying you” can be interpreted in any other way?   The Quran is a book of hate and violence.  Mo knows it, but he hides the truth.

Mo’s insincerity was put to the litmus test by a fellow Muslim, Maajid Nawaaz, who asked him whether he agreed with the Quranic law of chopping the limbs of a thief and other barbaric laws such as stoning. Mo first tried to play taqiyah and said he wouldn’t, but when pressed, he began stuttering and tried to evade the answer by saying he would seek the consensus of the ulama.  It became clear that he was lying all along.  He would not go against any of the teachings of the Quran, even when they are all barbaric and inhumane.

Maajid Nawaz

What about Maajid Nawaaz? He had no problem saying some of the teachings of the Quran are morally reprehensible. This is quite a statement for a Muslim. Is he sincere? Maajid is the chairman of Quilliam Foundation, a self-styled organization that claims to counter Islamic extremism.

He was a recruiter of Hizbul Tahrir, a terrorist organization, and an advocate for Islamic caliphate for 13 years. He says that he was reformed while serving a five years jail sentence in Egypt for his political activities. Now he claims that he rejects extremism and is a moderate Muslim.

Taqiyah is like an onion. One layer hides another layer, which hides yet another layer and so on and so forth.  There is nothing surprising for a Muslim to realize Islam is not compatible with our time and leave it.  I made the transition myself and have helped thousands to do it.  However, those who come to see the truth, leave Islam. They don’t go around promoting a moderate version of Islam. There is no such thing. You either accept the inhuman and backward teachings of Islam or you don’t accept Islam at all.

Maajid claims to be a Muslim who rejects the Sharia. He is not alone. There are a few more in Canada and USA who make such claim. Among them are, Tarik Fatah, Irshad Manji, Zuhdi Yaser, just to name a few.  Can these people be trusted? Can a Muslim reject any part of the Quran?

We have to understand that there is a big difference between Islam and Christianity or Judaism. Muslims believe that the Quran is the verbatim word of God. Jews and Christians believe their sacred texts were written by humans who were inspired by God.  This is a crucial distinction. So while a Jew or a Christian can reject an outdated part of his scripture as the error of its authors, a Muslim does not have that luxury.  Muslims can’t pick and choose. Allah in the Quran asserts, “Today have I perfected your religious law for you, and have bestowed upon you the full measure of My blessings, and willed that self-surrender unto Me shall be your religion.” (Q.5:3).  How can one add or subtract to what God has perfected? That idea is preposterous to Muslims.

Another verse says, “Do you, then, believe in some parts of the divine writ and deny the truth of other parts? What, then, could be the reward of those among you who do such things but ignominy in the life of this world and, on the Day of Resurrection? They will be consigned to most grievous suffering. For God is not unmindful of what you do.” (Q.2:85)

It is unlikely that Maajid and his fellow so called moderate Muslims don’t know this. So how can they call themselves Muslim and reject the clear laws of the Quran? They are playing another layer of taqiyah. Their goal is not to reform Islam, something they know is impossible, but to buy legitimacy and more time for it until they become the majority and take over the world. I sounded the clarion about the danger of Islam 16 years ago, and now I warn you again that these so called moderates are wolves in sheep clothing. Don’t fear the terrorists. Fear the enemy within.

Muslims are allowed to reject part or all of Islam and even malign their prophet in order to deceive their victims. Bukhari 5:59: 369 narrates that in Medina there was a young handsome man, a leader of the Jewish tribe of Bani Nadir, by the name of Ka’b ibn Ashraf. After Muhammad banished their sister tribe of Bani Qainuqa from the city, Ka’b went to Mecca seeking protection from the Quraish. When Muhammad heard the news he went on his pulpit and said, “who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?”  Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, “O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?” The Prophet said, “Yes,” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). “The Prophet said, “You may say it.” Then Muhammad bin Maslama went to Kab and said, “That man (i.e. Muhammad) demands alms from us, and he has troubled us, and I have come to borrow something from you.”

The story goes on to say how ibn Maslama deceived Ka’b by badmouthing his prophet and when Ka’b trusted him, he and other Muslims, among them Ka’b’s own foster brother who had converted to Islam stabbed him to death.  By denouncing the Quran, Maajid is not doing anything unIslamic. He is taking his deception to a higher level.

The deception has paid off handsomely. Instead of serving time in jail Maajid now shakes hands with George W. Bush and Tony Blair, appears in Bill Maher show and sits next to Richard Dawkins,  is a chairman of a foundation, and has run for MP in UK.  He is far more effective in destroying the western civilization from within, through taqiyah, than by placing bombs in buildings and buses.

Could I be mistaken? Have I come to a hasty conclusion? I invite Maajid Nawaaz to show my error and prove to the world that he is not deceiving them. Maybe I too will join his Quilliam organization and support his efforts. If he is sincere, he will accept this invitation. But based on my experience with “moderate Muslims,” I have a feeling that Maajid’s reply will be a deafening silence.

There is no such thing as moderate Islam. This is the ultimate taqiyah. This trap is deadly. It may cost your liberty and your life. Moderate Islam is an oxymoron. It is as attainable as perfumed dung; although I may be wrong about the latter.

EXPOSED IN EGYPT! The Barack Hussein Obama–Muslim Brotherhood–al-Qaeda alliance

November 3, 2013

From BareNakedIslam:

Did you know that ousted Egyptian president, Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood, along with Barack Hussein Obama, were in regular contact with Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leader of al-Qaeda?

In case you forgot, Obama helped bring down Hosni Mubarak so he could put the Muslim Brotherhood and Mohamed Morsi in office. He has condemned Egypt’s June 30, 2013 overthrow of Morsi and his radical Islamic government by the Egyptian Army with the support of 30 million Egyptians. Obama has been calling not only for the release from prison of Mohamed Morsi, but for all his Muslim Brotherhood associates currently incarcerated, awaiting trial.

Eman Nabih  On 16/10/2013, Albawaba Newspaper in Egypt, published a report which revealed calls and messages Recordings, between Egyptian Ousted President Mohamed Morsi and Ayman  Alzawahiri, the Leader of Al-Qaeda Terrorist Organization.


In addition to the above mentioned report, Albawaba Newspaper, has exclusively published on 23/10/2013, recordings between Muslim Brotherhood Organization and Al-Qaeda terrorists Organization which were sponsored by the United States Of America, as the following terrifying details are going to reveal.

The recordings reveal that The United States of America is involved in direct contacts, which were held between the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda.

On January 2013, Khairat Al-Shater (the deputy of the Muslim Brotherhood Leader in Egypt), and Issam Al-Hadad, Morsi’s Counselor for foreign affairs, made direct calls with Al-Qaeda Organization from inside the US Embassy in Cairo.


The First  Secretary of the US Embassy in Cairo had a direct call with Issam Al-Hadad (ousted president’s counselor for foreign affairs), and informed him that an American delegate from the CIA was in Egypt for a visit, and the CIA delegate wanted to hold a  meeting with Khairat Al-Shater (the deputy of the Muslim Brotherhood Leader in Egypt).

In that meeting held between the CIA delegate and Khairat Al-Shater, the CIA asked both Essam Al-Hadad and Khairat Al-Shater, that they are seeking the Muslim Brotherhood assistance in facilitating the American’s withdrawal from Afghanistan. The CIA delegate asked the Muslim Brotherhood Organization to have a direct contact with Al-Qaeda Leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri in order to make that withdrawal deal, specially that Al-Qaeda Leader is the cousin of Refaa Rifaa Al-Tahtawy, Chief of Staff of the President of the Republic Mohamed Morsi.

The Muslin Brotherhood Headquarter’s leadership in Cairo Egypt, agreed to carry out the American’s CIA delegate’s request, in favor of the USA. In return, the Muslim Brotherhood were assured through that deal, that they would be able to do whatever they wanted in relation to their plans in Egypt, under the United States cover, blessings and sponsorship.


On the 20th of January 2013, direct calls started between Refaa Rifaa Al-Tahtawy, Morsi’s Chief of Staff, Mohamed Morsi and Ayman Al-Zawahiri the leader of Al-Qaeda,

In another call, an agreement was set between all parties, that a delegate from the leadership of Muslim Brotherhood would go to Libya to meet with another delegate from the Al-Qaeda Organization, and both delegates were authorized to make agreements there. Mahmoud Ezzat, the first deputy of the Muslim Brotherhood Leader in Egypt, was the leader of theBrotherhood delegate who traveled to Libya  and that delegate had a meeting in February 2013, with Al-Qaeda Organization’s delegate.

Abu Anas Al-Libi, was one of Al-Qaeda members who attended that meeting in Libya between Brotherhood delegate and Al-Qaeda delegate. Just for those who don’t know, who that guy is: Abu Anas Al-Libi is America’s ‘Most Wanted’ man, who has been seized by a team of Delta Force commandos after they ambushed his car in Libya, on 6/10/2013 – He is wanted for planning 1998 U.S. Embassy bombing in Nairobi and, Kenya!   

The Brotherhood confirmed to Al-Qaeda’s delegate that Al-Qaeda members would be able to return to Egypt, whenever they liked, including Ayman A-Zawahiri, leader of Al-Qaeda.


Also, the Muslim Brotherhood made also a deal with Al-Qaeda to help them get to Egypt, through Libya, then to Sinai, and finally to Egypt where they would work with the Muslim Brotherhood regime against their enemies, including Israel and America.


Muslim Brotherhood believes that American withdrawal from Afghanistan, means defeat for the Americans, and a victory to Al-Qaeda, and Al-Qaeda should take advantage of the situation, and facilitate the USA withdrawal from Afghanistan.

All those calls, meetings,  and agreements as the recordings show, were totally blessed by Mohamed Morsi, the Mulsim Brotherhood’s Headquarters in Egypt and The United States of America.


Recordings also reveal that Muslim Brotherhood coordinated with Hamas Organization in Gaza strip, the necessary preparations of all Al-Qaeda’s members who entered Egypt through the Libyan borders, to move them all to Sinai. (Apparently this was part of the Obama-Morsi $8 billion deal to give 40% of Sinai to Hamas: shocker-from-arabic-media-secret-8-billion-deal-between-obama-and-the-muslim-brotherhood


Morsi will go on trial in Egypt on November 4th.

Obama’s Hell

November 3, 2013

Obama's Hell

“Miss me, yet?”