Islam Is NOT Compatible With Western Values | This Interview Left Me STUNNED
If Muhammad Saifullah held power under full Sharia, he would have the death penalty for homosexuality and adultery, and execute apostates and critics of the Prophet.
Among other shocking revelation
The consequence for Islamophobic government officials who allow the Islamic invasion of the West.
Islamophobia means fear of Islam. No one is more fearful of Islam than government officials who don'... View MoreThe consequence for Islamophobic government officials who allow the Islamic invasion of the West.
Islamophobia means fear of Islam. No one is more fearful of Islam than government officials who don't have the guts to express that Islam and Muslims are a threat to us and our freedom, and they are too fearful to stop the influx of Muslims, and too cowardly to expell the ones already here.
These officials not only have a duty to pronounce warnings, they also have the power to act, but again, are too fearful and short-sighted to act, and many of them tend to crush anyone who does speak out or try to act.
Eze 33:6 But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take [any] person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman s hand.
Notice that God's word says the bloodshed committed by the enemy is on the hands of the watchman who failed. It is doubtly on the hands of those who fail to both speak and act, having the power to do both.
Ask youself, what are the penalties for the crimes committed by the enemies?
Of course the enemy committing the evils need to be dealt with, but equally, so do the watchmen who have facilitated the enemy, participated in the invasion, and shared in the deeds committed by the enemy. Those make them traitors subject to be dealt with as tyrants.
Wow. There is no other way to describe it. Candace Owens is evil.
Watch the clips of her. You have to go to 13 minutes 50 seconds into the video. apparently this platform won't do it for you.
http... View MoreWow. There is no other way to describe it. Candace Owens is evil.
Watch the clips of her. You have to go to 13 minutes 50 seconds into the video. apparently this platform won't do it for you.
https://youtu.be/2wE72GNo4m8?t=831
Charlie Kirk’s Mom GOES NUCLEAR on Candace Owens in FIRST INTERVIEW Ever
One scam can cost you everything — protect yourself now. The first 100 users get 20% off with code joshuacarr at
https://coveron.com/joshuacarr
You can contribute to the Christopher Carr Endowment F
Regarding whether or not Islam is religion.
"We're going to have to win with "religion", especially this religion"--said Bosch Fawstin.
Agreed, but we might have a very different approach.
You use th... View MoreRegarding whether or not Islam is religion.
"We're going to have to win with "religion", especially this religion"--said Bosch Fawstin.
Agreed, but we might have a very different approach.
You use the term "religionists." Does that mean you are an atheist?
We can agree that Islam is not protected by the First either as speech or religion, because because it is inherently supremacist, and actively works to overthrow whatever opposes it, including our Constitution.
In the same section as religious tests is the part about the Constitution being the supreme law of the land, so, sorry to those who say you can't have a religious test, you CAN have a test for if they put anything above the Constitution.
I would also add, where we might disagree, that this is a Christian country, and the protection to religion is whatever is more or less Christian. We'll happily extend that protection to other religions, but then there is the element of:
harm. If you are out to overthrow the Constitution, you have no protection.
Consider it from the Jordan Peterson perspective, not as a matter of faith, but as a matter of the principles on which our culture is based. You can be an atheist and hold to that, especially when you see the competing system of Islam, and realize how fundamentally it contradicts our civilization.
I've been looking at the different laws we've had throughout our history, and that other nations have done to other people groups.
We like to look down our noses at them in the past, but this might be a good time to re-consider that maybe they weren't such Neanderthals after all; maybe there was a justification for what they did, such as deporting the Indians, and the various laws that were passed.
I think most of those laws were either repealed, or there is a court decision against them, and laws can be fixed, and court decisions can be overturned, or ignored.
I've come to conclude that every Muslim needs to be stripped of citizenship, and deported.
It would be easy to start with the Muslim politicians, because they made a false oath to uphold the Constitution.
One of the grounds for deporting Muslim citizens is that they have affiliated with Islam, which is a foreign terrorist organization dedicated to the overthrow of the Constitution.
There is no such thing as "radical" Islam, or Islamism, or extremist Islam; there is only Islam. That means there's no difference between the guy who blows himself up, and the guy who just attends Mo... View MoreThere is no such thing as "radical" Islam, or Islamism, or extremist Islam; there is only Islam. That means there's no difference between the guy who blows himself up, and the guy who just attends Mosque and has said the Shahada.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RTJOf6OLdw
Piers Morgan
Before I go to Jonathan for that answer, just to clarify for viewers, what do you perceive, Muhammad, to be the difference between Islam and Islamism? Because people hear these phrases, they hear these words. A lot of people get confused.
What is the difference?
Mohammed Hijab
Well, the difference from a political science perspective, right, is that Islamism is an attempt to politicize Islam. That's usually the definition that political scientists use.
However, I mean that the fact is this. Islam has always been a political system. So,
we don't know exactly where that starts and where that ends because this construct, Islamism, I would say, is a social construct and it's a euroentric view. We don't have this distinction. We've never had it in our texts. We've never had it in our
medieval manuals. So the fact is this is a western construct in political science that's used to try and distinguish between Muslims who are attempting political participation in some way, violent or nonviolent, versus Muslims who are not doing it.
'He's a TERRORIST!' Mohammed Hijab vs Jonathan Conricus | Migrant Protests, Iran War, Israel & Islam
From the Port of Dover to the streets of Southern England, the UK is reaching a breaking point. As protests over small boat arrivals escalate into a broader cultural flashpoint, the familiar chants of
Every time the US military goes against Muslim forces, we kick your rear end until we decide we're tired of it, and we leave. That's the only way you could ever win inside the US, is if Americans deci... View MoreEvery time the US military goes against Muslim forces, we kick your rear end until we decide we're tired of it, and we leave. That's the only way you could ever win inside the US, is if Americans decide to let you win. Otherwise, the results will be the same as on the battlefields--you will lose.
And, some of us intend to designate Islam as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, bulldoze your Mosques, strip you of your citizenship, and deport you en masse.
Abdurrahman Ahmad Bello
18h
·
Muslims will no longer tolerate Islamophobia in the UK, the United States, Canada, Australia, Germany, or anywhere else.
We are done with the tired excuse that “this is a Christian country” and therefore Muslims should leave.
No. It isn't your private religious property.
A Muslim born in Britain is British. A Muslim born in America is American. A Muslim born in Canada is Canadian. A Muslim born in Australia is Australian. The same is true across Europe.
And this isn't even about immigration. There are Muslims whose families have lived in these countries for generations. Some were born into Muslim families; others' parents or ancestors embraced Islam. Their faith does not erase their nationality, ancestry, citizenship, or right to belong.
Religion is not a passport.
You don't become more British because you're Christian, and you don't become less British because you're Muslim.
Christianity may have played an enormous role in the history and culture of Western countries. Fine. History is history. But historical influence does not give one religion ownership of an entire nation or the authority to decide who belongs.
No religion owns a country.
And don't tell Muslims to “go back to where they came from” simply because they are Muslim. What if the country you're telling them to leave is the country they were born in? What if their parents were born there? What if their grandparents are buried there? What if this is their father's land too?
You are free to criticize Islam. You are free to debate Muslims. You are free to argue about immigration, integration, secularism, and government policy.
But you do not get to turn your religious prejudice into a claim that an entire population has no right to belong.
Muslims are not guests waiting for permission to exist.
We belong wherever we are citizens, wherever our families have built their lives, and wherever our communities call home.
So before you tell a Muslim to “go back to their country,” answer one question:
Which country exactly?
page=1&profile_user_id=15354&year=&month=
Load More
