By Raymond Ibrahim

Imagine if a U.S. governmental agency told all Americans who live abroad that they are obligated to hate the nations that are hosting them. 

That’s precisely what the Muslim nation of Qatar (a “U.S. friend and ally”) is doing.  According to the world famous website, Islamweb.net — which is directed and financed by the state of Qatar — any Muslim who lives in a non-Muslim nation is obligated to hate his adopted nation and its “infidel” citizens (even while receiving benefits from them).

This comes in the form of a fatwa (an Islamic sanctioned decree) titled “Conditions that Legitimize Residing in Infidel Nations” (all translations in this article my own).  Along with “preserving and upholding his Islam,” the “first condition” for any Muslim who lives among non-Muslims is that he/she has “enmity and hatred for the infidels.” 

This, incidentally, applies to those millions of Muslim migrants voluntarily immigrating into and flooding Western Europe.  If they take their Islam seriously, they are duty bound to hate and be disloyal to those nations welcoming them in and providing them with free food, shelter, and healthcare. 

After stating that Muslims who emigrate to the West must have “enmity and hatred for the infidels, staying far from their loyalty and love — for loyalty and love for them contradicts the faith,” the fatwa proceeds to give its evidence, that is, it goes on to quote several supporting verses from the Koran, including:

You will never find a people that truly believes in Allah and the Last Day loyal to those who defy Allah and His Messenger — even if they be their parents, children, siblings, or extended family [Koran 58:22]….

Oh you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends and allies, for they are friends and allies of each other; and whoever among you befriends them is from among them.  Allah does not guide the unjust people [Koran 5:51].

After quoting Muhammad in a sahih (authentic) hadith, saying, “Whoever loves a people is from among them,” the fatwa concludes by saying “loving the enemies of Allah is among the greatest dangers for a Muslim, for loving them necessitates cooperating with and following them, or at least not rejecting them — hence why the prophet said, ‘Whoever loves a people is from among them.’”

(Here it should be noted that just merely being a non-Muslim makes one an enemy of Allah; no action is required.)

This teaching by Qatar’s Islamweb.net is not out of the mainstream.  For example, on the equally popular Islam Q&A, the same question is answered with the same exact answer:  Any Muslim who lives among non-Muslims must have “enmity and hatred for the infidels, staying far from their loyalty and love — for loyalty and love for them contradicts the faith.” 

Remember all this the next time you hear that “xenophobia” is responsible for Muslim failure to assimilate into the West.  This may be true, though not because Western people “fear the stranger” — as commonly supposed — but rather because Muslim migrants hate the infidel.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/02/qatar_calls_on_muslim_migrants_to_hate_their_western_benefactors.html

French philosopher Michel Onfray is sometimes described in his home country as a “left-wing Zemmour” because of the positions he has taken in the media, which are often considered politically incorrect, particularly on immigration. Reacting on RT France to the British weekly The Economist classifying France as a “failing democracy,” Onfray said that “freedom ceased to exist in France a long time ago.”

The philosopher, who is considered a leftist libertarian but also a sovereignist or a “leftist Gaullist”, said: “Since 2005, when the people voted against the European treaty when there was a referendum… we have seen most of the political class consider that what the people did not want, they would still have it [with the Lisbon Treaty] through the Senate and the National Assembly, and I think that was a kind of putsch that made us enter at that time into an era that was no longer a democratic era. We are in a post-democratic era.”

Then Onfray spoke about freedom of expression in France, saying that “many troublesome intellectuals are being ousted. For example, I was myself kicked out of [public radio station] France Culture because I made Emmanuel Macron uncomfortable. Many newspapers that are subsidized by public money hold an ideological discourse in which there is not much room for freedom and intelligence. People who do not follow the Liberal logic of Maastricht are insulted a lot…. In the French media — I am thinking of [public radio] France Inter for example — which is state media, or in media outlets like Arte that operate with public money, which are totally ideological media, freedom is non-existent. When you don’t think the way those people think, you are considered a Nazi, a fascist, a Petainist.”

In June 2020, Onfray launched the quarterly review Front Populaire, which describes itself as the review of “sovereignists from the right, the left and, above all, elsewhere — namely, those who do not recognize themselves in the bipolarized, and therefore Manichean, political game”. In September, the launch of the magazine was hailed a “great editorial success” by the French Journalism Observatory.

Thanks to his editorial successes and popularity, Onfray still manages — like his right-wing counterpart Éric Zemmour — to make his voice heard and feel rather safe in France, but this is no longer the case for all philosophers.

Didier Lemaire, a philosophy teacher at a high school in Trappes, near Paris, has also always had strong left-wing convictions. Since November 2020, Lemaire can only leave his home under police escort. His crime was to publish in a left-wing magazine (L’Obs) — following Samuel Paty’s throat was slit by a Chechen jihadist — an open letter denouncing the Islamist threat in his city and the overwhelming responsibility of the government in this very dangerous drift.

Such a situation perfectly illustrates the discourse of the philosopher, columnist and writer Eric Zemmourat the “Convention of the Right” in 2019, who commented on the alliance of liberal, human-rightist totalitarianism and Islamic totalitarianism against the freedoms typcially represented in French society, an alliance that Zemmour compared to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

In the “fatherland of human rights”, as the French like to call their own country, the author of that speechwas fined €10,000 for insult and incitement to hatred. In addition to these fines, Zemmour was ordered to pay the legal costs of the NGOs that had filed civil suits under French laws which provide tools against freedom of expression that are unique in Europe.

https://rmx.news/article/article/freedom-ceased-to-exist-in-france-a-long-time-ago-says-french-left-wing-philosopher-michel-onfray

Does it matter if two burglars are Swiss nationals? Or if a traffic accident was caused by a recently naturalized person? A referendum in Switzerland is being planned, as a popular initiative of the conservative SVP party. It will be submitted to the people on March 7, to force the police to publish the nationality and origin of offenders.

In Zurich, an initiative of the SVP will be submitted to the people on March 7, and demands that the police make public the nationality of offenders in their press releases. It wants to oblige authorities to a systematic publication of the nationality and the origin of the criminals, the suspects and the victims.

The police of the City of Zurich decided in 2017 not to publish this information anymore. And it is one of the few precincts to discontinue the release of ethnically-based data in Switzerland. In fact, because each police force can decide on its practice, the tendency is rather to include nationality.

In response to the decision by the Zurich police, the Swiss People’s Party (SVP) launched a cantonal initiative. The government rejected it, but proposed a counter-project. If accepted, the nationality of offenders must in future be communicated, but not the origins of naturalized persons.

The Young Greens and the Young Socialists do not share this opinion and oppose the initiative and the government’s counter-project.

For Laura Fischer (Jeunes PS), “transparency would mean being attentive to the real causes of crime, such as the financial situation of these people, their level of education or even the violence they may have experienced. We should start there, prevent violence or even promote access to training and fight against financial inequalities”.

In the canton of Solothurn, a similar initiative of the SVP was accepted by the people in 2012 by more than 70 percent. It remains to be seen that the people of Zurich will do the same on March 7.

The SVP has warned against immigrants tapping into the social welfare system and criticised the high proportion of foreigners among the public insurance benefit recipients and other social welfare programs. According to the opinion of the party, such benefits amount to a waste of taxpayers’ money.

Numerous SVP members have shown themselves to be critical of Islam by supporting an initiative to ban the construction of minarets. In November 2009 this ban won the majority vote (57,5 percent) and became an amendment to the Swiss Constitution.

Other victories of the SVP in regards to immigration policy include the federal popular initiatives “for the expulsion of criminal foreigners” (52,3 percent), and “against mass immigration” (50,3 percent) in 2010 and 2014 respectively.

https://freewestmedia.com/2021/02/16/swiss-referendum-to-make-public-nationality-and-origin-of-offenders/

By Monica Showalter

At a time when small businesses go wanting, why is COVID relief easily attained by Democrats’ favorite radical activist groups?

Apparently, it’s rolling out for them, based on political and even racial/political considerations. With Joe Biden attempting to ram a monster new COVID relief stimulus through in these days, it may be that Democrats are looking to make their radical activist allies into millionaires.

Jason Rantz of 770KTTH of Seattle wrote about what’s going on, citing examples from his state and examples from others:

The Washington State Department of Commerce gave federal COVID relief tax dollars to nonprofits pursuing radical political agendas. Tax dollars even went to indirectly bail criminals out of jail.

The selection process for funding was based on race. And some of the vetting seems influenced more by ideology than by need.

The Department of Commerce, led by Lisa Brown, aimed to “distribute COVID relief funds equitably to the communities hardest hit by the pandemic.” But to qualify to the Washington Equity Relief Fund, a group of “reviewers” made sure the nonprofits were “led by and serving Black, Indigenous and people of color.”

Among others, the noxious Jew-hating NGO known as CAIR pocketed a free $50,000 from the taxpayers as its COVID relief measure. It had been reportedly rejected for budget reasons earlier, according to Rantz, but somehow, someone pulled some strings to ensure they got it, and too bad about the rules. 

Another group, the Climate Justice Initiative, claimed that COVID led to cancelled contracts and cancelled fundraisers. You know, those big glittering charity balls full of ladies who lunch? Somehow, they got theirs ahead of restaurants and gyms and beauty parlors. still waiting for their checks. 

There were also these charmers:

Collective Justice, part of the Public Defenders Association, is a partisan, social justice group. It actively lobbies light-on-crime policies and is now being propped up by federal tax dollars.

The nonprofit is currently asking supporters to back a Democrat-sponsored bill forcing courts to ignore the juvenile crimes of adult defendants in sentencing. It received $25,000 in federal tax dollars through the state.

And these, whose mission, according to Rantz, seems to be to “bail criminals who recommit.” And these people seem to be fond of dishonesty, as Rantz reports:

The Bail Project was described as a “small startup program” by internal paperwork to justify the grant. But it is not a small startup.

The Bail Project national organization had an operation budget of nearly $25 million in 2018 and $15 million in 2019, according to Charity Navigator.

Which is outrageous. The groups claim that COVID has dried up their donations, but the problem may well be that the public doesn’t want to donate to them anymore, given their bad causes. Instead of change their missions to something more in the public interest, they’re getting federal bailouts instead, so they can keep pursuing bad causes that the public at large doesn’t want to pay for. 

It might actually be an artificial life support system for every radical cause under the sun.

For radicals, it’s a pinata, because Joe Biden is trying to ram through another $1.9 trillion COVID relief spending bill. You might get $1,400 from it. But social justice warriors will get $50,000. It calls to mind President Obama’s rewarding of this ACORN allies with 2009 stimulus funds. It’s nothing but political back-scratching by Joe and his cronies, and like Venezuela’s wealth, it will be lost to corruption. Why are these people getting money at all while legitimate businesses being shut down and forced to wait for any such relief?

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/02/covid_relief_heading_to_the_coffers_of_social_justice_warriors.html