Waleed Aly deconstructs ISIL

Sums it up superbly.

David Llewellyn-Smith
Latest posts by David Llewellyn-Smith (see all)

Comments

    • Very modern, very chic, very PC, very poignant – and total Bollocks IMHO.

      Justification of a “Just War” against ISIS? Unfortunately, No… could a war against ISIS in Syria and Iraq be considered a “Just War”? A dominant power instituting a “Pax”? Recent pictures of hundreds of thousands of Syrian civilians fleeing the Islamist insurgency, flooding into Europe, coupled the fact that over-whelming military power via the US and Nato could be bought to bare on ISIS within a very short time. If we intervened in Iraq and Syria, even only on a limited means, resisting evil – is it just?

      Ultimately the answer is unfortunately an unequivocal NO, on based on two fronts: firstly (a) that there has to be a reasonable hope of success – given that ISIS want Crusader boots on the ground, and terror is a method that they are using to achieve that aim, this is not a given. Most of the deployed troops would be secular, ordered by equally secular Governments, facing an opposition that is not only well armed, but well trained and motivated to give their lives if possible. Whilst Western secular soldiers will fight to save their lives, Muhammadans will fight and be willing to give theirs. The conflict will inevitably degenerate into guerilla warfare with barbarous brutality and no end. Moreover, any catastrophic military loss by Europe with a declining demographic against a back-drop of sky-rocketing fertility rates in North Africa and the Middle East could upset strategic balance and potentially put Europe under siege – equally important strategically, (b) for any peace to be established, there has to be an acceptable political settlement. ISIS will never make peace with Europe. Never ever…

      Many Western Governments want the Syrian dictator Assad to be removed, hence the US’s fateful decision to militarily support the embryonic ISIS a number of years ago (yes, this is actually true) but there is presently no alternative to replace him with. Which would imply one of three likely scenarios, namely (i) establishment of another strongman equal to Assad, (ii) eternal civil war between numerous factions, or (iii) continued occupation the territory by an outside force (which ISIS wants).

      In the meantime, Russia has decided to send in its own military to support Assad and their naval base in the Levant which complicates matters even further. And is probably doomed to fail as well – because even if they do crush ISIS, something even more dangerous will take place (what about Saudi Arabia guys????)

      The terrible conclusion being, there is no justification for Just War against ISIS purely on the basis that there is no real long-term hope of success.

      • reusachtige (what does that name mean?) – There are, however, at least two million Iraqi and Syrian Christians that have been forced out of their homeland with no likelihood of ever returning. Australia is a new country, with strategic reasons to expand its population as quickly as it can inside the next fifty years.

      • Agree. And I generally ignore any talking head that is accompanied by a musical background – reminds me of late night charlatans on US cable TV.

        That is not a deconstruction, that is playskool waffle.

      • ” Australia is a new country, with strategic reasons to expand its population as quickly as it can inside the next fifty years.”

        Absolute rubbish.

      • He said ISIS are weak – they are not… poor analysis. have a look at several countries actively supporting ISIS!!!!

        It was PC analysis to make you feel safe and comfortable. But even soothing words will not help in the long run.

        ISIS have killed tens of thousands of their own people, and people sent a few war planes to mollify our collective consciences – 130 in Paris means nothing to them, other than getting boots on the ground. Thats when the death rate will rocket – and 130 won’t seem so big after that…

      • Rt I don’t understand. Your answer seems to be completely unrelated. Either that or you totally missed the point of what he was saying.

      • The cliam about ISIS was made about Paris within an hour of the attacks. Do I think they did it, no… and neither do I think they are smuggling in fighters within refugees. but to write them of as weak, uncoordinated, and without ambition – with state backing – is barking nonsense. Very poor analysis by the guy behind the camera.

        But it feels nice. And it makes you feel safe. But the threat is real. And its growing all th time.

      • “RT, a section of the Left are apologists for IS.”

        A section of the Right would close our borders and put every Muslim into an internment camp.
        Lunacy comes in various flavors.

      • @RT. ISIS is weak. They cannot survive without support from Saudi Arabia and Turkey. The key to defeating them is not ‘boot on the ground’, but pressure on Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Close off their support, and the ISIS regime will collapse on itself.

      • I havent watched the video as I dont have sound on my device plus its channel 10 FFS. I would bet everything that ISIS is a Western funded front to help overthrow the assad govt so the U.S can put a puppet leader in place. There’s just so much information out there but here is some I’ve come across the past day or so.
        US funds ISIS:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym2EmUNKDE8
        http://investmentwatchblog.com/rick-santorum-bombshell-us-created-isis-and-caused-paris-attacks/
        Putin explains ISIS – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwLufaTK29s

      • I havent watched the video as I dont have sound on my device plus its channel 10 FFS. I would bet everything that ISIS is a Western funded front to help overthrow the assad govt so the U.S can put a puppet leader in place. There’s just so much information out there but here is some I’ve come across the past day or so.
        US funds ISIS:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym2EmUNKDE8
        http://investmentwatchblog.com/rick-santorum-bombshell-us-created-isis-and-caused-paris-attacks/
        Putin explains ISIS – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwLufaTK29s
        John McCain with terrorists – http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2014/09/25/how-john-mccain-wound-up-canoodling-with-terrorists/
        Hilary Clinton – http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=32356

      • I havent watched the video as I dont have sound on my device plus its channel 10 FFS. I would bet everything that ISIS is a Western funded front to help overthrow the assad govt so the U.S can put a puppet leader in place. There’s just so much information out there but here is some I’ve come across the past day or so.
        US funds ISIS:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym2EmUNKDE8
        http://investmentwatchblog.com/rick-santorum-bombshell-us-created-isis-and-caused-paris-attacks/
        Putin explains ISIS – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwLufaTK29s

      • It depends where one group ends and the next one starts. Aly is correct IS is relatively small but if you keep going back you run into the aforementioned countries so I think I see where RT is coming from. And pressuring those countries does get to the nub of the issue.
        ‘…OLD WHITE MAN…’ And Dennis, what does it feel like to be a useful idiot?

      • RT, a section of the Left are apologists for IS.

        Understanding and empathising as to why people act the way they do is not the same as condoning their actions, no matter how often you and your ilk try to propagandise to the contrary.

        You have the same conceptual problem with free speech.

      • @ Dr
        Trying to empathise with psychopaths is a losing strategy. There is no need for rich white man’s guilt here. The West has been more than accomodating of Islamic sensibilities.

      • Trying to empathise with psychopaths is a losing strategy. There is no need for rich white man’s guilt here. The West has been more than accomodating of Islamic sensibilities.

        Not everyone who disagrees with the west’s imperial adventures into the middle east is a psychopath (despite the minebots ongoing attempts at conflation and false dichotomies).

        Not even everyone who acts violently is a psychopath (at least, I don’t believe that of our armed forces, and it’s a struggle to see why those from other countries would be different in that regard).

      • @ Dr
        You are misguided in the extreme to search for our fault in this. Those acting in the name of Daesh are psycopaths.

      • You are misguided in the extreme to search for our fault in this. Those acting in the name of Daesh are psycopaths.

        So you think a century or so of western political interference and imperialistic adventuring in the middle east has no bearing on recent events ?

      • You have to go a bit further back than that to disentangle the discord, I’m afraid. But what’s done is done. No rationalisation in any of this for psycopaths beheading the unbelieving, enslaving and raping young girls, murdering homosexuals, and gleefully executing innocents.

      • You have to go a bit further back than that to disentangle the discord, I’m afraid.

        Our current problems stem from the British meddling ca. WW1, reinforced by the last few decades of similar shennanigans by the Americans.

        But what’s done is done. No rationalisation in any of this for psycopaths beheading the unbelieving, enslaving and raping young girls, murdering homosexuals, and gleefully executing innocents.

        Ah. Are they anything like the psychopaths flying drones, dropping bombs on weddings, kidnapping “innovents” and torturing them in places like Gitmo ?

        To say the West bears no responsibility for these outcomes is either grotesquely disingenuous or comically naive.

    • If I hear one more idiot try to defend the actions of some nutters killing in the name of their imaginary friend I am going to punch them in the mouth.

    • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

      A good post by Gunna yesterday, with sam harris and his moslem co author, discussing their book.
      A bit in I particularly liked was this fellows chastisement of white liberal apologists of Islamic radicalism.

      https://youtu.be/sWclm4Bi4UM

      • I link the version of this from Harris’ website on the weekend. It is well worth watching. Particularly by the many apologists that have commented on this thread. I also liked Harris’ aside re the closing down of discussion by media on this and other important and topical issues.

  1. Perfect.
    The discussion on QandA last night was good too.

    UN senior adviser Andrew Macleod:-
    ‘…you want to know something? I really don’t like the term “moderate Islam”. I would prefer to say “real Muslims”. There are extremists and there are real Muslims. Moderate Islam are just like all of us: normal, everyday people that follow the God of Abraham, like Jews, like Christians, like Muslims, but the terrorists have stepped so far out of that, I don’t think it’s valid to call them Muslims.’
    http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4330306.htm

    • And also this from Andrew Macleod:-

      ‘…we always talk about refugees and asylum seekers as a threat, not an asset. Over history, militaries have spent treasure and blood to get spies behind the front lines, to understand the enemies’ thinking and where they are and we now have thousands – no, millions – of people who understand ISIS, understand their theology, understand their thinking, who hate them with a passion and we are turning our back on these people.

      I look at these 12,000 asylum seekers, not just as asylum seekers and refugees, but in there is the potential members of our security and intelligence forces who will tell us more about Islamic State than we’ve ever known before. They are the greatest assets we can have in this war, if only we start to look at them as assets and that is a critical part of this war that we are missing, the whole intelligence place, human intelligence, that we gave up on a long, long time ago.’

    • I read the transcript the next day and it just looks like more “no true scotsmen” stuff. It was an interesting point about “radicals vs non-radicals” though.

    • ….That this kind of bat-sh*t stuff rots your brain.

      Israel and America are secretly funding all Islamic terrorism, and that this a precursor to a New World Order?…I’m surprised we didn’t get a mention of the Bilderberg group or the Lizard People.

      All this coming from an account that believe the Vatican is the real brains behind this so called New World Order.

      Or maybe you should just ignore me….I’ve been infected by all the fluoride and chemtrails.

      • You’re right. It’s completely absurd. And yet it’s an opinion that’s easily found on sites like this.

  2. Of course a sensible response to those statistics would suggest a need to engage with the disaffected Muslim youth. The whole “non-Muslim left” thing is made up, so nice try on trying to blame “the left”, whatever that means, for that one.
    Or you could do the loon pond thing and push them further away.

    • When you say loon pond do you mean the religious fundy right or the regressive left? Or a bit of both maybe?

  3. A survey reported in Newsweek may suggest acceptance of ISIS within some sections of some Muslim communities more widespread:

    “Ignored in news coverage of the Paris massacre is the single most pertinent piece of background: A 2014 opinion poll found that ISIS had an approval rating in France (at 16%) almost as high as President Francois Holland (at 18%). In the 18-to-24-year-old demographic, ISIS’ support jumped to 27%. Muslims comprise about a tenth of France’s population, so the results imply that ISIS had the support of the overwhelming majority of French Muslims (and especially Muslim youth), as well as the endorsement of a large part of the non-Muslim Left.”

    That bit about the ‘endorsement’ and non-Muslim Left is interesting and again, more widespread than some may think – apologia around Western intervention and oil which completely avoids understanding of Wahhabi Salafist influence and goes nowhere near explaining the Yazidis Shia and everyone else divide.

    US just sold a other $1.4billion weapons to Saudi. Timing.

  4. How about “moderate muslims” wake up to the fact that they believe in magical beings and a madman claiming to be a prophet, and that religion has no place in the 21st century?

    What an absolute crock of shit

  5. He’s full of taquiyya.
    Daesh or IS ideology is actually purist Islam with the believer & Allah in direct understanding of Allah’s messages as relayed by their prophet Muhammad into the later Quran.
    The khawjarites or followers have rejected man made compromise and centralisation or institutionalisation of Islam from the 7th century, Isil or daesh has been a constant force of heterodoxy or seeking the pure distilled essence of sharia within Islam since then.
    It’s Sunni but a strain of Sunni.
    Salafi, Wahhabi etc all strains of the same.

    Ali (Sunni) spin or taquiyya is we must all now bend over and love and accept Islam and tolerate it’s nonsense, gender and racial predjuices, inequity, contradictions and intolerance … so that Isil doesn’t then get a foothold in what may be disenchanted Muslim community within us.
    This is the typical taquiyya (double tounged word trickery & deciet of their training – their Quran tells them they must & have to lie and mislead the infidel.
    If you read the Quran then the instruction guide for Islam is the hard purist centre of murder, jihad, intolerance, slave taking, invasion, gender and racial inequity and the obligation of every Muslim to follow this to sharia law being the only end game.
    If you read the Quran then soft edges, accomodation, infiltration and trickery or blackmail as Ali is stating (give us more concessions and accomodate our nonsense or we will get violent and rise up against you) is then the script and instructions for all Muslims.
    Ali is / was in leader group of Victoria council of Muslims that frauded education funds for Muslim schools that preach hatred of our values and refuse to stand to our flag despite the Muslim covenant to obey the laws and customs of the host nation in non sharia.

    Many other things – the guy is a total hypocrite and does not practice Islam correctly anyway, his tasweer, taqiyya & shirk on display bein an example of this.

    • Righto mate… now you’re a theological scholar

      Lucky you told us though – The Project is obviously an ISIL front organisation. Cheers for the heads up

      • No but daesh or IS has a basis in Islamic belief that goes way back to inception and is as Islamic and “muslim” – as attested to it’s stems appeal, funding and support by the Islamic community.
        It’s not true to say daesh is not Islamic.
        By any account the khawaraji variations of heterodox Islam are a very pure and long standing force within Islam.

    • No, its not “purist islam” because they dont believe in killing women and children – even if its a jihad.

      No virgins for you!

    • So his taquiyya is proof that he doesn’t practice Islam correctly, but he has taquiyya because he is compelled to under Islam?

      I’m lost. Maybe that actually does make sense, but your posts are largely incoherent.

      Anyway, are you sure the problem isn’t actually foreign guestworkers?

      • Taquiyya in Islamic teaching is the skill to diivert, mislead or omit the truth in defence or advantage to Islam.
        All Muslims are exposed to the concept and pride themselves on their ability to practice taqiyya as Allah rewards that.
        Aly’s taqiyya is poor & unskillful.
        That is un Islamic as taqiyya should only be practiced skilfully and successfully.
        He also makes several false statements including that daesh is not Islamic (it clearly is an any cursory inspection of facts shows that plus high levels of support for daesh within the Muslim world).
        So Aly is practicing poor taqiyya and it’s obvious – so he weakens Islam.
        Allah does not like that.
        Go read up on it 🙂

      • So I spent about 45 seconds reading about taqiyya, and it is clearly not what you have presented it to be.

        Your version of taqiyya is just a convenient tool you use to dismiss anything a Muslim person says, so as to further your own agenda. Yours is a conspiracy theorist’s wet dream – ‘anything that ostensibly stands in contradiction to my point actually proves it’

    • Hugh, you are on to it.
      It would pay every commenter here to investigate the Sykes Picot agreement and the alliances made between the Allies and Axis powers during WWII in the Western Front say everywhere and including south of Greece to the Indian Ocean.
      Reusa;s name means Mr Large. It is Dutch for Mr Obese.

    • While it’s always good to read an article written with insight, intelligence, and discerning analysis from Andrew Bolt, that one seems to be behind a paywall (ironically labelled as “premium”).

      • Copy and pasted:

        I WAS wondering how Waleed Aly would spin the Paris massacre.

        Last night on The Project, Aly:

        – suggested it wasn’t actually the work of the Islamic State, even though the Islamic State has taken responsibility and France has retaliated by attacking Islamic State targets in Syria;

        – claimed it was some kind of self-motivated “DIY” terrorism, even though the attack was extensive, clearly well-planned and well-supplied, involving at least eight heavily armed terrorists from at least three countries, with one terrorist apparently arriving in Europe as a “Syrian refugee” just last month;

        – claimed the Islamic State was actually “weak”, even though this “weak” terrorist outfit has in the past month killed 129 people in France, 224 people in a Russian jet in Egypt and 44 people in bombings in Beirut;

        – warned against fighting the Islamic State in Syria on the grounds we’d been falsely told that destroying al Qaeda would “end” terrorism – a claim no leader anywhere actually made, and one that ignores the inability of al Qaeda to repeat its “success” of September 11 since the invasion of Afghanistan;

        – gave not one single proposal for actually fighting the Islamic State or reducing the terrorism threat other than a fatuous call to “unite”, even though he is a lecturer at Monash University’s terrorism centre.

        Worse, though, Aly in his editorial singled out just one Australian by name – and picture – for criticism.

        No, it wasn’t a Muslim hate preacher like Sheik Wahwah.

        It wasn’t the evasive Grand Mufti, who yesterday actually used the France terrorism to demand the West treat Muslims better.

        It wasn’t any of the Muslims who have joined or recruited for the Islamic State or shot or stabbed Australians here.

        It wasn’t any of the 21 Muslims jailed here for terrorism offences.

        No, the one Australian he attacked was Pauline Hanson, a non-Muslim who has warned against the threat of jihadism.

        That is disgraceful.

        That is evasive.

        That is scapegoating.

        Pauline Hanson does not threaten to kill anyone.

        She does not espouse the creed of those who do.

        True, Aly this time did mention Islam, which he refused to do in some past attempts to explain some Islamist terrorist attack.

        But he did not give some important context in giving his bizarre take on the Paris atrocity.

        First, he is a Muslim and was spokesman for the Islamic Council of Victoria at a time that it had voted to make the extremist Sheik Hilali the Mufti of Australia.

        He could be seen to have an agenda.

        Second, just last year he falsely claimed the Islamic State represented no great threat to us:

        What seems to underlie all of this is that ISIS represents a serious threat to Australia. Can you give us an indication of precisely the scope of that threat and the mechanism, can you describe its precise terms? Because it’s not immediately clear when you consider this is a movement on the other side of the world that seems to be importing people rather than exporting them.

        Since then, an Islamic State supporter staged the deadly Martin Place siege.

        Another Islamic State supporter stabbed two police in Melbourne.

        A teenager in contact with the Islamic State shot police accountant Curtis Cheng.

        The Paris terrorists, linked to the Islamic State, shot an Australian teenager.

        I believe Channel 10 must question whether Aly should be the station’s main explainer of Islamist terrorism.

        Mind you, I am the bad guy.

        The media Left on Twitter is loving Aly’s take.

        Anything that suggests that we can fight the Islamic State with a few hugs and hashtags, plus a big bucket of sand in which to bury our heads, is just what they want to hear.

      • In essence: Andrew Bolt savaged Aly’s comments,saying Aly “could be seen to have an agenda” because he was a Muslim and a former spokesman for the Islamic Council of Victoria when it “voted to make the extremist Sheik Hilali the mufti of Australia”.
        Bolt said Channel 10 should consider whether Aly should be the station’s “main explainer of Islamic terrorism”.
        “Anything that suggests that we can fight the Islamic State with a few hugs and hashtags, plus a big bucket of sand in which to bury our heads, is just what they want to hear,” he wrote.

      • You know, if it weren’t for the differences in skin colour and religion, I would have a feeling that Bolt would be able to find a lot of common ground with the middle eastern fundamentalists. They both enjoy polarising an argument, forming propaganda and driving division within what would otherwise be civilised society.

        Where was Bolt when his #1 Mate (Abbott) got Pauline put in jail?

      • Surprised Bolt didn’t have a bit of fun with Waleed Aly, photoshop – a beard and headscarf – defuse with humour! We can all have a laugh in this great melting pot of multicultural Australia.

        Aly can do his next sermon thus garbed! Defuse defuse defuse.

      • Ah Bubbley. the Yanks are really pissed off with what you guys have done with East Arm
        http://www.afr.com/news/politics/us-stunned-by-port-of-darwin-sale-to-chinese-20151116-gl0omf
        Maybe the next invasion will be by the 7th Fleet. I think the decision will be reversed.

        Still no word on the pipe line, but I hear the excess gas from your joint is about $15mill pa and the pipeline will cost about $2000 mill. to a market that cant afford it.
        Some where I mucked up with the economics of national infrastructure, but to me it doesn’t add up.
        Maybe the Grocery code of Conduct and brown paper bags will settle the outcome.

      • The Yanks aren’t the only ones who are pissed about this, just ask the average Territorian.

        We woke up to it being on the front page of the NT News and had no idea it was happening.

        As for the “consultation” our weasel of a Chief Minister claims it was approved by some random dude at the ADF, who can’t be found or a name applied to.

        Like I said the corruption here is huge and I desperately hope the Fed Gov steps in and puts a stop to this one in a hurry. Defensively its an incredibly stupid decision for Australia to make and should be cancelled immediately as a matter of national security.

  6. Well said Waleed. We all need to remember a terrorists greatest weapon and asset is… terror. If we understand this, and refuse to be terrorised, then they are immeasurably weakened.

    So yes, we are heart-broken, sad, angry about the Paris attacks, and all other attacks carried out by these animals, but let us refuse to be terrorised.

    • Perhaps when you get a taste of it yourself and constantly live under the threat of it, you’ll become less of an internet hard man.

  7. I am so sick of this PC feel good rubbish. Stop all Islamic immigration now. Is that offensive? Is that Islamaphobic? Is that racist? Good. Now get over it. These people are a threat whether leftist imbeciles choose to acknowledge it or not. Many of the so called “moderates” still sympathize with what these terrorist scum are doing all over the world.

    Having said all that, I do acknowledge that the governments of many Western countries have a LOT to answer for in regards to all these stupid, pointless wars they’ve gotten involved in in the Middle East.

    • Given events in Srebrenice, Kosovo, and Northern Ireland in recent history, you’d therefore have to agree that Christians should be banned for the same reasons.

      Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma bomber was all over the place with religion, at one stage saying that “science is my religion” , so scientists are out too.

      Mao and Stalin. Piss off all you atheists.

      Such an even handed policy would have the virtue of slowing down the “population ponzi “.

      • Why worry about little things like motivation or intent? Ban cars. They kill more people in France than terrorists, right? Idiot.

      • WTF Kodiak?

        Do you think that there was no evil intent in Srebrenice, or Kosovo, or Northern Ireland?

        Or that Stalin and Mao had no clue of the suffering they caused?

        Seriously?

        The point is blindingly obvious, that intent is what we should be looking at, rather than religion, which is the excuse.

        All those wanking on about a particular religion miss is that the particular religion, or lack of it for Stalin and Mao, is being used as an excuse to grab political power.

        My examples were to point out that all religious beliefs can be used to hide real intent.

        So, yes Kodiak, intent is important, as is not being fooled by religious camouflage.

        Besides, I am sure IS would be pissed off by being called out as godless.

      • Militant Islam is at war with every other religion on the planet in its diaspora. Crap on about fundamentalist Christians if you want, but Islam is involved in a global war against everyone. What’s the explanation for this?

      • Kodiak, so every Muslim is carrying a weapon? Every Muslim is shooting at everyone else? Because under any reasonable definition of being at war, that’s what would be happening if what you are saying is true. Bullshit.

        There are relatively few people involved in terrorism.

        If you want to fight terrorism, you select your targets as precisely as possible. If you were in the ADF and tried your approach to use of your weapon, your Corporal would rip you a new one.

        You are like those dopey hicks on youtube shooting weapons at anything and everything, but with no concept of targetting.

        We’ve had fifty years of this broad target bomb everything approach, from Vietnam to Libya and Iraq. And EVERY SINGLE TIME we’ve ended up in the shit. Every. Single. Time. And here we go again, fwits looking at broad targets (ie billions of Muslims), rather than precise targetting of smaller groups.

        Einstein said that doing something over and over again expecting different outcomes was a sign of insanity.

        Here’s you, wanting to repeat a process that has landed us in the shit every time it has been done previously. Thank heavens we’ve taken the toys from Abbott.

      • Militant Islam is at war with every other religion on the planet in its diaspora. Crap on about fundamentalist Christians if you want, but Islam is involved in a global war against everyone. What’s the explanation for this?

        Fox-news fueled hysterical paranoia ?

      • Yet hundreds of millions of Muslims seem to just want to live normal lives worshipping their sky ghost, like most other religious people.

    • Islam is not a race, but a religion. Wahhabism is a branch of Sunni Islam, and it’s the one responsible for all of the Islamic terrorist attack in the West since 911. Their biggest supporter of Wahhabism is Saudi Arabia. The Western government is using the threat of terrorism to push through draconian laws without trying to stop the source. If they are serious about combating terrorism, they will start by confiscating Saudi assets held overseas and boycotting Saudi oil.
      Do some research on Halal certification, it’s how Saudi spread its influence in Australia.

    • Mate, the West and it’s values? This is the same lazy, moralising nonsense of Bolt, Hanson and the Aussie Pride tossers. My values are different to theirs in a big way, and possibly yours. I certainly don’t view and Asian Australian, or a brown Australian who worships some weird imaginary thing any dumber than a white Catholic Australian who takes sex and marital advice from a celibate man. Values!? Ha!
      Churches, or any large group that espouses “our values”, are criminals all, be they simply divisive, murderous, power hungry, or just plain psycopaths.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk81tUUhRig

      • Bento you are right, the good thing about robotics is they wont be religious.
        Now that is going to cause some problems for the faithful!

      • Exactly, bento.

        Bolt and Hansen’s values are hardly “western”. I personally believe they have a right to express their opinions. However, I strongly object to their claims of speaking for Australians/Strayans.

    • Yet; Islam is fundamentally incompatible with the West and its values.

      The Old Testament is fundamentally incompatible with the West and its values as well, but we don’t have a problem with Christians because even the fundamentalists have been able to get past the ridiculousness of the old stuff. Islam is younger than Christianity by a few hundred years, so we should give them their own chance to reform and punish those who would break our laws.


      • The Old Testament is fundamentally incompatible with the West and its values as well, but we don’t have a problem with Christians because even the fundamentalists have been able to get past the ridiculousness of the old stuff

        – Huge swathes of the New Testament and the writings of the Early Church Fathers and subsequent church scholars at least up until Calvin are fundamentally incompatible with contemporary Western values also.

        – By no means not all fundamentalists have gotten past the ridiculousness of the old stuff


        The Old Testament is the core of Christianity and yet you would not call it representative of modern Christianity…

        I would have thought the Gospel was the core of Christianity, the religion which worships Christ.

      • “I would have thought the Gospel was the core of Christianity, the religion which worships Christ.”

        Ahh the Counsel of Nicaea debate…. still ongoing imo….

        Skippy…. still can’t get over the penis thingy…. inclusion or exclusion of potential worshipers w/ genealogical underpinnings…

      • The Old Testament is fundamentally incompatible with the West and its values as well, but we don’t have a problem with Christians because even the fundamentalists have been able to get past the ridiculousness of the old stuff. Islam is younger than Christianity by a few hundred years, so we should give them their own chance to reform and punish those who would break our laws.

        Aside from what Stat has said and the fact that much of the Old Testament is actually in the Quran, for much of its early history Islam was generally far more tolerant of rational science than Christianity as it saw study as a way of understanding gods work rather than a challenge to it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age). Indeed Europe’s Renaissance was in part a product of the Islamic worlds influence on the west. The problems of extremism are not unique to Islam and are very much a contemporary problem.

    • Yet; Islam is fundamentally incompatible with the West and its values.

      Do you have a convenient definition of “western values” so that we might assess the credibility of this claim ?

    • Western values? Democracy not Supremacist theocracy, secularism, not religious intolerance, equal rights for women, not misogyny, humane punishments and legal process, not Sharia savagery, gay rights not gay executions, protection of children, not child marriage and paedophilic rape, free speech not executions of cartoonists and blasphemists, civil society not anti Semitic executions and killing of Chistians, and the taking of slaves………

  8. Mind you; any mainstream media that puts Pauline Hanson’s idiotic head back on our TV screens deserves the scorn it gets.
    Is that really the best they can do?

  9. Andrew Bolt is spot on – this Aly is just a taqiyya spouting apologist with word trickery and omission.
    => anyone interested in understanding the actual ideology of daesh (Islamic state)
    It’s pure Islam – in fact heterodox Islam and has been a thread and force within Islam from inception.
    The western media and the taqiyya of Aly in twisting and spinning events never represent the actual directives underneath to the Muslim in what they really believe.
    So the appeal of daesh as a purist and we would say fanatical beliefs is very high to the broad Muslim community – 20% or more support it.
    Islam is an ideology of force, violence, repression, murder, slavery, infiltration and conquest at its very core.

    Go read the Quran.
    It’s no book of love or tolerance.
    That’s their rule book.

    The daesh or IS are following the Islamic principles to its core.

    https://books.google.com.au/books?id=dchpiP-9YQAC&pg=PA175&dq=Khawarij+doctrine&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Khawarij%20doctrine&f=false

    • That’s the point though, only the whackos take it literally because most Muslims are smart enough to realise that it was written in a different time. Same way Christians don’t usually go around stoning people or marrying their dead brothers’ wives even though the Bible tells them to.
      The reason we have so many Muslim refugees coming is that Isis is killing them in their home country because they don’t think the same way.
      Seriously it’s not that hard to understand.

    • The Old Testament is at the centre of Christianity and yet you would not call it representative of modern Christianity…

  10. So Aly says tolerate moderate Islam (which is underpinned by sharia) otherwise we will all convert to daesh which is more sharia ?
    I think he’s all taqiyya

    • With what you have said it’s obvious to me you have no idea about Islam or about the Quran, so I doubt you have read it. I read the Quran in 2003 while living in Bahrain and to portray it like you have is just plain dishonest.

      Quoting you: “Yes basically daesh or IS were created, funded and armed by a USA Sunni coalition to stop the Iranian Shia colonisation of Iraq.”

      Uh, If you knew better you’d know it’s pretty hard to colonise a country (Iraq) when you’re the MAJORITY, that’s right Shias are the MAJORITY in Iraq (http://www.islamicweb.com/beliefs/cults/shia_population.htm), not just the largest religious grouping, but a MAJORITY. Until the second Gulf War living off the scraps and ruled over by Saddam, who was a Sunni. Same in Bahrain, a majority and treated like shit, on the lower socioeconomic ladder. Nearly all the slum areas are Shia. The only country were Shia are in a majority and have dominance is Iran.

      I’m guessing you know nothing of Iran’s history and the Shah/CIA/Secrete Police/ Torture etc?

      The fact you quote Bolt about says it all, and one who likes to throw around terms like “taquiyya” to sound knowledgeable.

      • Militant islam existed hundreds of years before the USA was discovered by Europeans. It’s not looking so good as the scapegoat du jour.

      • It is common knowledge Iraq is predominantly Shia with Sunni & Kurdish minority’s.
        (And yes I have read the Quran and unlike many read it not just selectively refer to it).

        After the USA invasion, power sharing with Sunni failed and Iraq increasing became under Irans influence.
        The USA & neighbouring Sunni states cultivated the Sunni insurgents that formed the basis of Isis isil daesh today.
        Bandar of Qatar and Saudi along with Turkey and millions of Muslims willingly funded the attack on Syria to create a civil war and a pipeline corridor for Qatar gas to Europe v that Qatar Saudi/Iraq/Syria/turkey corridor versus the Iran/Syria/Greece to Europe alternative.
        All the fighting in Iraq Syria has been about that junction and corridor.
        One wins and blocks the other.
        That’s the goal of the daesh or IS “caliphate”
        It’s Islam being used by these power blocs of Saudi /qatar/turkey/Jordan v Iraq/ Iran and then their respective Western or Russian China alliances behind them.

        Which fact of history are you missing ?

      • For Denis’s education so he can keep up.
        Islam today – The principle of al-Taqiyya

        “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives.

        If a praiseworthy 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 telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible…and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory.”

        These doctrines of strategic lying and deception, al-Taqiyya and hudna, showcase the dangerous nature of Islam as much as does the wife beating, honor killing, beheading, and other such practices that the religion embraces.

        The only thing positive about the doctrines is that they are so integral to the Qur’an and practice of Islam that they cannot be hidden.

        We know about them, and now knowing we can and should take them into account.

        Weigh very cautiously what Muslims are telling us and trying to get us to believe, because Taquiyya in a first defending or advantaging Islam comes before honesty or the truth in their purpose & instruction from the Quran.

        Aly – poor taqiyya as his lies and deceit are obvious and easily exposed — therefore he fails in the objective of taqiyya.

      • Kodiak,

        For hundreds of years? Really? I guess your right, along side militant Christianity, would that be correct? EVERY religion has been/is militant, why portray Islam as somehow different?

      • Hey Dennis, all of the Abrahamic religions are toxic and trying defend any of them is silly.. As Sam Harris has stated it’s not religious fundamentalists that are the problem, its the fundamentals of the religion.

        If someone told you that “we are the religion of peace, but you deserve to be tortured for eternity for not believing the same things we do”, would you take them seriously? It should be quite obvious to any decent, thinking person that these statements do not square with each other and the person trying to tell you that they do should not be trusted.

        Having said that I do feel sorry for those who have been duped by the religious charlatans. They just don’t seem to be able to see the inconsistency in the dogma and claims of their religion.

        Waleed might be smart but he is obviously not smart enough to work out why he looks silly on the topic of religion.

      • In reality if you think that someone should be tortured upon their death for not holding the same beliefs as you, it is not that great a step to claiming that it is your duty to ensure that the eternity of torture is expedited.

        I don’t think I’ve ever heard a “moderate” Christian or Muslim claim that the doctrine of hell is unchristian or un-islamic.

      • I was in Quetta when they were kicking out the Shah trying to travel through Iran. They dragged people off the buses and shot them. The crime was having blonde hair.

    • Mike,

      Your “Facts of History” are internet conspiracies. The gas pipeline the Qatar’s wish to build via Turkey (thru Syria) is the South Pars / North Dome Gas-Condensate field, which they share with….OMG……IRAN. If you bothered to look at a map a connector to the Nubucco pipeline would be easy via Iran connecting into it in eastern Turkey. Iran is hungry for export income, why would they object, I cannot see how it would impact their push for more oil exports, which is what the saudi’s really dislike.

      The west gets up in arms because, low and behold, the Iranians want more say in what happens in their backyard after how many decades of western control, the Saudi’s and the West aren’t so keen on this. Shit, surprise, surprise, Gomer Pyle.

      I doubt IS is “controlled” by the Saudi’s or anyone. Funded and supplied? Yes. IS is a creation of a western fcukup. I do not believe in any Islam/Christianity war or Islam Vs The West, this is power politics gone wrong, like it always has.

      Btw, I’m sure everyone is suitably impressed with your help in my education. Are you a born-again?

      Edit: So, you now realise you cannot colonise your own country, good.

      • yes pars is sucked out by both Iran and Qatar. Neither will ever share, thats a fight to the death.
        Syria, the Anbar/Syria/Turkey v Iran/Syria/Greece quadrant is the control point. Bandar (quatar) has spent 14 billion on funding that Syrian war, Saudi much the same. Who ever wins gets the SE gas pipe into EU at the expense of the other. Nabucco is dead as an option.
        Yes I know Iraq is majority shia, it was when it was mesopotomia and just like the british did in the 1920’s, the usa with surrounding sunni nations have all tried variations in sunni control (saddam was a variant puppet sunni, armed by the USA to be at war with iran/shia, millions dead).
        So after GW2 they tried power sharing etc – but Iraq became a shia controlled colony of iran,
        So the usa set up and armed a sunni insurgency, that eventually evolved into IS (as outlined).
        Anyway off topic and that is often the interest in the comments – but 3 points.

        1. IS or Daesh is not un-Islamic – it is Islam, raw,, ugly, 7th century pre- medieval Koran literalist Sharia,
        And its not sunni or Wahhabi or Salafi – its Khawarji or heterodox.
        IS has an appeal to a large segment of muslims globally, perhaps 20% or more and that is hundreds of millions – not just 20,000 mercenaries in one area fighting where a gas pipeline will go.

        2. Aly is not a good representative of the Islamic interest, because when he attempts his gushy doctor Carl with an Egyptian muslim style, his blatant omission, twisting and spin is unconvincing.
        The quoran says taqiyya or deceit is a duty of the muslim but it has to be good and his isn’t.

        3. Aly’s threat (watch the video) is basically we accept islam in all its ugliness including further degradation of our values and rights, otherwise we get full sharia on us. No apology or regret just a threat. This is from someone who was on the Victorian muslim council that has defrauded our taxes and instructs muslim children to walk out if they see an Australian flag or hear the national anthem.

      • Don’t you see though, it’s impossible for Mike to be wrong about anything remotely connected to Islam.

        If anything stands in contradiction to his narrative – that’s taqiyya! The lying version.
        If anything loosely agrees with his narrative – that’s taqiyya! The honest version.

        Meanwhile, taqiyya is actually a completely benign principle enabling some Muslims to lie about their faith (in terms of denying they actually have faith) in cases where telling the truth would potentially lead to death. At least, that’s what a minute’s worth of internet reading tells me…

      • It is healthy that the discussion takes place. If you disagree with what is said try to persuade.

      • Healthy discussion is fine and I am quite happy to contribute constructively to such discussion (see http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2015/11/waleed-aly-deconstructs-isil/#comment-2440406) . Presenting largely skewed interpretations is not healthy discussion and especially when people are determined to cling to it at the expense of reason. Such things, like extremism, are not a product of Islam. Mike has done a marvellous job of sprinkling some facts into a distorted narrative. There’s no mention of the fact that the US have been quite happy to support those that are behind extreme Wahhabism. Indeed, the fact the west has actively supported many of the worst totalitarian regimes in the region is a significant contributor to the problems we see there now. There is also no acknowledgement of the enormous diversity in the Islamic world, the reality of some areas which to this day are essentially still very tribal in makeup (which often shapes behaviour and customs more than Islam) and have little in the way of a functioning state. I could go on but, to me it’s pretty obvious this is well short of a healthy discussion.

      • I read what you had to say, I read what Mike had to say. I am better informed as to both views. That’s got to be agood thing.

    • He is always worth the time.

      Uh oh.

      “Harris describes himself as a liberal, and states that he supports raising taxes on the wealthy, […]”

      • Did you listen to the podcast. Or the one posted a few days ago with Maajid Nawaz. Recommended.

        Harris was talking something like a wealth tax on billionaires – more generally

        “It was disconcerting how many people felt the need to lecture me about the failure of Socialism. To worry about the current level of wealth inequality is not to endorse Socialism, or to claim that the equal distribution of goods should be an economic goal. I think a certain level of wealth inequality is probably a very good thing—being both reflective and encouraging of differences between people that should be recognized and rewarded.”

    • Yes basically daesh or IS were created, funded and armed by a USA Sunni coalition to stop the Iranian Shia colonisation of Iraq.

      After destabilisation of Iraq they consolidation in Anbar region Iraq and entered into Syria at the direction of Qatar & Saudi & Turkey as well as Jordan in the attempted creation of a sunni controlled gas pipeline corridor from Qatar to turkey/Europe v the rival Iranian Syrian Greece gas pipeline to Europe.
      That’s what’s driven the Syrian ‘civil’ war.

      The daesh enemies are rival FSA as well as the Syrian government. Daesh have only 20,000 fighters but massive support from the Sunni globally even in 2nd & 3rd gen offshore muslims from western countries joining them.

      Daesh ~ Islamic state have a very clear simple heterodox sharia ideology based on literal and ‘un-interpreted’ heterodox application of the Quran and Sharia codes & values.
      In this quranic sharia ideology then jihad enslavement, murder and atrocities to future the cause of Islam are not only permoytre but are a duty.

      For a Sunni Muslim like Aly to say that Daesh are ‘not Islamic’ is like non churchgoer to say the pope is not catholic..

      He knows he’s talking crap (taquiyya) and it’s a poor crap with exposure of obvious lies.
      All Muslims know that Allah directs that taqiyya is done by those skilful in deception, not a ham fisted clumsy effort of Aly.

      • I think you need to get off those crazy websites and go outside to meet some muslims. They’re not all terrorists you know.

      • Only a tiny fraction are terrorists, but accepting them as immigrants is a guarantee of importing some element of militant Islam.

  11. Only 27287 documented Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11. Nothing to see here, let’s focus on misfits like Timothy McVeigh. Are you serious. Every single apologist on this site would change their mind if a loved one gets killed in such an event. On the plight of Muslim women, Ali’s wife says”there’s a little bit of sexism in everyone”. Go figure. You may not want a war with Islam, but it wants one with you.

    • Well, since it seems that many of those recruited are misfits, focusing on them would be a very good strategy.

      You can much more easily target at risk demographics within a population, than trying to analyse data from the whole population. Or by running round in panic with arms waving and mouth flapping, as evidenced by attention seekers like Pauline H and A Bolt.

    • Want to back that number up warmonger? In any event, most are part of civil wars in muslim countries – civil wars that the west helped forment.

      If a loved one of mine is harmed by a terrorist i will be even more angry at the warmongering politicians that took us to Iraq on a lie

      • Argue the facts, dope. All I pointed out are just that. Facts. If your tiny left wing brain can’t cope with that, maybe you should watch “the project”, it’s fairly simple.

      • It’s not a ‘fact’ – it’s spin. Provide the source and break it into countries.

        Just another warmonger, cowards hiding in bitterness while other people children go to die.

    • You are exactly right. These idiots know nothing but pc bullshit. Islam is looking for war and sooner or later even the thickest of the pc brigade will figure it out. I hope it won’t be too late.

      • You and the warmongers made the monster coward, and now you’re feeding it – by the time you figure it out it will be too late.

  12. Aly is generally a pretty lucid thinker (see here in debate with Christopher Hitchens on nature of Islam if you question his bias), but I think he is a little too prepared to pretend the glass might be half full in this (even if it is filled with piss and blood). I know the Project is analysis-Lite, but the geopolitics around syria and the middle east doesn’t really lend itself to a conclusion that our ‘Love’ will conquer.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyBgzVeccys

  13. Meh. Some good points, some not so. Spot on in the first half but then offers false choices as conclusions towards the end.

  14. Hate finding myself on this side of the argument. I’m normally a huge fan of WA, but this was pretty weak. I think his emotions got the better of him here.

  15. Terror Australis

    I think WA is spot on.
    ISIS wants the conflict to be “us” versus “them” where “us” means all 1.6 billion muslims.
    Crackerjacks like Bolt, Cori Bernardi, Jacqui Lambi and Pauline Hanson are doing their work for them by tarring all members of the worlds second biggest religion with the same brush.

    • Of course. They’ve said it themselves – that type of bigotry boosts their support and sparks more attacks.
      The Australian security organisations used to cringe every time Abbott came out with his “Team Australia” baloney because they know the effect it has on young people who already feel marginalised. He’d keep doing it despite being told not too (because he’s an idiot obvs).

      • ++ in that sense Abbott was the most terrifying Australian PM of the modern era, he seemed to want to bring the violence to our door.

      • Still making excuses!

        Lots of people feel marginalised for one reason or another. Most choose to kill because of it. Or subscribe to the ideology of a violent group like ISIS.

        All this victimhood apologia is crippling. Reminds me of a prominent Twitter Muslim woman with quite a trendy following, immediately after Paris saying she felt threatened, to paraphrase. Not by IS, by us! She didn’t even seem to place her self perceived victim status in some sort of context with the more than 100 slaughtered in Paris. It was all about her.

      • Still warmongering… The Iraq lie made us so so much safer…not

        (of course it wasn’t the 1k that went of die – warmongers never send their own kids)

      • Lots of people feel marginalised for one reason or another. Most choose to kill because of it. Or subscribe to the ideology of a violent group like ISIS.

        Indeed.

        But then people like you, determined to sway as many into radicalisation as possible, come along to try and “fix” that.

      • Love here is no solution to the mass graves overseas. Acknowledging reality is not warmongering. 3d is spot on on this. It is important not to blame the victims. The problem is not right wing commentators but islamofacists.

        Loving them is not the answer. They need to be confronted here. Putin will do our work for us after that plane load of holidaymakers were murdered

  16. Aly and why he is a failure as a Muslim in practicing poor taqiyya.

    Islam The principle of al-Taqiyya

    “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives.

    If a praiseworthy 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 telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible…and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory.”

    These doctrines of strategic lying and deception, al-Taqiyya and hudna, showcase the dangerous nature of Islam as much as does the wife beating, honor killing, beheading, and other such practices that the religion embraces.

    The only thing positive about the doctrines is that they are so integral to the Qur’an and practice of Islam that they cannot be hidden.

    We know about them, and now knowing we can and should take them into account.

    Weigh very cautiously what Muslims are telling us and trying to get us to believe, because Taquiyya in a first defending or advantaging Islam comes before honesty or the truth in their purpose & instruction from the Quran.

    Aly like all Muslims is instructed to lie or distort the facts.
    But he practise poor taqiyya (his lies and omission or distortion of the facts fails to convince and are easily exposed).
    Therefore his taqiyya is poor as he fails his duty as a Muslim to tell a convincing lie.

    • Mike,

      Can you let the MB fraternity know when you’ve finished your online course on Islamisation, it’s been two weeks already!

      • Ha Denis, you only represent yourself in any forum & given your comments show a general unawareness of both Islam, sharia & taqiyya as demonstrated by Aly:.
        – just trying help you get up to speed.

    • WA might simply be an ABC journalist giving an analysis that he hopes will create community cohesion… It may not be religious at all. That has to be a possibility doesn’t it Mike?

      • fitzroy,

        You posted this “I was in Quetta when they were kicking out the Shah trying to travel through Iran…” Uh, Quetta is in Pakistan.

        You comments above show you as just another narrow viewed bigot.

      • Of course Quetta is in Pakistan. I spoke to the Iranian consul there trying to get a visa. I’m just telling you what I was told when I was there. It is the truth. How does that make me a bigot. By disapproving of murders? Perhaps if my mind was as broad as yours I would approve of them.

    • Mike,

      I’d say your level of understanding is comparable to grade school and on par with your astroturfing skills.

      AS Macron posted above….”Meanwhile, taqiyya is actually a completely benign principle enabling some Muslims to lie about their faith (in terms of denying they actually have faith) in cases where telling the truth would potentially lead to death. At least, that’s what a minute’s worth of internet reading tells me…”

      A real basic short screach shows you this for taqiya from wiki.

      In Shi’a Islam, taqiya (تقیة taqiyyah/taqīyah) is a form of religious dissimulation,[1] or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts, especially while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution.[2]

      Al-Jamil’s “Hiding in Plain Sight” explains: …social behaviors associated with religious dissimulation – known as “taqiyya,” a practice in which a Shi’ite can lie about their faith in order to save a life.”[3]

      And a little internet boy-scholar knows more of that religion than a practicing Muslim?

      The only thing you have working “up to speed” is your wrist.

  17. ISIL – they just don’t seem to have the organisational flair of the Red Army Faction or Provisional IRA.

  18. Denis and macron – if you care to read the explanation of taquiyya I gave & you also gave its the same thing.
    It’s not just Shia (it’s Quran so both Sunni Shia w & other Muslim variants) and it instructs the Muslim to lie, decieve & distort or omit the truth when that deciet advantages Islam.
    The taqiyya has to be practiced skill fully so Islam is defended or advantaged.
    That’s the rules and your & mine & any other explanation from a Islamic source will confirm that.
    There is no doubt Aly was practicing taqiyya.
    It was poor taqiyya as it was unconvincing.
    So perhaps you don’t read or understand what you are copying and pasting – that actually says exactly the same thing as confirmation.
    Taquiyya is well known highly defined and instructed Islamic code of allowable deciet and Aly was applying that.

    Accept the reality and move on.

  19. Just for you Denis & Macron so you know what you are talking about next time.
    Aly & his poor taqiyya (and kitman) and it was bad taqiyya as easily exposed.

    The actual Quran & Islamic law.
    Don’t think you can disagree with the source and Sura’s – so end of debate 🙂

    Islam today : taqiyya & kitman.
    The Quran and Muslim scholars teach us that Muslims should generally be truthful to each other, but there are two forms of lying to non-believers that are directed, taqiyya and kitman.
    These circumstances are to advance the cause Islam – in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order or draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.

    The Qur’an:
    Qur’an (16:106) – Establishes that there are circumstances that can “compel” a Muslim to tell a lie.

    Qur’an (3:28) – This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to “guard themselves” against danger, meaning that there are times when a Muslim may appear friendly to non-Muslims, though they should not feel that way..

    Qur’an (9:3) – “…Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters…” The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.

    Qur’an (40:28) – A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must “hide his faith” among those who are not believers.

    Qur’an (2:225) – “Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts” The context of this remark is marriage, which explains why Sharia allows spouses to lie to each other for the greater good.

    Qur’an (3:54) – “And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.” The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means ‘deceit’. If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)

    The verses mean a Muslim is “compelled” to deceive others for a greater purpose.

    From the Hadith:

    Bukhari (52:269) – “The Prophet said, ‘War is deceit.'” The context of this is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed men by Muhammad’s men after he “guaranteed” them safe passage (see Additional Notes below).

    Bukhari (49:857) – “He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar.” Lying is permitted when the end justifies the means.

    Bukhari (84:64-65) – Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permissible in order to deceive an “enemy.”

    Muslim (32:6303) – “…he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them).”

    Bukhari (50:369) – Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka’b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad’s insistence. The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka’b’s trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad. This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered despite putting up a ferocious struggle for his life.

    From Islamic Law:

    Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 – 8.2) – “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy 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 (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory… it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression…

    “One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie.

    Additional Notes:

    Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them. The two forms are:

    Taqiyya – Saying something that isn’t true.

    Kitman – Lying by omission.

    Muhammad used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans that allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover. The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later, and some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed.

    • I sure hope that Muslims don’t see your views or sections of the Old Testament as being representative of “The West.” That’s the problem with extremism; its existence on both sides of any issue essentially helps to validate the warped stereotypes needed to dehumanise a people. From there, barbarity is a short hop.

      • Why ? It’s a direct quote for Quran and Islamic law from Muslims themselves.
        Any Muslim reading the above outline of the rules on taqiyya & kitman would just say yes of course we all know that & so what ?
        The Quran is the Quran and literal.

        Taqiyya to the infidel or non believer is scripted and mandated and any Muslim watching Aly would know what he was doing / denying IS was Islamic (not true) and making threats that we will get worse unless we make concessions.

        And muslims, like me would think that Aly poorly represented his case and his taqiyya was not convincing. Bolt etc destroyed Aly but fact is Aly s a shoddy commentator on Islam anyway and long record of failure.

        taqiyya should be only be done by the spoiler and if it can be successful.
        Aly would be viewed as bit of a joke and not representative of most Muslims.
        He is a non practicing Egyptian Sunni with no religious training or authority for a start.
        And his stuff is generally as a useless Egyptian Doctor Carl like commentary that doesn’t represent anyone.

      • AlexD, acutally people like you are the problem. Muddle headed, wishful thinking & ignorant of the realities of life & Islam.
        I didn’t write the Quran or sharia or instruct the Muslim to attack you or deny you the choice to be ignorant. I personally don’t care.

        But the Muslim does.
        There is no middle ground or accomodation by Islam. There is no peaceful Disneyland n fantasy you state of mutual acceptance and tolerance of respective values.
        It simply can not exist for a Muslim.
        Go read their doctrine.
        So your view is totally asymmetrical and TBH quite ignorant in this day & age given the extensive media and awareness of the drivers and intentions of Islam.

        The Muslim is trained by their Quran to despise one thing more than any other and that is the non believer and ‘Accommodator’

        So AlexD – that’s people like you. People that have no values and won’t stand against Islam are viewed by Islam as the weakest and first to be attacked or manipulated in the goal of sharia.
        Again not my opinion – that’s Islam.
        So you are kidding yourself and quite ignorant and incorrect if of you think there can be any reciprocal tolerance of values & beliefs.

        Or that they would be a ‘good Muslim’ in their own values by being moderate.

        AlexD – people like you who stand for nothing as a Muslim views it – an unbeliever – are the ones Islam has the biggest problem with!!
        and the Muslim will tell and does tell you repeatedly, clearly & openly.

      • Any native or ignorant hope by the people like you or the non Muslim – that the Muslim can be ‘moderate’ needs to be corrected.
        No Muslim can be moderate if they are to follow the Quran & sharia correctly.
        Here is what the PM of Turkey has to say.

        Speaking at Kanal D TV”s Arena program, PM Erdogan commented on the term “moderate Islam”, often used in the West to describe AKP and said,
        “˜These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion.
        There is NO moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”
        Source: Milliyet, Turkey, August 21, 2007

        Islam is prescribed & literal – in the Quran and Sharia and ISIL follow that it a pure unadulterated form. Isil say in Dabiq and many other media these all Muslims must also follow this to be correct & pure to Islam.
        Any person who does not follow the Quran & sharia is not a Muslim.
        20% of all Muslims globally agree and support this.

      • ”No Muslim can be moderate if they are to follow the Quran & sharia correctly.”
        Says one man according to you. One that is rarely described as “moderate.”
        ”20% of all Muslims globally agree and support this. “
        While you cite no source for this, you blew your own argument out of the water and illustrated my point quite nicely about the dangers of generalizing about a people.
        A wise man once said if you make Islam the enemy you will make enemies of 1.8 billion people. They are not the enemy. The enemy, if one exists at all, is Wahhabist extremism and other people like you that validate their warped view of the world.

      • AlexD – yes, Erdogan is just one man but as PM of turkey, supporter of isil and devout Muslim nation leader : when he correctly states there is ‘no such thing as moderate Islam’ he is saying what Islam dictates to the Muslim.
        A ‘moderate muslim’ is not tolerated by the Quran & Sharia.
        Waleed Aly knows this but he lies that if we tolerate Muslims more then somehow they won’t be instructed to be Islamic and follow Islam according to their doctrine.
        Waleed Aly’s taqiyya is obvious even to those not familiar with the realities of Islam.
        Any western delusion that muslims can be moderate and Islamic is an contradiction.

        The support by muslims of isil was mentioned earlier in the comments. So again that’s not my view but based in some evidence.
        In fact the support for ISIL appears higher than 20% in Muslims according to the source Newsweek which has a good record on being accurate on such things.

        A survey reported in Newsweek says acceptance of ISIS within Muslim communities is widespread:

        “Ignored in news coverage of the Paris massacre is the single most pertinent piece of background: A 2014 opinion poll found that ISIS had an approval rating in France (at 16%) almost as high as President Francois Holland (at 18%).
        In the 18-to-24-year-old demographic, ISIS’ support jumped to 27%.
        Muslims comprise about a tenth of France’s population, so the results imply that ISIS had the support of the overwhelming majority of French Muslims (and especially Muslim youth), as well as the endorsement of a large part of the non-Muslim Left.”

      • I love the way you completely ignored the last two thirds of my last post which essentially captures key flaws in your views. I’ll repeat an part of it again for you:
        “A wise man once said if you make Islam the enemy you will make enemies of 1.8 billion people. They are not the enemy. The enemy, if one exists at all, is Wahhabist extremism and other people like you that validate their warped view of the world.”

      • AlexD – no / what you suggest has been answered several times and in several ways.

        Your proposition that Islam can be moderate and wahabbi (isil are not Wahhabi or even Salafi but closer to khwawjiji) are somehow extremist and not core Islam.

        If you read the comments carefully & follow the links, perhaps read Dabiq or read the leading Islamic theologies : they will all tell you that pure or orthodox Islam as prescribed in the Quran & sharia CAN NOT be moderate and any ‘moderate’ Muslim is not Islamic.

        There is only a vassal Muslim – subject to the covenant of western democratic or secular rules or some other ideology like buddhism or socialism or communism that a Muslim has to ‘tolerate’ – until the Muslim can overthrow that to achieve sharia & Quranic purity.

        If every Muslim does not do this in every breath & action from birth to death, covertly or overtly then that Muslim is ruled un-Islamic and not pleasing or following the word of Allah as related to his prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

        So AlexD your basic understanding of Islam is incorrect, perhaps it’s coloured by a Christian ethic of accomodation & tolerance – but Islam and a Muslim & Islam can’t and will never be allowed to evolve to have moderation or accomodation..

        this exactly the point ISIL (daesh) make in removing the “grey zone” – forcing the Muslim to act and follow to what islam instructs.
        If you have read Aly’s spiel and the many
        comments, not just here but everywhere else – what Waleed Aly was stating is blatant lies and omission (taqiyya & kitman) in a evidently false argument and bad taquiyya.

        Aly is of course relying on the ignorant of Islam and its prescription – people like you to to dupe in somehow thinking there is a ‘moderate’ path and isil somehow is not core Islam or Islamic.

        Nothing could be further from the truth.
        As you see 20% plus support levels.

        Whole nation states actively fund the struggle of Islam to achieve dominance.
        .When the pm of turkey, the Islamic scholars, cleric & sheiks and even Inman agree that the Quran is literal and it states, sura after sura there can not be a ‘moderate’ Muslim in what is an end game of Islamic subjugation of any alternative to impose sharia as the only belief and ideology : take their word for it,
        they mean it.

        AlexD update your thinking : 1.5 billion Muslims can only be ‘moderate’ when they are as vassals and forced to be non sharia.

        Most if not the vast majority of Muslims living in the West or secular democracy’s are doing that because they fled Islam and are hiding behind the covenant and rules in those countries to have an excuse to not be ‘Islamic’ or faithful to their Quran.
        That’s why it’s one way migration.

        You may not know but the penalty for a Muslim to not be Islamic or to not advantage Quran rule and sharia law is death.

        So the last thing these Muslims want is the west or non Islamic world to go soft and be accepting more Islamic concessions or give the Islamic purists any more control or influence.
        Then they too are forced to be radical and subvert and overthrow the host nation they are in.

        The Quran is literal and the word of their God can not ever be reformed, interpreted, modified or diluted.

        Only the covenant (Quran) allows the non sharia host to mollify or inhibit the qurans dictate until the host can be subverted and overthrown. These are the rules.

        That is exactly what the conflict is all about including the khawaraji isil (Sunni) even denying the Shia Muslim their rights to a common belief and book – (khawjarite don’t accept Ali as the 4th caliphate back in the 7th century or interpretative hadeeth) so they have slaughtered thousands of them because of that.
        Do you think Islam will tolerate a soft weak accommodator like you that allowed his own ideology & beliefs to be conquered ?
        Islam and the Muslim hold this type of person to be below any respect – an unbeliever that can not even defend his own beliefs even when Islam made it clear what was going to happen.
        Islam can never be self moderating.
        It has no respect for moderation and views the term ‘moderate Muslim’ as ugly & sinful.

        Many Muslims would like to see Islam forced or repressed – not because they are moderate bit because they then have an valid excuse to not be or act Muslim and thus not destroy the world they live in or live off (remember a Muslim is born a prisoner or Allah with no escape or other choice allowed a penalty of death if they do not follow Quranic prescription with having a valid excuse).

        So the answer and the only answer that had proved sensible over 14 centuries of this issue is actually to massively reduce or have zero tolerance of Islam and preserve and futher liberate the Muslims from Islam.

        That’s what many Muslims want as well.
        A hundred million have fled Islam strife & conflict in the past century to the west for that reason.
        every Muslim knows what the Quran demands of them and they all fear that western tolerance and wooly headed thinking like youre AlexD will just hasten the day when naive western tolerance means the Muslim is then forced by their belief system to destroy the host nation they fled to in trying to get away from Islam. As isil now tells them they most do – decide if they are true Muslims or not.

        So a more correct statement is that large majority of 1.5 billion Muslims greatly fear Islam and would only wish that the west and others would be a lot more intolerant and stamp out or restrict or prevent many of their Quran & sharia instruction – to give them a valid covenant excuse not to follow it.
        Don’t like the answer ? Don’t reply.
        Go read up on Islam and maybe one day you will understand the answer is not accomodation and the Muslims fears each other and their Quran & Allah far more than the western non believers/accommodator they can all run away to as a safe haven to get away from Islam.

  20. A bit long – but worth a read IMHO – to counter Waleed Aly moslem nonsense…

    ********************

    Paris, Sharm el-Sheikh, and the Resurrection of Old Europe

    By George Friedman

    The attacks in Paris last Friday night were part of a long-term pattern of occasional terrorist attacks by jihadists on targets in Europe. In the European context, this stood out for two reasons. First, the scale of the attack was substantially larger than other attacks in recent years, both in the number of participants and the number of casualties. Second, it was different in the level of sophistication and planning. Securing weapons and explosives, gathering at least three teams, identifying the targets and the manner in which these targets were to be attacked involved fairly complex logistics, intelligence and above all coordination. Most impressive was their counter-intelligence and security. There were at least seven attackers and additional support personnel to secure weapons, gather information and help them hide out in preparation for the attack. No one detected them.

    The large majority of attacks are detected and disrupted prior to execution by European and American intelligence services, using information, communications intercepts and the other tools available to them. No one detected this group, indicating that the group, or at least its leaders, were aware of the methods used to identify attacks and evaded them. Lone wolves evade detection being lone wolves. These attacks required coordination and support. Their communications, movement and surveillance should have been detected. They weren’t. That means there was a degree of training that could only be obtained through a more sophisticated group like Islamic State (IS).

    It is noteworthy that IS took credit for the attacks in Paris because up until recently, such attacks have not been directly ordered by IS. Terrorist attacks on Europe or the United States designed to create maximum casualties were the modus operandi of al-Qaida. IS has generally focused on taking and holding ground in Syria and Iraq, leaving terror attacks to self-actuated lone wolves. IS was capable of terror attacks but their focus was on creating the caliphate, a territory ruled under their interpretation of Sharia, rather than on carrying out terror attacks.

    That apparently has changed. The attack on Paris was part of a cluster of strategic terror attacks including the downing of the Russian airliner at Sharm el-Sheikh (which yielded more deaths than Paris) and the attack in Beirut. The planning for the attacks, assuming that explosives and weapons had been secured, probably began no later than Oct. 1, 2015.

    When we go back to the days surrounding Oct. 1, there are two things that stand out. First, the French began bombing targets in Syria on Sept. 27 and the Russians started bombing Syria on Sept. 30. IS was not particularly damaged by these events, but it was clear that forces were gathering against them. IS needed to do two things. The first was to demonstrate to their own troops that they would not simply be bombed without response. This was critical to morale. Second, they had to demonstrate to France, Russia and anyone else planning to get into the Syria game, that it does not come without cost. They were not afraid of Russia and France moving against them in response. They were already moving against them. IS wanted to start shaping French and Russian public opinion. Certainly, the first response would be rage but jihadists have learned that the rage dies down in the West and so does the appetite for war. IS needed to demonstrate its reach, speed and deadliness. W hat followed was the downing of the Russian airliner at Sharm el-Sheikh and the Paris attacks. Most of the operators would have been in Europe already, as well as in the Sinai, if not working at the airport. But the actions took place in a broader European context.

    The wave of immigration that has swept into Europe from the Islamic world in general, but particularly the more recent stream of refugees from Syria, has created a political crisis in Europe and one that was particularly raucous prior to Oct. 1. Charges were being levelled by Germany against Central European countries for refusing to accept refugees. In turn, those countries charged that Germany was demanding that small countries transform their national character with the overwhelming numbers of refugees housed there. In addition, these countries, particularly Hungary, argued that among the genuine refugees there would be members of terrorist groups and that it was impossible to screen them out.

    Had Europe been functioning as an integrated entity, a European security force would have been dispatched to Greece at the beginning of the migration, to impose whatever policy on which the EU had decided. Instead, there was no European policy, nor was there any force to support the Greeks, who clearly lacked the resources to handle the situation themselves. Instead, the major countries first condemned the Greeks for their failure, then the Macedonians as the crisis went north, then the Hungarians for building a fence, but not the Austrians who announced they would build a fence after the migrants left Hungary. Between the financial crisis and the refugee crisis, Europe had become increasingly fragmented. Decisions were being made by nation-sates themselves, with no one being in a position to speak for Europe, let alone decide for it.

    From IS’s point of view, this provided two opportunities. Tactically, it gave them an opportunity to insert agents into Europe in the midst of migration. But this was a secondary issue, since IS could insert operatives at somewhat a greater risk if they wanted. However, there was a much more significant problem and opportunity for IS.

    First, the mass migration from Syria did not show itself at this level during the first phase of the Syrian civil war, when IS was not yet involved. It showed itself when IS became operational. As such, this posed a political problem for the group. The refugees were overwhelmingly Sunni, and IS presented itself as the guarantor of Sunni rights. The fact that they were fleeing IS affirmed the sense in other parts of its territory that IS represented a threat not only to Shiites, Kurds and others, but also to Sunnis. Ultimately, this represented a threat to IS’s power because if the Sunni base saw IS as a threat, then IS would become unsustainable.

    That was the strategic threat of the migrants. There was also a strategic opportunity in two ways. First, Europeans for the most part were not eager to receive large numbers of refugees, and the reception for refugees that made it to Europe was often unwelcoming, particularly as displayed on TV. The ability to demonstrate to the Muslim masses that the Europeans were now hostile not only to the principles of Islam, but to Muslims themselves, would potentially position IS as the defenders of Islam or at least the Sunnis. IS had been careful, in the midst of a rigorous interpretation and implementation of Sharia in areas under its control, to also create a system of social services that provided at least a safety net to Sunnis. Fleeing the IS safety net for Europe, Muslims now discovered how despised they were. From IS’s point of view, the more hostile the greeting to the migrants, the more solid their position. The chaotic arguments in Europe supported their position.

    In late October, the atmosphere began to shift, or at least the intensity. Europe remained united, but the decision by Angela Merkel to very aggressively champion the case for sanctuary in Europe for the refugees not only created a battle with some European countries and the European right, but it also began to shift the center of gravity of European positions toward the idea that some sort of sanctuary had to be granted. This shift did not particularly please IS, since a more hostile stance satisfied its needs better.

    Whether this was the reasoning that led to the attack in Paris is something we do not know. We do know that a passport for a Syrian refugee was found on one of the attackers. The French authorities have also said that the passport is a fake. Clearly, the organizer of the attack had to know that the passport would be found. Once found, authorities would believe him to be a refugee. Care could have been taken to exclude refugees, or at least take greater steps to hide identities. Instead, the fact that he may have been a Syrian refugee, or at least was holding the passport of one, was discovered in hours. Whoever organized this attack was not careless and he undoubtedly knew the consequences of a Syrian refugee being among the attackers. This was obvious to anyone in Europe or elsewhere. Nevertheless, the attacks went forward, knowing that the attackers would be killed and identified.

    Therefore, IS, or the subgroup in command of this operation, had to know that the consequence of this attack would not only be increased hostility to IS, but intense re-examination, in the context of legitimate fear, of the policy of admitting Syrian refugees into Europe. In the most extreme case, the refugees would be either placed in camps under careful guard until their identities and links could be determined, which would take a long time, or alternatively, a program or simple ad hoc expulsion of the refugees would take place. In either case, a process of potential radicalization, one with plenty of historical enmity from which to develop, would begin that would both paint the Europeans as an enemy, clarifying sides, or create a base for recruiting troops for IS. There was only upside in this for the Islamic State.

    The point that made this strategy attractive is that once the dead IS operative holding a Syrian passport was found, any reasonable European assumption would have to be that there were more. Given the numbers of dead and wounded, the presence of even a handful of such operatives would be cause for serious alarm. Given the fact that the operation was undertaken without any detection of movements or communications, it followed that the ability to discriminate between harmless refugees and IS operatives was uncertain. Considering this logic, any European not frightened was out of touch with reality.

    It may all be an accident, but if it is an accident, it is a remarkable one. With this attack and its threats for more, IS has struck at the heart of Europe’s sense of security and regardless of what they do, the Europeans will be alienating huge numbers of people who not only have no where to go, but also have no way to get there in any reasonable time frame. What comes out of this is something Europe hasn’t seen for a long time: camps, carefully guarded, with interrogation. The refugees must be brought under control from the European point of view. That requires them to be confined. But how do you confine several million people?

    It also had an effect that was likely not anticipated by IS, and which poses only tactical problems for them, but which dramatically changes how Europe works. European countries, one after the other, revived their border controls, effectively negating the principle that the EU is about the free flow of goods, money and people. Money still flows, but goods and people must now face a hurdle at some of Europe’s old borders.

    I have long made the claim that the transnational nature of Europe cannot be sustained. The divergent economic interests of EU countries, some with unemployment over 20 percent, some with it under 5 percent, meant that it was impossible for all of them to live not only under the same monetary regime, but under the same trade regime, which we cannot call free trade with agriculture, among other things, being protected. This would lead to a focus on national interest and on a resurrected nation-state.

    This was the fundamental problem of Europe and the migration crisis simply irritated the situation further, with some nation-states insisting that it was up to them to make decisions on refugees in their own interest. The response of Europe to the Paris attacks brought together all of these matters, and Europe only responded when some nations decided to use their national borders as walls to protect them from terrorists.

    It is important to notice that this was not the EU creating checkpoints independent of national borders to trap terrorists or block them. The EU wasn’t built for that. Rather, it was the individual nation-states, reasserting their own rights and obligations to secure their own borders that acted. Despite all the rhetoric of a united Europe, the ultimate right of national sovereignty and the right of national self-defense was never removed.

    Once it has been established that this implicit right can be used and the basic boundaries inside of Europe are the old European borders, we have entered a new Europe, or rather the old one. It is not clear when or if the border checkpoints will come down. After all, the war with the jihadists has created a permanent threat. Since there is no one to negotiate with, and no final blow that will end the war, when should the borders be opened again? What IS created, without intending it, is the fragmentation of Europe, with each state protecting itself. When will Europe decide it no longer needs checkpoints at the borders? When is it safe? And, if it is not safe, how do the borders come down?

    You cannot control the movement of people without controlling the movement of goods. Whatever the rules at the moment, the nation-state has reasserted its right to determine what vehicles enter. Once that principle is in place, the foundation of Maastricht does not disappear. The agreement is still there, but the claim to ultimate authority is not in Brussels or Strasbourg, but in Madrid and Budapest and Berlin. This causes more than delays at the border, it essentially creates a new mindset.

    This started as a counter to Russian and French airstrikes. It has culminated in unintended and unanticipated consequences, as is the norm. An airstrike in Syria, attacks in Paris, and the borders are back. Only to stop terrorists, of course. But that “of course” is dripping with historical irony.

  21. Yes : if you read Dabiq – the daesh or IS English publication which has a massive following within the Islamic world, it might be instructive as its ‘pure’ heterodox Islam.

    http://jihadology.net/category/dabiq-magazine/

    Putting aside the gore & glorification of jihad and khawjarite ideals : they make it quite clear in their claim of power & purity of Islam.

    Aly will have read this as a Sunni and journalist so he knows he was untruthful in at least 3 things.

    1. to say that IS is un-Islamic or weak.
    Neither are true, IS is now the 2nd largest military fighting force strike power capability in the region after Israel with over $2 billion of funds and it’s also global – up to 20% support in the Muslim world of 1.5 billion people.

    2. Accommodation of mild Islam then prevents radical Islam. Where has that ever happened by the way anywhere anytime ?
    In Dabiq IS outline their goal in plain simple English in how they will eliminate the grey zone of moderate Muslims and also via Hiraj or infiltration by 3 steps : immigration or now forceable mass migration, then forcing accommodation of ‘mild Islam’ to then convert that into pure or what we see a radical Islam.
    None of this is said with any bias to Islam, the Muslims tell you this openly and its in their Quran as instruction.

    3. The third deceit by Aly was to state that there is a path for Muslims to somehow create a mild benign tolerant peaceful Islam.

    The Quran and sharia is quite explicit on this only being acceptable in stage 2 as infiltration until power can be taken then sharia declared.

    Any Muslim who ‘sells out’ Islam by not devoting themselves to the goal of global sharia and elimination of all other beliefs is judged by the Quran and Islam to be a non Muslim and an enemy of Islam.
    Again that is the Islamic rules, no bias, just the facts as any Muslim can tell you are the guidance explicit in the Quran.

    Sharia is the IS code of instruction.
    That is the end goal of Islam.
    Accommodation & moderation of Islam to other beliefs can only be transient and never the end result.

    Aly knows all this.
    So his statements and proposition are misleading – and deliberately so.

    • Alex’s geopolitical view makes no accommodation for the slaughtered innocents. It may be that Waleed is trying for community cohesion, however his points are non sequiturs. You win the discussion.