Political Protection of Islam: The result of the Islamaphobia nonsense

Political Protection of Islam: The result of the Islamaphobia nonsense

Political Protection of The Goal of the Muslim Brotherhood

The following is from page 7 of their Memorandum:

The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

BY THEIR HANDS —Their strategy is to get the non-Muslims to do their work for them by playing the victim card.

Examples of this


The Rotherham Politics website reports Police failing to investigate the sex gangs in the UK. It seems that the police were afraid of being called bigots and Islamaphobes.

A police detective said fellow police made my life torture for trying to stop Rochdale sex ring. She said she was bullied by police chiefs for speaking out on grooming gangs.

Maggie Oliver said her professional life was made so difficult that she resigned from Greater Manchester Police over their refusal to do something to stop the Rochdale perpetrators and allowing them to escape justice for many years.

In another case National Review reported that an official investigation into the systemic abuse in Telford, U.K. didn’t begin until nearly a decade after authorities first learned of it.

According to a new report by the Sunday Mirror, British authorities failed to meaningfully address an epidemic of child prostitution that claimed as many as 1,000 victims over three decades.

The report reveals that authorities in the town of Telford became aware of the problem in the 1990s, but did nothing to prevent it for at least a decade. Some of the girls who were drugged, beaten, and raped were as young as eleven.

The Sunday Mirror interviewed a dozen victims who named more than 70 abusers. One victim said that the police tried to prevent her from learning why her abuser was not jailed because they feared she would share her story with the press. Another victim, just 14 years old, spoke of the tactics her abusers used to force her cooperation.

I hated what was happening and my abusers made my skin crawl but I was told that if I said a word to anyone they’d come for my little sisters and tell my mum I was a prostitute,” the second victim said. “I fell pregnant twice and had two abortions. Hours after my second termination, I was taken by one of my abusers to be raped by more men….The worst moment came just after my 16th birthday when I was drugged and gang raped by five men.”

The report alleges that Police did not share information about the abusers with Telford’s Asian community for fear of being called racist. According to police records, the social workers in the town treated the victims as prostitutes.

Swift Injustice of Tommy Robinson

Great Britain is the place where the values of the English speaking world, especially their dedication to freedom, took full form. Without Great Britain, there would have been no U.S. Declaration of Independence, Constitution, or Bill of Rights.

In recent years Great Britain has moved away from its commitment to liberty. Foreign critics of Islam, such as the American scholar Robert Spencer, and for a time, even the Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders, have been barred from the country. One prominent British critic of Islam, Tommy Robinson, has been repeatedly harassed by the police, railroaded by the courts, and left unprotected by prison officials who have allowed Muslim inmates to beat him senseless. Clearly, British authorities view Robinson as a troublemaker and would like nothing more than to see him give up his fight, leave the country, or get killed by a jihadist.

The saga of Tommy Robinson has entered a new chapter. British police officers pulled him off a street in Leeds, where, in his role as a citizen journalist, he was livestreaming a Facebook video from outside a courthouse. Inside that building, several defendants were on trial for allegedly being part of a so-called “grooming gang,” a group of men, almost all Muslim, who systematically raped non-Muslim children, in some cases hundreds of them, over a period of years or decades. Some ten thousand Facebook viewers around the world witnessed Robinson’s arrest live.

The police promptly dragged Robinson in front of a judge, where, without having access to his own lawyer, he was summarily tried and sentenced to 13 months behind bars.

The judge who sentenced him also ordered the British media not to report on his case. Newspapers that had already posted reports of his arrest quickly took them down. Even ordinary citizens who had written about the arrest on social media removed their posts, for fear of sharing Robinson’s fate.

In the United Kingdom rapists enjoy the right to a full and fair trial, the right to the legal representation of their choice, the right to have sufficient time to prepare their cases, and the right to go home on bail between sessions of their trial. No such rights were offered to Tommy Robinson.

The swiftness with which injustice was meted out to Robinson is both stunning. and terrifying. This is an utter violation of fundamental British freedoms.

Robinson’s lightning-fast arrest, trial, and imprisonment should not have come as a surprise. On source says “There has been a campaign to ‘get Tommy’ — or what looks remarkably like it — for some time.”

The apparent justification for Robinson’s arrest is that he was on a suspended sentence. In May of last year, he was taken into custody while reporting from outside a courthouse in Kent, where another group of Muslim defendants was being tried, also on “grooming” charges. That arrest was also unjustified. At least on this one Robinson was given a suspended sentence. It seems that the mere act of reporting from outside another courthouse amounted to a violation of the terms of his suspended sentence.

When one of these “grooming gang” trials is being held, the extended families and friends of the defendants stand outside the courthouse and “heckle and intimidate” the rape victims as well as their families and supporters. There have been reports of children as young as five throwing stones at victims’ families. There have been witnesses for the prosecution who have needed police protection to use a rest room inside a courthouse. This heckling and harassment is rarely reported on and never punished.

While Robinson is being punished for drawing attention to Muslim rape gangs, the Sikh Awareness Society, which has also reported on these “grooming” trials, is left alone. They they pull no punches yet don’t seem to get the intimidation that people like Tommy get. Sadly, the British police would not dare arrest a bearded man in a turban.

An imam was arrested recently, only to be let go by police after a large group of supporters demanded his release. One police officer acknowledged that the imam had been freed because otherwise there would have been riots all around the country.

There are those who think allowing this kind of injustice will somehow keep the peace. It will not! The more you give in to the bad guys, the more they will demand. Sooner or later the good people will rise up against this kind of injustice and then you will have war in the streets.

We must ask; Is the whole British establishment a bunch of cowards?


The following article is from Jihad Watch:


The Canadian government’s Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage has completed its draft report on “anti-Islamophobia” Motion M-103, and is ready to “take action.”

Motion M-103, introduced by Liberal MP Iqra Khalid just over a year ago, recognized

the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear… condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e-411 and the issues raised by it…and request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study.”

After the passing of M-103 in Parliament, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage proceeded with its study, conducting nearly a year of hearings from selected groups and members of the public, both for and against the motion.

The cost of this extensive year-long Heritage Committee project was footed by taxpayers. The actual purpose and methodology of the study were vague.

Now that it has emerged that the government is preparing to “take action” on those it deems to be “Islamophobic,” Canadians are left in the dark as to what action will be taken (or range of actions) and by whose standards and definition one is deemed to be “Islamophobic.”

The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is pleased to make available the report entitled “Taking action against systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia”.

In the Heritage Committee Report, the section on “Islamophobia” is oddly short: less than two pages. The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) definition of the term “Islamophobia” was included, as follows:

Islamophobia can be described as stereotypes, bias or acts of hostility towards individual Muslims or followers of Islam in general. In addition to individual acts of intolerance and racial profiling, Islamophobia leads to viewing Muslims as a greater security threat on an institutional, systemic and societal level.

The definition of “Islamophobia” provided by the OHRC is nebulous. Questions to ponder: what is the global jihad, and what doctrine is behind it? If reporting global abuses committed in the name of Islam inadvertently leads to the “viewing of Muslims as a greater security threat,” then is the OHRC stating that one must not report on those abuses (such as Christian persecution, jihad attacks, attacks on women in Europe, honor violence, stonings, FGM, the murders of apostates, gays, Pakistan’s stringent blasphemy laws, etc.), since such reports may potentially affect how Muslims are viewed?

The Heritage Committee report has delivered a passive-aggressive document that threatens “action” against those who practice “Islamophobia,” while not providing a concise definition of “Islamophobia.” Nor does it present thorough findings despite following exhaustive hearings, and fails to grasp the importance of Petition e-411, which formed the basis of M-103 and stated:

“We, the undersigned, Citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the House of Commons to join us in recognizing that extremist individuals do not represent the religion of Islam, and in condemning all forms of Islamophobia.”

Muslim Brotherhood-linked individuals and groups have been at the helm of a hard-line Canada-wide campaign to drive an “Islamophobia,” victimology agenda, which attempts to forbid criticism of Islam, thus putting a single religion over all others, as all other religious doctrines are and should be subject to scrutiny.

Numerous suggestions from Canadians to replace the word “Islamophobia” with “anti-Muslim bigotry” were firmly rejected.

Despite many media accusations that the “alt-right” had stirred paranoia about the word “Islamophobia” being a threat to free speech and an implementation of tacit Sharia blasphemy laws, the threat posed by the word went on full public display when “Islamophobia” was concretely defined in writing in a Toronto District School Board curriculum “Guide Book.” “Islamophobia” was defined as ”fear, prejudice, hatred or dislike directed against Islam or Muslims, or towards Islamic politics or culture,” substantiating widespread concerns that political Islam is in fact at play in the use of the word “Islamophobia,” and that there is a concerted effort to foreclose upon discussion of it. (Sections of the Guide Book were amended following complaints.)

It is significant that the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has established an “Observatory” that is dedicated to combating global “Islamophobia,” and has made it clear that “Islamophobia” encompasses not only anti-Muslim bigotry, but also criticism of Islam and any speech that is deemed offensive to Muslims; hence the existence of blasphemy laws in Islamic states.

What Canadians think about the direction of Canada is of little worry to Justin Trudeau and his acolytes. Canada can no longer be considered a diverse, free country when merely offending Islam has become a punishable offence, while the government discounts routine hate preaching on al Quds Day, on campuses and in mosques, including hatred and incitement against the LGBTQ community, which Justin Trudeau claims to defend. The vagueness of the Heritage Committee Report should raise alarm bells. One basic service the exhaustive hearings provided was an opportunity to calculate the fervor and strength of opposition to M-103, which gives insight into just how far the Trudeau government can manage to push the envelope with Canadians.

A few points about Canadian sentiment on some issues enforced by Trudeau:

  • The vast majority of Canadians rejected M-103 and the term “Islamophobia”;

  • Most Canadians objected to Syrian refugees coming into Canada;

  • Canadians did not approve of a $10.5 million dollar payout to jihadist Omar Khadr, and in fact, wanted Khadr to remain in custody;

  • Most Canadians oppose “mindless multiculturalism,”, the kind that Justin Trudeau advocates for, including welcoming illegals rejected by America and much worse: Trudeau’s embarrassingly impassioned advocacy for returning Islamic State jihadists.

Trudeau is also the first leader ever to break federal ethics law, as he vacationed with his family at the private Bahamian island owned by the Aga Khan. He also conveniently gave away a $15-million grant of hard-earned taxpayer money to the Aga Khan’s endowment fund. Favor for favor, right?

Some other troubles with Trudeau:

  • He accused the Conservative party of “Islamophobia” for inquiring about jihad terrorism;

  • He has met privately with Joshua Boyle, a suspicious former Taliban captive who is also now up on 15 criminal charges;

  • His government has been trying to reopen relations with the Iranian Islamic regime, after the previous Conservative government shut down the Iranian embassy in Ottawa because of its clandestine operations — including espionage and infiltration. Liberal Iranian MP Majid Jowhari started a petition to reestablish diplomatic ties with Iran.

  • His Sharia-supporting MP, Omar Alghabra, represented Canada at the 44th session of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. Since when is Canada an OIC state?

  • Leaked intelligence documents now reveal a much greater threat of Islamic terror than the Trudeau Government will admit to.

As Trudeau continues to spend taxpayer money on policies and projects that are undesirable to most Canadians, Canadians can expect more surprises. The Trudeau government has seen fit to deem Canadians “phobic” about Muslims, and will take action against citizens for this so-called “phobia.” One in three countries in the world have blasphemy laws that “criminalize anti-religious sentiment,” and Canada is well on its way. Despite the length and seemingly benign nature of the Heritage Committee report, it promises action against “Islamophobia,” a term it failed to adequately define, giving the government far too much leeway.

Anti-Islamophobia Draft Completed,” by Robert Tuomi, Windsor Square, February 1, 2018:

(OTTAWA, ON) – The federal Government’s standing committee on Canadian Heritage has completed a draft report on Systemic Racism and Religious Discrimination, including Islamophobia, in Canada. Although its latest meeting, on Wednesday, was in-camera, the committee, led by Liberal MP Hedy Fry, has released its minutes.
According to the minutes, the committee, with members of all three major political parties, agreed to adopt a draft report to be entitled Taking action against systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia.
The document will now be reviewed by Fry and civil servants whose role will be to make, “grammatical and editorial changes as may be necessary without changing the substance of the report.” It was agreed by the committee to have the Government table a comprehensive response following the presentation by Fry to the House of Commons.
Once Fry presents the committee’s findings, at a date yet to be announced, civil servants working on the document will release a news announcement and will place related information on the committee’s website.
The committee was given the task of examining Islamophobia and religious discrimination following the passage of Motion 103 in April last year. As part of its work, the committee held 93 meetings and heard from 78 witnesses.
Brought to Parliament by Iqra Khalid, a Liberal MP representing Mississauga-Erin Mills, the then non-binding motion called on the Government to condemn Islamophobia in Canada……



As you can see from all of these cases, there is a definite political protection of Islam. It comes from the fear of the reaction of Muslims if they don’t get what they want. The sad thing is that if anyone stands up and tells the truth they are accused of being “Islamophobic.” A phobia is an irrational fear of something. Fearing those who follow the teachings of Muhammad and the Islamic scriptures is not irrational.

Fortress of Faith has been informing you of the difference between the real Islam and the fake Islam for years. The real Islam follows the teachings of Islam’s prophet, Muhammad, and the Islamic scriptures. The fake Islam is trying to redefine Islam into something it never was, a peaceful religion.

It is time to stand up and speak the truth even when we are called Islamophobic.

Table of Contents