Tag: islam

UK Councils Tell Schools: Children’s DRAWINGS Could Be Blasphemous Under Islamic Law

In yet another assault on free expression in British classrooms, schools are being instructed by Labour councils to treat kids’ innocent drawings as potential offenses under Islamic interpretations. 

Guidelines warn that depicting humans or prophets could spark blasphemy complaints, forcing teachers to tiptoe around religious sensitivities at the expense of creativity and open education. 

The push comes amid a broader Labour government drive to monitor and suppress any perceived slights against Muslims, turning schools into surveillance outposts rather than places of learning.

The guidance, titled “Sharing the Journey,” originates from northern Labour councils like Leeds, Calderdale, Oldham, and Wakefield, and has been adopted by others including Sefton and Tameside. It explicitly states that “for some Muslim parents, sensitivities may exist in connection with the teaching of aspects of art, dance, drama, music, physical education, religious education and RSHE”.

Teachers are advised: “It is very important that the school understands this and is also careful not to ask its students to reproduce images of Jesus, the Prophet Mohammed or other figures considered to be prophets in Islam. Some Muslim pupils may not wish to draw the human figure.” This stems from hadith interpretations prohibiting images of living beings, viewed as idolatrous by some sects.

The restrictions don’t stop at art. On music, the document notes: “in Islam, music is traditionally limited to the human voice and non-tuneable percussion instruments as in the days of the Prophet, when they were only used in marriage ceremonies and on the battlefield”. It adds that “schools should listen to any concerns, discuss the place of music in the curriculum and ensure that students are not asked to join in songs that conflict with their religious beliefs”. 

Keep reading

Critics Say New Definition of Anti-Muslim Hostility Is ‘Assault’ on Free Speech

Critics have said that a new UK government definition of anti-Muslim hostility is an “assault” on free speech.

On March 10, the Labour government adopted a new non-statutory definition of anti-Muslim hostility as part of its “Social Cohesion” strategy, aimed at tackling hate crime and strengthening community relations.

The guidance, titled “Protecting What Matters,” sets out a definition intended to help institutions identify and respond what they call to anti-Muslim hatred and discrimination.

The Free Speech Union (FSU) said the initiative could represent an attempt to revive blasphemy-style laws in Britain. The FSU offers legal help to people disciplined or arrested for lawful expression.

“What we are seeing is an attempt to reintroduce Britain’s blasphemy laws, 18 years after they were abolished by Parliament, and the biggest assault on English liberty, particularly free speech, in over 800 years,” it said in a March 10 post on X.

According to the document, the definition, laid out over three paragraphs, says anti-Muslim hostility includes “intentionally engaging in, assisting or encouraging criminal acts—including acts of violence, vandalism, harassment, or intimidation, whether physical, verbal, written or electronically communicated, that are directed at Muslims because of their religion or at those who are perceived to be Muslim, including where that perception is based on assumptions about ethnicity, race or appearance.”

Keep reading

UK Govt Urges Schools To SNITCH On ‘Anti-Muslim Hostility’ In Orwellian Crackdown

The UK government is ramping up its assault on free expression, now urging schools, councils, and workplaces to monitor and report “anti-Muslim hostility” as part of a broader strategy that critics slam as a tool to silence legitimate debate.

Under Labour’s plans, institutions will be encouraged to track incidents of ‘prejudice’ against Muslims, with a new definition adopted to clarify unacceptable behavior. This comes amid a surge in hate crimes, but opponents warn it could muzzle criticism of Islamism or immigration policies.

Schools are at the forefront, with the government pushing for monitoring in education settings where antisemitism and anti-Muslim hate have reportedly normalized.

This escalating surveillance in schools reeks of authoritarian control, prioritizing thought policing over genuine security.

The strategy includes boosting security for mosques and Muslim schools through schemes upgrading CCTV, alarms, and fencing. A new “anti-Muslim hostility tsar” will oversee implementation, advising schools, universities, and public services on tackling hatred.

Communities Secretary Steve Reed defended the move in Parliament: “Today, we are adopting a non-statutory definition of anti-Muslim hostility. This gives a clear explanation of unacceptable prejudice, discrimination and hatred targeting Muslims, so we can take action to stop it.”

But Jonathan Hall KC, the government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has blasted the vague wording, warning it could chill free speech and make people afraid to criticize Islam, migration, or Islamist extremism. He argued it might be used to silence debate rather than stop actual attacks.

Keep reading

Suspect screams ‘Allahu Akbar’ after Molotov cocktail thrown at anti-Muslim protest in NYC: report

After a Molotov Cocktail was reportedly thrown at an anti-Muslim protest taking place in New York City, a suspect who was arrested by police shouted “Allahu Akbar” in response as he was being detained. 

Freedom News TV reported that a Molotov Cocktail was thrown at the anti-Muslim protest taking place. The suspect in question was then seen lighting what appeared to be a smoke bomb and was tackled and detained by police. As he was getting arrested, the man yelled, “Allahu Akbar.”

Police later said that there were possible explosive devices used by two Muslim men in the incident.

The protest taking place appeared to be led by Jake Lang, who posted about the incident. Lang, an anti-Muslim activist wrote, “Muslim ISIS terrorist just threw a homemade nail bomb at us in NYC.”

Keep reading

UK Mulls Banning 67 Dog Breeds for ‘Animal Health’ — but Is That Really the Reason?

After all these years, it turns out that your beloved pooch may be “unhealthy,” so much so that his breed has to be banned. This dire news comes from the far-left government of the United Kingdom, where beagles, dachshunds, mastiffs, great danes, boxers, and saint bernards may soon be a thing of the past. All in all, the government is considering banning no fewer than sixty-seven dog breeds, with the stated reason being animal health. This is so implausible, however, that it cries out for another explanation, and there is an obvious one that doesn’t bode well for Britain’s future as a free society.

The UK’s Daily Mail reported Thursday that this initiative comes from the top: “Sixty-seven dog breeds could be banned in Britain if new breeding guidelines set by parliament become mandatory, campaigners have warned.” This is because “the all-party parliamentary group (APPG) for animal welfare has launched a new tool to determine if a dog is healthy.”

Why was a new tool to determine if a dog is healthy needed now, to the extent that the British parliament has a group devoted to studying this question? Is Britain suffering a plague of unhealthy dogs? Are these legions of unhealthy dogs infecting their owners with diseases of some kind?

None of that seems to be the case; on the contrary, this sudden parliamentary fascination with canine health seems to be entirely a bolt from the blue, and the parliamentary group’s criteria for what constitutes sufficient dog health look just as arbitrary: “The cross-party committee has developed a 10-point checklist of extreme physical characteristics which can make for a poorly pooch. They include mottled colouration, excessive skin folds, bulging outward-turning eyes, drooping eyelids, under or overbite and a muzzle that interrupts breathing.”

The upshot of this is that numerous breeds of dog that are perfectly healthy but which have a coloration or skin folds or eyes to which parliament objects may end up being banned. And parliament means business: “The assessment – which is currently voluntary but expected to become law within five years – aims to drive out breeds with these sorts of exaggerated attributes.”

The claim is that this is all about caring for the poor dears, just as Canada’s euthanasia program is supposed to be all about alleviating pain and suffering. Britain’s anti-dog push “comes after studies have shown animals of these varieties can sometimes suffer pain, discomfort and frustration from birth.” However, “critics have cautioned the new criteria will see some 67 of the most popular types of dog in the UK automatically dubbed unhealthy.” These include “widely adored breeds like dachshunds, shih tzus and Scottish terriers – and even the late Queen’s beloved Welsh corgis.”

Given that these claims about the health of well-known and beloved dog breeds are so implausible, what else could be going on here? Well, Rep. Randy Fine (R-Fla.) recently landed himself in hot water when he posted this on X: “If they force us to choose, the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one.” Could it be that Muslims in Britain are forcing exactly this choice, or that Britain’s far-left Labour government is trying to ensure that the country’s growing and restive Muslim population continues to vote for Labour en masse?

Keep reading

Education board members challenge Islamist demands to change history lessons

A paid representative for the designated terror organization and Islam-pushing Council on American-Islamic Relations has called for Texas, in its state education system, to teach that one-third of all slaves in America were Muslim, enslaved, and killed for their Muslim faith, erase the Mayflower Compact, eliminate Columbus Day, teach that the Alamo was influenced by Islam and honors Islamic architecture and more.

Not happening, at least according to two members of the state Board of Education who challenged the accuracy of the claims, openly opposed a “jihadist agenda being forced on our children,” and were skeptical about the benefits of teaching children about Muhammad’s decision to marry a six-year-old and consummate the marriage when the little girl was just nine.

Keep reading

It’s Not Racist To Say Muslims Can’t Tell Us To Reject Dogs

Shortly after Nerdeen Kiswani, a pro-Hamas, pro-terrorist activist and organizer, said on X that pet dogs have no place in homes because “they are unclean,” several other videos surfaced reportedly demonstrating Muslim attitudes toward dogs.

There’s the video purportedly showing a Muslim threatening to behead a woman’s dog. And the video of “Sneako,” a Muslim streamer in Miami, telling Americans, “F-ck your dog. … Dogs are haram. … Dogs are gross.” And then the video allegedly capturing Muslim kids torturing a lone dog. Added to those were reports of Morocco engaging in a campaign to slaughter three million dogs ahead of the 2030 World Cup.  

The obvious conclusion is that Muslim culture does not like dogs and has no qualms about being cruel toward them.  

But the issue is not about dogs specifically. It is about Islam forcing Americans — who have been dog-loving and dog-using people since the Mayflower — to change our habits and our way of life in order to accommodate Muslims. It is about conquest and control. As Dana Loesch put it, it is primarily about submission, with Muslims pushing the boundaries of what they can do in America.  

In cases like this, it is very important to see who supports the suppressors and who supports the people being told to submit. Unsurprisingly, Democrats haven’t reacted with the common-sense, American response: If you don’t like dogs, don’t have a dog. But we are not going to tell Americans they can’t have dogs or that they cannot have their dogs in their own homes.

Instead, leftists from Jake Tapper to AOC have called Congressman Randy Fine of Florida a “bigot” for responding to Kiswani’s original tweet, with a sentence most Americans would agree with: “If they force us to choose, the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one.” And the reactions have gone well beyond that. Hakeem Jefferies has promised retribution if the Democrats retake the House in November. Ahead of that threatened retribution, Democrats (and some gutless wonder Republicans, if rumors are to be believed) want Fine to be censured.  

It’s important to understand what is unfolding. It is easy to see this as just another example of the left being the left and throwing down the “Racist!” card because that is largely what their entire deck consists of. But it is more than that. The old legal maximum “Silence means consent” (qui tacet consentire videtur) is still true. Every Democrat who has only been able to try and spin this as another example of xenophobic, Islamophobic conservatives proving their xenophobia and Islamophobia is advertising that he is an ally of Islamists — Islamists who, if given the chance, will exert power to change our way of life.  

The proof of this is not the fact that Islam is currently the fastest growing religion in the world, while also rising in the United States — religion obviously changed the Roman Empire after Constantine, Mexico after the conquistadors toppled the Aztecs, the Christian Middle East after the Muslims conquered it, so of course an Islam-majority United States isn’t going to be the United States we inherited. Nor is the proof that blue cities like New York are now blasting the Muslim call to prayer, changing their own rules to allow the disturbance. The proof can be seen in Dearborn, Michigan. 

Dearborn, with a population of about 100,000 people, is the city whose Muslim mayor, Abdullah Hammoud, named a street after Osama Siblani, reportedly a public defender of U.S.-designated terror groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. He also publicly told a Christian man he “was not welcome” in the city when the man expressed mild disapproval of Hammoud’s plan. Hammoud also said that he would throw a parade when the man left Dearborn.

Telling Americans to leave Dearborn seems to be habitual for its Muslim overlords: Muslim agitators shouted down one of Nick Shirley’s interviews in Dearborn, after which Shirley was told that “racists” were “not welcome.” Dearborn was also the locale where Muslims shouted, “Death to America!” so it’s not surprising that Islamists would tell Americans to leave what they clearly see as a conquered city.

Keep reading

For years the Taliban told women to cover up in public. Now they’re cracking down

In stop-start efforts since November, Taliban officials have cracked down on women and girls in the western city of Herat who have been ignoring the hardline group’s rules by showing their faces. Enforcement agents are preventing them from entering hospitals and seminaries and pulling them out of public transport.

Initially, women and girls were punished for not wearing a burka — the Afghan burka is typically blue, has a netted opening for the eyes and drapes down around the body, largely constraining the woman wearing it. Later, after what residents described as pushback, officials enforcing the rules relented and allowed women to wear the typical conservative dress in this part of Afghanistan, a voluminous cloak known as a chaddar, along with a face mask.

At the main hospital in the Western city of Herat, one health worker described female staff milling outside the entryway for hours, waiting for colleagues on the night shift to hand over their burkas so they could enter — like a token that allowed them “entry permission,” the worker said. In another incident, Human Rights Watch reported on a female surgeon, who was detained for several hours for not donning the burka.

Forcing women to don burkas, to cover their faces or even to wear a hijab, or head covering, “is part of the Taliban’s policy of controlling women’s bodies to make women invisible,” said Sahar Fetrat, a researcher in the women’s rights division of Human Rights Watch. She said in a statement: “Afghan women and United Nations human rights experts have called this “gender apartheid.”

In interviews conducted since November, more than a dozen Herat residents described different incidents to NPR. They all requested anonymity, or that we only use an initial of their first names, fearing reprisal from Taliban officials. The crackdown was run by officials of the Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, which is tasked with the implementation of the Taliban’s interpretation of Islamic law.

Keep reading

Diversity’s Fruits: Islam’s Brutal War on Dogs Comes to the U.S.

“The dog is man’s best friend” the saying goes. Why, we humans argue about most everything, notes website History and Headlines. “If there is one thing most people agree on, though, it is dogs,” it continues. “How can you not love them?”

Maybe one Nerdeen Kiswani can answer that question. After all, Kiswani, a Palestinian activist, recently agitated against the American norm of keeping dogs as indoor pets.

As she put it in a tweet last Thursday, “Finally, NYC is coming to Islam. Dogs definitely have a place in society, just not as indoor pets. Like we’ve said all along, they are unclean.”

After pushback, Kiswani attacked her critics. “Lmao at the Zionists frothing at the mouth at this…,” she wrote. “It’s obviously a joke.”

Many noted that it’s obviously not. Regardless, no one is laughing — especially given Islam’s history of condemning, abusing, and even torturing dogs. (More on that momentarily.)

Notable pushback came from Congressman Randy Fine (R-Fla.) who, among other things, tweeted the following. (Kiswani’s original message is below Fine’s.)

Predictably, many condemned Fine as not so fine and demanded he resign. (To his credit, he didn’t back down but doubled down.) Many took issue with his implication that Kiswani’s sentiments are general Muslim ones. The truth, however, is this: As Islam comes to the West, so does its war on dogs.

The Prejudice Is Against Canines, Not Muslims

Commentator Andrea Widburg addressed this Wednesday, writing:

Muslims look to their faith to justify hating dogs. No wonder, then, that the dog war has finally come to America. And while Americans are willing to tolerate many insults from Islam, it remains to be seen whether they will tolerate Islam’s murderous intent toward man’s best friend.

The Muslim war on dogs is nothing new. While there is a trend in Islamic countries towards laws protecting animals, the fact remains that, across the Islamic world, the Muslim street doesn’t just want fewer dogs. It has a culture that encourages exceptional cruelty toward dogs. Torturing dogs is as much a part of childhood culture in large parts of the Muslim world as cuddling dogs is in the Western world.

Keep reading

Unmasking The Muslim Brotherhood Ties Inside Ohio’s General Assembly

In a highly anticipated move, the Trump administration designated factions of the global Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist organizations last month, an executive action with profound implications extending beyond the Middle East to America’s heartland. Astonishingly, a Somali-American legislator from Ohio, State Rep. Munira Abdullahi, D-Columbus, continues to serve as a national leader for the Muslim American Society (MAS), a registered nonprofit that federal prosecutors have identified as the “overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.”

Abdullahi’s involvement with MAS dates back to at least 2012, when she served as a youth director in Columbus and later as a national program director. The organization’s youth programs have been marred by scandals nationwide, including an incident in Philadelphia where children were taught songs about beheading Israeli Jews, and a fundraiser selling merchandise glorifying Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists. Upon her election to public office in 2022, Abdullahi appeared to distance herself from MAS, updating her LinkedIn profile to indicate she no longer worked for the group.

However, her ties persisted and deepened. Now heading MAS-Columbus and part of the organization’s national leadership, she leverages her elected status to host events featuring ultra-conservative preachers and pro-Hamas activists. Though MAS officially claims independence from the broader Sunni Islamist movement, a 2004 Chicago Tribune investigation exposed how its early leaders decided to conceal their Muslim Brotherhood affiliations while aiming to “convert Americans to Islam and elect like-minded Muslims to political office.”

Campaign finance records underscore this connection: in 2022, Abdullahi received a $1,000 contribution from an MAS colleague and later donated $2,400 from her campaign to MAS-Columbus.

Keep reading