Nuriyah Khan is an ex muslim her father preached Islam.

Here she is debunking the bullshit on Taliban being radical Islam with legalising slavery and banning women from education.

It's not radical it's just Islam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G53er5ipEPY

Quote:

Throwback Iran @Tarikh_Eran A Shia Muslim cleric in Iran gave an order to behead any Iranian that goes around saying they’re not a muslim. “We will kill you, and we will kill you good” Is it “Islamophobic” to share their own words? https://x.com/Tarikh_Eran/status/2021692728493379888

Can Bwhine tell us if it's considered Islamophobia to point out Iran has the death penalty for those who leave Islam?

There seems to be a flaw in her argument.  According to her, there is no radical Islam but according to all the Muslims I know there definitely is. Radical Islam exists on the fringes of Muslim thought and teaching it is definitely not mainstream.  Indeed you backing that it is shows your ignorance Baron.  How many Muslims do you know personally?  Any at all.  I suspect none, your Islamophobia is text book learnt from Islamophobes rather than association with Muslims.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 15^th, 2026 at 8:26am:

There seems to be a flaw in her argument.  According to her, there is no radical Islam but according to all the Muslims I know there definitely is. Radical Islam exists on the fringes of Muslim thought and teaching it is definitely not mainstream.  Indeed you backing that it is shows your ignorance Baron.  How many Muslims do you know personally?  Any at all.  I suspect none, your Islamophobia is text book learnt from Islamophobes rather than association with Muslims.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

https://m3.gab.com/media_attachments/0d/c3/83/0dc38320d9af80e4731953687b62a53e.jpg

Does she explain ISIS (Daesh)?

There are multiple sects within Islam, many of which are fundamentalist, militant and violent.

Then there are those that are not... like, say, sects within Sufi Islam.

https://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/dawkins_008.png

One of the first things that the Islamic State did was institutionalise sex slavery. I have never met a Muslim who is prepared to say that slavery is inherently wrong. They go through all sorts of moral contortionism to play it down. Abu liked to say that it was only acceptable in certain situations, but was fairly vague on what those situations were. I think the situation created by the Islamic state was one of them. You have to pillage before you can rape. There's even a verse in the Quran along those lines.

There is no radical or moderate Islam, only Islam because no part of the Koran can be rejected nor any part of the Sunnah, the deeds and sayings of Mohammed.

It is quite weird and bizarre that an illiterate sex fiend and bloody warlord locked his followers into the fetishisation of a book they cobbled together based the various recollections of his hallucinations and called it God's final, eternal and unalterable word. Then they added a personality cult, making his every deed and utterance that didn't make it into the Koran a guidance to life and conduct.

Another aspect that has emerged in recent days is the complicity of Islamic women in the activities of their menfolk. As I gradually realised a decade ago, they are almost all aware that every chap in their household is participating in the gang-rape of certain white working-class girls - and they're cool with that. After all, if you have to live among the hideous painted strumpets of the infidel, the girls might as well be put to use. So from The Daily Mail:

Labour mayor is found guilty of helping hide her son's phone after he raped a 15-year-old girl

I had initially assumed, following the mayor's tearful plea in court that a "mother's love" had clouded her judgment, that the rapist was seventeen, nineteen or some such. In fact, as you can see from the photograph above, the kid was forty-one. At the time, he was serving, officially, as "Consort" to the Mayor. That's some bollocks-type title equivalent to the use of "First Lady" in America, which is likewise bollocks and which I have never liked. But apparently "Consort" is its British and non-binary equivalent and, as our illustration makes plain, comes with its own impressive chain of "office".

And in Berkshire, Diwan Khan, Consort to the Mayor of Bracknell Forest, while in-between municipal functions, enjoyed slipping drugs into the drinks of minors and then raping them. His fifteen-year-old victim woke up naked on the back seat of his car and wondered what had happened. So the Consort to the Mayor used one hand to choke her and the other to hold up his telephone and show her the video he'd taken of their romantic interlude. This is also a very Paki thing: most rapists are a little sheepish about evidence of their brutality. But, in the vibrant diversity of England, the thugs who violate your daughters like to make souvenir movies they can show to their friends, brothers, fathers, grandfathers, etc.

Do they also show them to Mum? When the police knocked on the door of Mayor Naheed Ejaz, she waited a minute-and-a-half before responding. She used that time to order her son - in Urdu, so the coppers could not understand - to hide his mobile.

Because she knew what Muslim men keep on their telephones.

She knew what the police would see if they found it - and apparently she could not be as sure of the indifference of Thames Valley Police as Mancunians, Yorkshiremen and Shropshire lads are of the indifference of the Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire and West Mercia constabularies. When the coppers had been admitted, both mother and son continued to speak in Urdu, avoiding the word "phone", which is the same in both languages. So on bodycam video Diwan can be heard referring only to "the big bell", to which the Mayor replies, "Keep quiet. I know." The mobile has never been found.

Tellingly, Naheed Ejaz owned, and Diwan Khan drove for, a family taxi firm - because cabs are also central to control of the municipal rape-gang business. The Mayor has now been convicted of perverting the course of justice. But the family are old hands at perverting in a more general sense.
https://www.steynonline.com/pics/large/10243.jpg

Thanks to his bumbling performance in the Commons, most people seem to think Sir Keir is merely incompetent: All these paedos? Could happen to anyone. But he is, of course, the former Director of Public Prosecutions who declined to prosecute Jimmy Savile - and Miss Maitlis was employed by the same corporation that lavishly endowed Savile and more recently Huw Edwards. As I said, it's paedos all the way down. For over a decade, what's going on has been an open secret to every prime minister and home secretary since Gordon Brown and Jacqui Smith. Starmer and Maitlis are not merely incompetent but, in their indifference, evil.


But, according to Emily Maitlis, if you're obsessed about it it's only because you're racist:
https://youtu.be/4_0svLHYYgg?si=TjH0vH4UG1EjWgDZ

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 15^th, 2026 at 8:26am:

There seems to be a flaw in her argument.  According to her, there is no radical Islam but according to all the Muslims I know there definitely is. Radical Islam exists on the fringes of Muslim thought and teaching it is definitely not mainstream.  Indeed you backing that it is shows your ignorance Baron.  How many Muslims do you know personally?  Any at all.  I suspect none, your Islamophobia is text book learnt from Islamophobes rather than association with Muslims.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

🥱

Brian. I've deflowered a 40 year old Muslim.
I think I know Muslims better than you and I totally think Islamaphobia is justified in Australia.

RADICAL ISLAM / MARCO RUBIO DEFINES : source of EVIL

Vivid.🇮🇱@VividProwess 21h

Marco Rubio: "Radical Islam is a clear and imminent threat to the world and to the broader West, but especially to the United States, which they identify as the chief source of evil on the planet."


https://x.com/VividProwess/status/2022385289507795140



https://m3.gab.com/media_attachments/30/ca/fd/30cafda8c539f0cfc198b0ca65ae2929.mp4

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 15^th, 2026 at 8:26am:

There seems to be a flaw in her argument.  According to her, there is no radical Islam but according to all the Muslims I know there definitely is. Radical Islam exists on the fringes of Muslim thought and teaching it is definitely not mainstream.  Indeed you backing that it is shows your ignorance Baron.  How many Muslims do you know personally?  Any at all.  I suspect none, your Islamophobia is text book learnt from Islamophobes rather than association with Muslims.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

You are ignorant of Islam. Bbwiyawn, as of most things.  Knowing a coupla Muslim is not an  undertsnding of Islam.   You know that, we all know that. Yet, stupidly and totally dishonestly, you peddle yiour passing encounter with Muslims as an understanding of Islam.

That's the kind of vanity and stupidity that made you buy an online Doctor of Divinity AND BOAST abut it.

You are empty, stupid, vain to a ridiculous degree, and absolutely adamant about it. It's quite a combination.  You  are totally oblivious.

Oh, poor, poor, Soren.  Knowing Muslims provides a basic understanding of their religion.  A fair better understanding than anything you've shown.  Far better than what you've displayed.  Your understanding equivalent to a 14 year old whose been locked away with an encyclopedia for a fortnight.  You rely on Islamophobes who have no understanding about what they spouting.  Run along, back your bridge Troll.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Quote:

Knowing Muslims provides a basic understanding of their religion.

How does it do that, if you are afraid to ask them about it Brian?

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 15^th, 2026 at 6:45pm:

Oh, poor, poor, Soren.  Knowing Muslims provides a basic understanding of their religion.  A fair better understanding than anything you've shown.  Far better than what you've displayed.  Your understanding equivalent to a 14 year old whose been locked away with an encyclopedia for a fortnight.  You rely on Islamophobes who have no understanding about what they spouting.  Run along, back your bridge Troll.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Focus, ignorant, militantly stupid bozo:

Knowing a coupla Muslim is not an understanding of Islam.   You know that, we all know that. Yet, stupidly and totally dishonestly, you peddle your passing encounter with Muslims as an understanding of Islam.


I am amazed that you insist on being an idiot. What is that about?

Normally when people are given a counter-argument they respond to it, address it.  You - you just carry on as if NOTHING was ever said to counter you.  No wonder you are regarded as a total moron in your very own bubble.

Oh, poor, poor, Soren, kust because I refuse to bow to your argument absurdism.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 15^th, 2026 at 8:01pm:

Oh, poor, poor, Soren, kust because I refuse to bow to your argument absurdism.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Your grasp on reality is evidently very tenuous.

Knowing a coupla Muslim is not an understanding of Islam.   You know that, we all know that. Yet, stupidly and totally dishonestly, you peddle your passing encounter with Muslims as an understanding of Islam.

You think that talking to a couple of Muslims gives you an understanding of All of Islam and All Mulims. You are severly impared.  Certainly not fully rational.
Worse. You are totally dishonet.

You do KNOW all of the above yet you dishonestly pretend otherwise.  You are lying on purpose.


(and I am giving you the benefit of doubt that you are compos mentis. I know you ain't but I am treating you, for tis post only,  as  if)



You are a type for the broader purposes of this topic. An idiotic underminer and repudiator of everything that unifies Australians. You are the voice of everythng that rubbishes and degrades Australia, from ABos to Muslims.

* YAWN *

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 15^th, 2026 at 8:25pm:

* YAWN *

Twilight zone

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 15^th, 2026 at 8:25pm:

* YAWN *

Of COURSE you are not up to it, bozo.

Doctor of Divinity and more educated that most - but you are still not up to it.  A yawn is the outer limit of your vanity.

* YAWN *

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 15^th, 2026 at 9:06pm:

* YAWN *

Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia was included by the country’s largest Muslim community groups on a co-statement demanding NSW Premier Chris Minns, Police Minister Yasmin Catley and NSW police leadership apologise for the disruption of Muslim prayer during the rally at Sydney Town Hall last week.

It was the group’s first publicity since it was explicitly targeted in a new tranche of federal anti-hate laws, and a sign that mainstream organisations such as the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils intend to keep up their support of Hizb ut-Tahrir in the face of a ban.



Hizb ut-Tahrir’s presence on the joint statement condemning NSW police marks the group’s first public action under threat of the legislation.

The statement was co-signed by the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, Australian Muslim Advocacy Network and political advocacy group Muslim Votes Matter.

AFIC, its president, Rateb Jneid, and MVM organiser Ghaith Krayem previously signed another statement opposing the listing of Hizb ut-Tahrir, refusing to resile from its rhetoric and providing it a support network among mainstream Muslim leadership.

Terrorism no longer shocks Britain

British Jews are under threat. That was the blunt warning from Sir Stephen Watson after a jury at Preston Crown Court convicted Walid Saadaoui and Amar Hussein of preparing acts of terrorism. The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police said that had their plan succeeded it would have been ‘one of the worst atrocities’ the world had seen. He was right.

A civilisation cannot limit its terror response to surveillance, infiltration and the disruption of plots moments before execution. That is containment, not resolution

Saadaoui, 38, of Wigan, and Hussein, 52, of Bolton, had set out to replicate the 2015 Paris attacks. Their chosen targets were synagogues, Jewish schools and a kosher supermarket in the north west of England. They purchased assault rifles, handguns and around 1,000 rounds of ammunition. The intention, in the words heard in court, was to ‘kill as many members of the Jewish community as they could’ and to become ‘martyrs’ in revenge for Israel’s actions in Gaza.

According to the prosecution, they intended to escape the first attack scene, steal or use an ambulance as a getaway vehicle, continue attacks at additional locations and potentially fire on responding police officers. The judge later described the plot as ‘very close’ to execution when officers moved in. Saadaoui was arrested ‘red-handed’ in a hotel car park while taking delivery of weapons from the boot of a rented Lexus in an undercover operation.

The sentences reflected the gravity of their crimes. Saadaoui received life imprisonment with a minimum term of 37 years. Hussein was handed life with a minimum of 26 years. Saadaoui’s brother, Bilel, was jailed for six years for failing to disclose information about the plan.

Thank God the authorities intervened. The surveillance, the infiltration by the undercover operative known in court as ‘Farouk’, the patience required to allow evidence to accumulate without allowing bloodshed to occur, all of it deserves public gratitude. Sir Stephen said the force had avoided something that would have ranked among the worst atrocities seen globally. The fact that it was prevented shows the counter-terrorism network is, for the most part, managing an immense and permanent burden.


For the most part. The Manchester synagogue attack in October at Heaton Park is a reminder that prevention is never total. There are gaps, moments, failures. The threat environment is saturated.

Sir Stephen chose his words carefully. ‘We are seeing the manifestation of hatred moving beyond our shores globally and this is a threat to all of us. It is a threat to our Jewish communities and, if our Jewish communities are under threat, we are all under threat.’ He added that Jewish children are ‘the only children in our country who day to day go to school behind large fences guarded by people with vizzy jackets and where there are routine police patrols in and around those areas.’ That observation lands heavily. It describes a parallel civic reality.

Islamic State-inspired terrorism no longer shocks in Britain. It horrifies, it angers, but it does not surprise. The ideological script is familiar. In this case the jury heard evidence of social-media posts allegedly praising Islamic State, statements praising the 2015 Paris attacks, references to martyrdom, expressions of hatred toward Jews and Christians, and extremist propaganda found on devices. When Hussein was asked directly whether he supported Islamic State, he replied: ‘Do you want a true answer? Yes.’ He explained why: ‘They are Muslims. They make Sharia.’

Saadaoui told the undercover officer that attackers should ‘carry out operations against the Jews and the Crusaders there, and hitting them there affects them badly.’ In a Christmas Day voice note he dismissed knives and vehicles as ‘ineffective’ and concluded: ‘what is needed is an automatic gun.’ This was ideological conviction articulated without disguise.

Some still reach for alternative explanations for Islamic terrorism. Poverty. Marginalisation. Social exclusion. The problem is that Saadaoui does not fit the model. He arrived in Britain legally in 2012 after marrying an English woman he met while working as a hotel entertainer in Tunisia. He worked at a Haven Holiday Village, saved, trained as a chef, bought the Albatross Italian restaurant in Great Yarmouth for £25,000, ran weddings and birthday parties, owned a house on Ipswich Road, sold it for £169,000, remarried, had children. He appeared to be a conventional immigrant success story. Integrated. Industrious. Embedded.

Before his arrest, he allegedly transferred assets to family members, withdrew large amounts of cash, wrote a will and discussed leaving messages for his family after ‘martyrdom’. That preparation for death did not grow out of economic despair but out of belief. Indeed, if poverty caused terrorism, we would see waves of attacks by the poor and disadvantaged from other backgrounds, but we do not.

In Britain the distribution of threat does not mirror deprivation indices or general crime statistics. By the government’s own assessments, Islamist extremism accounts for roughly three quarters of MI5’s counter-terrorism workload. A similar proportion in custody for terrorism-connected offences are linked to Islamist ideologies. In recent years, close to 80 per cent of the Counter Terrorism Policing network’s live investigations have been Islamist in character, with extreme right-wing cases forming most of the remainder. Across Europe, Europol’s most recent assessments show jihadist terrorism dominant both in arrests and in lethality. Globally the pattern is starker still, with Islamic State and its affiliates responsible for the overwhelming majority of terrorism deaths in recent reporting periods.

This pattern is visible elsewhere, and it resists the comforting sociology that many still prefer. Mohammad Sidique Khan, the ringleader of the 7/7 London bombings, was a teaching assistant in West Yorkshire, married, embedded in his community, articulate enough to record a video testament framing his mass murder as a moral obligation. Several of the 9/11 hijackers, including Mohamed Atta, were university-educated and technically trained. The 2015 Paris attackers drew on a hybrid of criminal networks and hardened ideological commitment, explicitly invoking Syria, Iraq and the duty to strike civilians as retaliation. In each case the language of grievance was present, but it was filtered through doctrine, disciplined by doctrine, sanctified by doctrine. Ideology did not sit on top of personal frustration as decoration, it structured it. It provided the grammar through which anger became obligation and death became aspiration. That is why the biographies so often look ordinary until the final turn. The decisive shift occurs in belief, not in income bracket.

The techniques, too, have circulated internationally. The plan to conduct sequential attacks, to move between sites, to engage responding officers, echoes tactics refined over decades of jihadist violence. The mass-casualty shooting of Jews on Bondi Beach last year showed how even on the other side of the world a similar marauding gunman attack targeted at Jewish people and those around them played out according to a well-known blueprint. The ideas move first. The tactics follow.


Sir Stephen is right to focus on what he called the threat to Jewish communities. It is unbearable, and it is utterly unacceptable that Jewish children in Britain attend schools behind high fencing with visible security and routine police patrols. Many Jewish families have adjusted to that reality with quiet resilience. They have normalised it because they must.

But it is not just us Jews who are quietly accepting the unacceptable. You have all done the same. Metal detectors appear in spaces that once required none. The massive concrete flowerbeds we increasingly see outside important buildings, and those oversized ‘ARSENAL’ letters outside Emirates Stadium – examples of what is known as ‘Hostile Vehicle Mitigation’ disguised as decoration or branding – are turning our spaces into invisible fortresses. We tell ourselves this is prudence. We tell ourselves this is modern life. Gradually the exceptional becomes ambient.

Of course defence and security are necessary. But a civilisation cannot limit its response to surveillance, infiltration and the disruption of plots moments before execution. That is containment, not resolution. If we are honest, we know that the ideological engine behind these attacks remains active.

The uncomfortable task is to confront that ideology directly, to strip it of legitimacy, to refuse indulgence or euphemism, to challenge its theological claims and its political narratives with seriousness rather than embarrassment. That means intellectual clarity, legal firmness and cultural confidence. It means recognising that tolerance cannot extend to doctrines that sanctify slaughter.

If we fail to do that, we remain in the water, adjusting to the temperature. We Jews have felt the heat first. Others will feel it later. The pot, meanwhile, continues to warm.




The problem is Islam. Everywhere it is present.

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 15^th, 2026 at 6:45pm:

Oh, poor, poor, Soren.  Knowing Muslims provides a basic understanding of their religion.  A fair better understanding than anything you've shown.  Far better than what you've displayed.  Your understanding equivalent to a 14 year old whose been locked away with an encyclopedia for a fortnight.  You rely on Islamophobes who have no understanding about what they spouting.  Run along, back your bridge Troll.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Your stupidity is boundless. And you are proud of it, which is amazing.

So if you talk to a coupla Chinese or Japanese in Australia you know China and Japan?  :D :D

THe ludicrous corollary of that stupidity is that talking to you, gweggy, Carl and karnal one gets to know what Australia and Australians are really all about.   ;D ;D

Why do you deny the existence of extreme Islamism, Soren when you keep making posts that reinforce that it exists? You have a one track mind and when reality reinforces the counter arguments against what you are claiming you seem to think that is all lies. Your Islamophobe beliefs colour your thinking and dominate your thought processes.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 16^th, 2026 at 12:57pm:

Why do you deny the existence of extreme Islamim, Soren when you keep making posts that reinforce that it exists? You have a one track mind and when reality reinforces the counter arguments against what you are claiming you seem to think that is all lies. Your Islamophobe beliefs colour your thinking and dominate your thought processes.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

https://m3.gab.com/media_attachments/0d/c3/83/0dc38320d9af80e4731953687b62a53e.jpg

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 16^th, 2026 at 12:57pm:

Why do you deny the existence of extreme Islamim, Soren when you keep making posts that reinforce that it exists? You have a one track mind and when reality reinforces the counter arguments against what you are claiming you seem to think that is all lies. Your Islamophobe beliefs colour your thinking and dominate your thought processes.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

There is only one, unalterable Koran.  All Muslims believe in it fully, literally, without any alteration. Ditto the sunnah.

Every time there is a Muslim atrocity they justify it with reference to Islam. I take them at their word.

What would the comparison be if the number of those killed by extremist Islamists were stacked against those Asians killed by American goddists and their allies, I'm wondering.

Frank wrote on Feb 16^th, 2026 at 1:43pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 16th, 2026 at 12:57pm: Why do you deny the existence of extreme Islamim, Soren when you keep making posts that reinforce that it exists? You have a one track mind and when reality reinforces the counter arguments against what you are claiming you seem to think that is all lies. Your Islamophobe beliefs colour your thinking and dominate your thought processes.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) There is only one, unalterable Koran.  All Muslims believe in it fully, literally, without any alteration. Ditto the sunnah. Every time there is a Muslim atrocity they justify it with reference to Islam. I take them at their word.

In the months after the Afghan campaign, France's foreign minister, M Védrine, was deploring American 'simplisme' on a daily basis, and Saddam understood from the get-go that the French veto was his best shot at torpedoing any meaningful UN action on Iraq. Yet the jihadists still blew up a French oil tanker. If you were to pick only one western nation not to blow up the oil tankers of, the French would surely be it.

But they got blown up anyway.

And afterwards a spokesman for the Islamic Army of Aden said, 'We would have preferred to hit a US frigate, but no problem because they are all infidels.'

No problem. They are all infidels.

When people make certain statements and their acts conform to those statements I tend to take them at their word. As Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah, neatly put it, 'We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you.'

"We are fighting to eliminate you": The failure to grasp that core reality has bedevilled western policy for a quarter-century - and ultimately explains why the "war on terror" (granted its misbegotten framing) was lost. So the "developed world" spent twenty years lobbing the planet's most expensive weaponry and sacrificing its most highly trained soldiery up and down the Hindu Kush, the Sunni Triangle and other worthless bits of sod, while the inbred goatherds of the dar al-Islam quietly got on with annexing London, Paris, Berlin, Brussels, Vienna, Stockholm, Amsterdam, Toronto, Montreal, Minneapolis, Dearborn, Lewiston-Auburn...