Jews rally to defend “bank robber” Muslims

As ever, when the Muslims are under pressure, Jews step up to defend them.

Boris Johnson’s daft remarks have sparked a debate about the burka. And Jews are piling in on the Muslim side.

Yesterday a rabbi was at it.


Today the Jewish Chronicle weighs in.


Jewish journalists are even making a connection with the faux “anti-Semitism” attacks on the Labour party.




Now Muslims are trying to copy the same Jew tactic against the Conservatives.


This is the pattern we see throughout history: the Jews open a door, and the Muslims walk through it.


2 thoughts on “Jews rally to defend “bank robber” Muslims

  1. A minor footnote in all this phony outrage of Moslems and Jews; the reason why the Jews support the Moslem female death shroud is because Orthodox Jewish women ALSO wear it, especially in Israel and Judaic law, as with Sharia law, is discriminatory against women in favour of men, particularly with regard to marriage.

    This female apparel is the outward manifestation of the ownership of the female property by its male possessor.

    As to the actual argument around Moslem female attire, there are two passages in the Koran referring to ‘modest’ dress of both men and women and one of the passages regarding women can certainly be interpreted as implying a form of apparel which would cover the face. It is the Hadiths — which “Moslem scholars”, Johnson and everybody else in this ‘debate’ have carefully ignored, which explain the reasoning for the apparel. According to Mohamed, the female is an aw’rat (a shameful orifice) whose body contains ten such orifices and this body must be covered until the grave covers the entirety). Mo also stated his low view of females, their character and lack of intelligence and trustworthiness. Also, other Hadiths discuss his marriage to the widow of a slain tribal leader and the wedding guests discuss amongst themselves if the woman is to be considered his wife or his sex slave, reasoning that if he covers her face and body from all others then she is to be his wife, but if he does not cover her, then she is to be his sex slave. He covers her. Sex slaves were generally left bare-breasted and with faces fully visible.

    Thus, the issue is not solely the realisation that in Western society such apparel creates artificial barriers between Moslem women and all others, or that it restricts Moslem women from a fuller life in the West. Rather, it clearly exposes that uncovered women (Western women) are to be regarded as sex slaves and the Koran Surah 4 states that those females whom Moslems may take as wives and as war booty are those “that your right hand possesses”, i.e. your sex slaves, if you choose. Of course, this apparel should be banned. but will not be, and this false furore is actually the means by which both Jews and Moslems will further silence the British in their own land by presenting “antisemitism” and “islamophobia” as “hate crimes” and implementing them into legislation.

    A last footnote: Johnson is not on the side of the British, having declared he did not wish to ban the burkha — hardly a surprising stance since his Moslem great-grandfather served in the governmental administration of the Ottoman Empire in its last days,he is himself a Moslem having sworn the Shahada many years ago in a mosque in East London before a Moslem congregation, and his former wife was a convert to Islam.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s