Mayor of Rotterdam to Jihadists: "If you do not like it here then you can **** off.

Daily mail says he is a Muslim and an ex journalist. That should carry a little weight.

Refreshing. No political correctness, just what he believes from the heart.

LOVE IT!!!!!

Some times ya just gotta make your point stick . . .

a reply to: jude11

His political party (the one, who has in the past, put the doors wide open to Muslims in the Netherlands) is doing horribly in the polls because of the party who has been warning against it.

Typical political rhetoric in exploiting the situation to win back voters.

Polls/PvdA

If any UK politician had the balls / sense to say this then I would guarantee that he or she would win this years general election by a landslide.

He is only saying what literally millions are saying behind closed doors or in pubs / clubs etc up and down the country and all over Europe.

a reply to: Freeborn

He`s only saying what the Partij voor de Vrijheid has been saying for years to win back voters. They are down from 38 seats to 11 now and Partij voor de Vrijheid is now at 31.

Nothing brave to first attack the Partij voor de Vrijheid for it, and after that to score with the same crap...it`s just politics, so as dirty as it can be.

Edit:

...and as additional information, PVV is against the EU and his party (PvdA) is pro the European Union, they are just trying to get wind out of the sail of the PVV which could score big with this...and the EU is holy of course...so nothing brave to obey the masters in keeping the United States of Europe alive.

a reply to: Freeborn

When you lose touch with your constituents, you lose your relevance. At least it should be the case.

Something to keep in mind.

The jihadis and extremists of Islam are a small minority of Muslims, but Islam, for the most part, around the world, provides a very intolerant environment for this virulent bacillus of extremism to persist in the body politic. There are some Muslim countries where a limited religious tolerance allows people of other faiths to live and practice. I am not aware of one Muslim country that comes even close to the kind of tolerance practiced in the West.

In Islam, in the Koran, tolerance is repeatedly cautioned against and regarded as a serious error in religious practice. It is regarded as a gateway to the weakening of faith.

Even in "tolerant" Muslim countries the activities of people of other faiths are strongly restricted.

In Islam, in the Koran, it is expressly stated that Jesus is not the "son" of God. The notion of the "trinity" is not accepted.

There is much in the Koran that is incompatible with life as we know it in the West. As the numbers of Muslims in Western society increase, they will have the legitimate power in a democracy, to remake the rules of society in ways that are more compatible with life as it is lived in Iran or Indonesia or Egypt.

Even nice Muslims are hostages to the Koran. Nice Muslims are the vast majority of Muslims, but like nice people everywhere, in every society, they are pushed around by people with an earthly agenda and sometimes by extremists.

For every one hundred thousand nice Muslims, there are a handful of extremists who can point to passages in the Koran which authorize their extremism and make it difficult for the nice Muslims to remove them from being acceptable within Muslim society.

How would you like to live in a society where Christian sects were literally at war with one another? Large parts of the Muslim world are like that. The Koran says to guard against tolerance. Internecine war is the result of following the Koran's teaching on tolerance.

We in this society are already feeling the pressure being exerted on us, in matters of freedom of expression. Very few Western newspapers are willing to lampoon Islam or "the Prophet", for fear, not of the nice Muslims, but of the extremists that the nice Muslims allow to live within the climate of intolerance encouraged by the Koran.

This is a serious issue for Western societies. No person and no society can survive if it includes ever increasing doses of poison in its diet.

This problem must be addressed, either within Muslim society, by accepting and encouraging a more sophisticated attitude to tolerance and forbidding intolerance, or, failing that, by our own Western power structures who should be restricting the practice and preaching of Islam, or, restricting the numbers of Muslims allowed into our society.

The notion that one should "render unto God what is God's and render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" does not exist in Islam, as far as I know.

There are certainly Muslims who believe they owe obedience to Allah alone and have said, "We only bow to Allah." Here in the secular West, that is a problem.

a reply to: jude11

This man has more balls than cameron and I wish he could be the mayor over in the UK. Our media is being curbed by islamists because they won't show the mohammad cartoons which I would like to see. We don't have one rule for mohammad and one for other religious leaders in a democracy - they all get fair air/picture time.

Our mealy-mouthed politicians censor via using the words 'bad taste' well its humour which should never be censored because it makes people laugh.

I think David Cameron should do this live on BBC news, tonight!

Same for all the leaders of the west, do it daily, put up posters!

Currently, authorities in France are cracking down on loose talk about terrorism.

www.lemonde.fr...

Une cinquantaine de procédures ouvertes pour apologie du terrorisme

Translation by Google from the article

According to figures from the Ministry of Justice, more than fifty court cases are underway for "advocating terrorism" since the attack on Charlie Hebdo.

Wednesday, January 13, an investigation had been opened for about twenty of them, eight people who received notices before a judicial police officer, eight more to go in immediate appearance, while three were still in custody. Only five sentences have been handed down for now, and the penalties are very heavy.

The most severe concerns a 34 year old man who, after a traffic accident in Haulchain (North), attacked on 11 January, police defending the attacks: he was sentenced to four years in prison . The glorification of terrorism was, however, an aggravating circumstance: he refused to submit to a breathalyzer test, was re-offending and the accident caused unintentional injuries.

Two other heavy sentences were pronounced in Orleans and Toulon on 12 January - a year in prison, each with eight to nine months suspended - and two calls to order in Saint-Etienne on 11 January and yesterday evening in Courbevoie (Hauts-de-Seine). These last two concern men screaming in the street, but without targeting specific person. One of them had launched "I am proud to be a Muslim, I do not like Charlie, they were right to do that."

I don't see anything particularly Muslim about this. People can be obstinate, they can be resistant to the police, they can violate their religious principles and get drunk and they can scream stupid things in the street at night. However, at this sensitive time, France is making an example of behavior that it regards as particularly threatening, either because it emanates from Muslims or because it emanates from Muslims and contains a spice of jihadi sentiment.

At this point in time, the right to express jihadi sentiments is being severely restricted. The society has to protect itself from violent disorder and a threat to its core values.

Incidentally, just for the record, I would never subscribe, personally, to Charlie Hebdo.

I have seen it (years ago) and although it did contain the occasional first class, funny cartoon, the majority of things published in it were dreck, in my opinion. It was full of purile, scatological humor. Think Larry Flynt and Hustler magazine's cartoons. What I saw of it was not subtle and not particularly witty, but if you are a not subtle and not witty jihadi, it might seem like an appropriate target.

Personally I would give it no more attention than than I would give any other clumsy vulgarity. I think most Muslims above the age of 15 (jihadis excluded of course) would agree with me.

He has been very vocal against any form of extremism. He also said this: (On Syria travelers): If you are so brave to go fight the Jihad in Syria, go on. Do what you must, but come here to city hall at 9 o'clock and give me your passport and don't ever come back. That's what we should do to the people who reject our values and constitution.

I know because I live in Rotterdam. And although I do not like his party at all, he is a good mayor.

This should be said for every Chinatown in any country outside of China.

Takes big nuts to kick a dog when it's down. Oh wait, no it doesn't.

originally posted by: ipsedixit
Something to keep in mind.

In Islam, in the Koran, it is expressly stated that Jesus is not the "son" of God.

What! They said that?

Did they know what Jesus said about this?

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. -- 1 John 2:22

You see, there are only 3 positions a person can make about whether Jesus is the Son of God.

[1] I know Jesus is the Son of God
[2] I know Jesus is not the Son of God
[3] I don't know if Jesus is the Son of God or not.

What would an "honest" person say?

I know many who will declare [1]. And many will declare [3].

But, who would dare state [2] ?

The only being who could state [2] for certain, is God himself.

Therefore, shear "logic" tells us that 1 John 2:22 gives us the true test.

The reason is that we cannot prove a negative.

I can say I saw Frank there, therefore he was there.
I can say I didn't see Frank there, therefore I don't know whether he was there or not.

But, I can't say that Frank wasn't there.

So, whoever says Frank wasn't there must be God himself, who knows everything,
or simply lying.

originally posted by: xavi1000
Wow , finally some politician with ball*s , and HE IS or WAS A MUSLIM or his heritage is hundred percent muslim. Morroco is Islam 98.9%.All muslims who agree with this guy should raise their voice and i'm sure they are plenty of them.

Actually, the Quran precisely agrees with this. Chapter 109: 1-6
Say: O ungrateful ones!
I worship not that which ye worship;
Nor worship ye that which I worship.
And I shall not worship that which ye worship.
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion

The Jewish Torah however is not in tune with that Muslim mayor said, as in Deuteronomy 13:13-19
"Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him."

and neither is the new testament as in 2 Chronicles 15:12-13
"They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. "

I'll assume this applies to non-Jihadists who don't like Rotterdam too.

originally posted by: MotherAnimal
I'll assume this applies to non-Jihadists who don't like Rotterdam too.

Yes, he talks also about 020 people !

originally posted by: FalcoFan
a reply to: jude11

Good for them.

Maybe my country's leaders could grow a pair and act against the muslims locally.

(get ready for the terrorist supporters to start screaming and crying)

The mayor in that video IS a muslim.

a reply to: Aliian

Interesting logical analysis.

In the second book of the Koran, (The Imrans, 3:59) (P. 47 of the Penguin Classics translation by N.J. Dawood):

Jesus is like Adam in the sight of God. He created him from dust and then said to him, 'Be.' and he was.

For Muslims God is indivisible, therefore the idea of the Holy Trinity is out of the question and Jesus can definitely not be God. They do believe in the "virgin birth" however, because God can do whatever he wants in terms of creation.

I'm not so sure that one cannot prove a negative, particularly if one can rephrase the negative as a positive and then disprove the positive version of it. Aren't negatives proved in court all the time?

Anyway, Muslims definitely do not believe that Jesus is in any way a god. They regard him as a prophet. They learned this through divine revelation. I think their view would be that Christians don't really understand scripture properly, but fortunately Mohamed received a revelation that corrects previous errors.

(I'm just the messenger here. I have no personal stake in these opposing views, since I am a Buddhist.)

originally posted by: ipsedixit
a reply to: Aliian

Interesting logical analysis.

In the second book of the Koran, (The Imrans, 3:59) (P. 47 of the Penguin Classics translation by N.J. Dawood):

Jesus is like Adam in the sight of God. He created him from dust and then said to him, 'Be.' and he was.

Jesus is not like Adam.

Adam was "missing something".

We know this because in the scripture we're told,

That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. -- Genesis 6:2

So there were "Sons of God" and then there were "Men" in the early days.

The bible does not say where these "Sons of God" came from. It's a mystery. But, there's enough there to tell us that there's a distinction between "Man" and a "Son of God".

The bible also refers to what is different.

Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? -- Matthew 21:42

The "rejected stone" is the difference between "Man" and a "Son of God". This "stone" was put back into man 2000 years ago.

We also know what that "stone" does. It enables the individual to tell the difference between right and wrong. To hear and understand the word of the LORD. To "recognize the truth" when he hears it.

Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. -- John 8:43

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: -- John 10:27

So, when you have "the stone" you understand the word, and when "the stone" is missing, the word is confusing and meaningless.

Jesus had this same discussion with the Jews of his time,

The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. -- John 10:33

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? -- John 10:34

If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; -- John 10:35


Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? -- John 10:36

So, the Jews also believed, like the Muslims, that Jesus was just an ordinary man. But, Jesus pointed out to them, that way back in their history, there was a reference to being a god, and son of god, which they had totally forgotten. He had to remind them that their scriptures documented this as a fact.

The reason that Jesus had to come was to leave "a message" in the outer world. This message "activates" the "stone" enabling people to realize the truth. So, in a sense he is like a Prophet, and this part the Jews and Muslims understand, in that he leaves a message for mankind. But, he is not like a Prophet, in that he carried the stone that made a being into a "son of god", and was not an ordinary man like Adam, who lacked "the stone." That stone enabled Jesus to be in direct contact with the LORD, so that the LORD did not have to tell Jesus what to say, then Jesus listened, and then repeated it to the crowds. Instead, that stone allowed the LORD to speak with Jesus' voice, without giving instructions first. Adam needed verbal instructions. Jesus did not.