TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 states, "The first one I see out, I wanna destroy you," and declares to Islam, "you are an evil satanic religion."

The speakers assert that certain groups should be prevented from entering the country and proselytizing in mosques about overthrowing the government and replacing it with Sharia law. They argue this is sedition, not freedom of speech or religion, and that the battlefield is domestic. One speaker states that dismantling injustice involves replacing the system with people who represent the prophet and that Islam is jihad. Another speaker claims that spreading Islam involves jihad and fighting those who don't accept Islamic rule, which is a command of Allah. For Muslims in the West, jihad means establishing the deed of Allah through all means necessary, including using protests to overthrow non-Muslim governments.

Speaker 0, who identifies as a Muslim, expresses a desire for Islam to be worldwide, including in Germany. When asked if they would undermine the German constitution, they affirm that they would. Speaker 2 asks how Germany could become an Islamic state, to which Speaker 0 explains that according to their beliefs, if Muslims are in the majority, they are commanded to take over Germany, even by force if necessary. Speaker 1 asks about the treatment of homosexuals, and Speaker 0 suggests they would be thrown off a mountain, indicating support for the death penalty. Speaker 2 inquires about the possibility of reforming Islam, but Speaker 0 asserts that it remains unchanged. When asked about Germans resisting the acceptance of Sharia, Speaker 0 states that they would be attacked and violence would be used if they do not comply.

A person asks why Speaker 1 lives in a white country instead of a Muslim country. Speaker 1 says it's not a white country, and they live in the UK to tell people about Islam, engaging in interfaith dialogue with people of different faiths. Speaker 2 asks if a Christian could move to a Muslim country and freely convert people from Islam to Christianity. Speaker 1 responds that under Islamic law, this is not allowed because Christianity is false and Islam is the truth, and Islam doesn't allow harmful ideologies to infiltrate its people. Speaker 3 states that when tolerance is one-way, it leads to cultural suicide. They say that when they can fly to Saudi Arabia with a Bible and cross, go to Mecca, and attend a church, then "we're good to go," but until then, it's important to understand the objectives and goals that Islam has set forward.

Speaker 0 argues that Sharia law should be above the US constitution, stating, “US constitution which is made by people and the Sharia law is made by Allah. So that is the all the way above. That has to be definitely in the land, not for the America, for the whole world would be above.” In other words, Sharia law is superior to the US constitution and should be established not only in America but worldwide. Speaker 1 agrees with the idea, reiterating the claim by asking, “So that should be above the US constitution.”

The speakers discuss the possibility of offensive jihad if Muslims were to become a majority in Great Britain. They emphasize the importance of having enough authority and power to implement Sharia and take authority away from those who currently hold it. The concept of power is repeatedly emphasized throughout the conversation.

Speaker 0 claims that someone was put in solitary confinement for more than a hundred days for speaking about what was happening inside his country. He says he knows why this is happening: purely for votes and to keep people in power. Speaker 0 adds that after visiting Europe and making videos about what was happening, he anticipated similar moves in the United States. He recounts a sit-down interview with Tommy Robinson, who explains that the Labour Party in the UK, and the Democrat Party in the US, stay in power because they “tell these Muslims they can go ahead, do whatever they want.” He says a Muslim “should be more conservative than they would be a liberal” because they don’t stand for much of that progressive stuff, and that “they have Sharia law” above everything. According to him, if someone goes to a mosque with a thousand people, the mosque leader is told, “we’re gonna let you guys do whatever you want, just make sure you vote for us.” He asserts that, as a result, the leader of the mosque will lead everyone in the mosque to voting centers to vote for that candidate. He claims this is why in London the mayor is Muslim and many surrounding towns are Muslim, and that they actually have courts practicing Sharia law. He says he anticipated this would happen in America as well, and mentions Mundami as an example. Speaker 0 then notes Mundami advocated for making childcare more affordable when running for office. He questions what is known about childcare now, describing daycare centers as “complete frauds.” He says he anticipated the current development and that people are now starting to see it in America. Speaker 0 explains that after he was pressed to give his opinion, people began loving it, even though he had not intended to speak out. He says he was originally just going to ask people questions, but they turned his journalism into activism, which he says forced his hand. He says he feels compelled to continue. Speaker 1 cautions, advising not to let them force him into something he thinks they don’t want him to do, referencing what he is currently doing. He concludes that they would rather have an activist than a competitor.

Speaker 0 asks for a single verse in the Quran, the hadith, and the Islamic literature that says, "go and kill innocent people." It's a challenge, with lines like, "It's a can. It's wanna hear it? Do wanna hear it?" He responds, "Yeah. I will cast terror into the hearts of the disbelievers. Therefore, cut off their necks Okay. And cut off every fingertip." "That's one. There are a 142. Go to Surah five. Go to Surah eight. Go to Surah 12." He adds, "Don't come here and pretend to me that your book is any different to any other sect of Islam." "Okay. Okay. I've studied the Quran. I've studied the Bible." Then, "Let me tell you one thing. Yeah. And this is a fact."

Speaker 1 asks if Speaker 0 supports Hamas, noting Speaker 0 is wearing a Hamas headband. Speaker 0 confirms support for Hamas and states they would join them, just as Speaker 1 would join the IDF. Speaker 0 says they would put a bullet in every soldier's head, clarifying they mean Zionists, not Jews, and that "real Jews" are elsewhere. Speaker 1 states that the IDF includes Jews and Muslims, but Speaker 0 claims there are no Muslims in the IDF, or if there are, they are hypocrites and traitors to the Muslim Ummah. Speaker 1 asks where the Muslim homeland is, and Speaker 0 replies it is all around the world and that Muslims will take over the world and implement Sharia law, which Speaker 0 supports.

Speaker 0 expresses a desire for Sharia law in Germany, stating that every Muslim should want it worldwide. Speaker 2 asks if Speaker 0 would disregard the German constitution to achieve this, to which Speaker 0 responds affirmatively. Speaker 1 asks how Germany could become an Islamic state, and Speaker 0 suggests that when Muslims are the majority, they should use force if necessary. Speaker 1 acknowledges Speaker 0's honesty and mentions the existence of a liberal Islam. Speaker 0 confirms that Islam encompasses all aspects of life, including politics. Speaker 1 asks about the means to establish Sharia and an Islamic state, excluding acts of terrorism. Speaker 0 suggests using force when Muslims are in the majority. Speaker 2 appreciates Speaker 0's honesty and shares similar thoughts, having advocated for Islamization in Germany. They emphasize the importance of Islamic practices in mosques.

Speaker 0 asks if at some point there will be sharia law everywhere. Speaker 1 replies, “Percent. This is my goal and every Muslim's goal.” Speaker 0 acknowledges the idea of establishing sharia law on earth and asks what would happen to someone like them who is a murtad and believes they should be killed under sharia if such law is universal. Speaker 1 states that the decision is “up to the army.” Speaker 0 questions whether it would be fair under Islamic law for someone to be killed simply because they arrived at the wrong conclusion, asserting they would be killed for being a murtad, and asks if that would be fair. Speaker 1 reiterates, “In the Sharia law, that's what I follow,” and that if sharia is universal, the speaker would follow that rule. Speaker 0 challenges the fairness of a system where their safety hinges on adherence to sharia, noting that if Islam dominates all of earth, there would be no safe haven for them. Speaker 1 confirms this by saying, “That's the plan. And you where.” Speaker 0 asks where their safe haven would be if all of earth is under Islam, and suggests that safety would have to come from Islam itself. Speaker 1 responds that safety would be found within Islam, implying it would be by force if necessary. Speaker 0 contends that safe haven would require conversion to Islam, and if they do not return to Islam, punishment would be death. Speaker 1 concludes that there are two choices, then says “Slam or death,” indicating the binary outcome under the stated framework.

Speaker 0: "What message do you want to give to the far right people? The message I wanna give to the far right people is we're here to take over your country. You can't stop us. You can try, but we're here to uphold Sharia law and yeah. That's it."

When Muslims conquer a neighboring country, the prophet instructs them to first invite the people to Islam. If they decline, they are required to pay taxes for protection. In return, they can continue living in their homes and country, but they must adhere to Sharia law, which means no nightclubs or fornication. If they still refuse, then fighting becomes necessary. If the Muslims are victorious, the conquered people become slaves and their land is taken. The speaker believes that in the next few decades, Muslims will become stronger and offer these options to non-Muslims.

The speaker believes that if the American public is properly informed about Sharia law, they will support it and demand its implementation, overriding the agendas of politicians and senators. The speaker envisions a future where Sharia rules the world, and Islam is the only accepted religion.

Speaker 0 asks how to weed out Muslims in a country that despises you and means you harm without vilifying or persecuting those who are fine and part of the social fabric. Speaker 1 responds by highlighting that Arab states have taken a strong stance against the Muslim Brotherhood and asks why the West hasn’t. The Muslim Brotherhood has been banned in Egypt and in many Gulf states (not Qatar), and there is a reason: they know how dangerous this organization is, that it doesn’t represent peace-loving Muslims who simply want to practice their religion and not impose a perverted version of jihad. Speaker 1 asserts that the Muslim Brotherhood is not pro-Muslim; it is an organization providing cover for terrorism that disproportionately impacts Muslims, especially in the Arab world. He emphasizes that the biggest victims of terrorism are the people of the Middle East, the majority of whom are Muslims, and urges people to educate themselves about what’s really happening on this front before it’s too late. Speaker 0 then asks why Europe is failing and has massively open borders, taking people from regimes where terrorism is life-threatening. Speaker 1 answers with a single word: subversion. He claims this is most evident in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, stating that the way the war and the conflict are presented in international media is not an accurate reflection of what’s happening on the ground. He believes many Palestinians would share that sentiment. He contends that what’s happening in Gaza is not how it’s reported, because narratives are shaped to present a certain story, a process he attributes to Al Jazeera. He questions who runs Al Jazeera and asserts it is state-run by Qatar, and says they have been a chief sponsor of a “laundered ideology” presenting Palestinian victimhood even if some stories are fabricated. He claims Al Jazeera has falsified stories during the Gaza war. Speaker 1 concludes that when people push back against Islamism, they’re accused of conspiracy or exaggeration, but the speaker argues that there is a conspiracy to undermine the West. He acknowledges that it may seem crazy to say so, but asserts that such a conspiracy is exactly what is happening. He identifies this as the fundamental ideology of Qatar, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Islamic Republic of Iran on the Shia side, and says this is something that must be spoken out against to educate the general public.

"What you're really saying is Islamic doctrine is divisive and hateful towards non Muslims, and it is about domination." "And it's incompatible with Western freedom and democracy." "So if the purpose is jihad in America, then you must lie." "This is what Islam demands. You wanna be a true believer? This is what it takes." "Their money, their lives, they left their family behind in order to go fight to make the world the word of Allah supreme." "Offensive jihad that we know, as the prophet says, it is the highest beacon of Islam, you know, as the prophet says," "whoever fights so that the word of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala is supreme in the land, then he is peaceabilah." "Inshallah, one day we will become martyrs." "We're coming to power. We're coming to power." "This is how we come to power."

The speakers in the video discuss their views on Islam in Germany. Speaker 0 expresses a desire for Sharia law in Germany, stating that it is a duty for Muslims to take over the country. Speaker 1 agrees and mentions the need to establish an Islamic state through any means necessary, including violence if Muslims become the majority. Speaker 2 acknowledges their agreement with these views and admits to previously advocating for the Islamization of Germany. They emphasize that Islam encompasses all aspects of life, including politics.

Die Diskussion dreht sich um die Einführung der Scharia in Deutschland. "Ich will die Scharia in Deutschland auf jeden Fall." "Jeder, der sich als Muslim bezeichnet, muss die Scharia wollen auf der ganzen Welt." "Würdest Du die deutsche Verfassung aushebeln, wenn Du die Gelegenheit hättest – Auf jeden Fall." Es wird gefragt, wie man aus Deutschland einen islamischen Staat machen könnte: "Laut den Werken ist das so, dass man, wenn man in der Mehrheit ist, ... wir dafür befohlen, Deutschland einzunehmen, auf jeden Fall." "Also es ist den Muslim, das ist eine islamische Pflicht, auch Deutschland einzunehmen." Es wird der Liberalismus diskutiert: "Es gibt diesen liberalen Islam." "Wie könnte man ... Mitteln wollt ihr die Scharia hier installieren und islamischen Staat machen? Mit welchen Mitteln? Ich rede nicht von Anschlägen ... Das ist falsch. Ich rede davon, wenn die Muslime in der Überzahl ist ... mit Gewalt." Speaker 2 erinnert daran: "Deutschland verdient eine satte Islamisierung." Die Scharia wird als "Regelung, wie Du betest, wie Du fastest, wie Du zu Hadsch gehst" beschrieben und als "in jeder Moschee lebendig." English translation: The discussion centers on introducing Sharia in Germany. "I want Sharia in Germany, in any case." "Every person who calls themselves a Muslim must want Sharia in the world." "Would you overturn the German constitution if you had the chance – In any case." It asks how to make Germany an Islamic state: "According to the works, if we are in the majority, we are commanded to take Germany, in any case." "So it is, for Muslims, an Islamic duty to take Germany as well." The liberalism debate is touched: "There is this liberal Islam." "With what means would you install Sharia here and make an Islamic state? With which means? I’m not talking about attacks ... That is wrong. I’m talking about when the Muslims are in the majority, then, if necessary, with violence." Speaker 2 adds: "Germany deserves a solid Islamization." Sharia is described as "the rules of how you pray, how you fast, how you perform Hajj" and as "alive in every mosque."

Your daughters will be raped and your sons beheaded unless we stop Islam once and for all. We're done turning the other cheek. Remember, David didn't pray for Goliath. He killed them. America is a Christian nation. So those terrorist Muslims can fuck off to any of the 57 Muslim nations. There is only one true God, and that is the God of Israel.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they are ruling out the possibility of calling for the slaughter of white people in the future. Speaker 1 responds by saying they don't know what will happen and it may or may not be them. Speaker 0 clarifies that it could be Speaker 1 and asks what would necessitate that. Speaker 1 doesn't know and questions why they would do that. Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to pledge to never call for the slaughter of white people, but Speaker 1 refuses to make that pledge. Speaker 0 understands.

Speaker 0 expresses a desire for Sharia law in Germany, stating that every Muslim should want it worldwide. Speaker 1 asks if Speaker 0 would disregard the German constitution to achieve this, to which Speaker 0 responds affirmatively. Speaker 1 then asks how Germany could become an Islamic state, and Speaker 0 explains that it is a Muslim's duty to take over when they are the majority. Speaker 1 acknowledges Speaker 0's honesty and mentions the disagreement with liberals who advocate for peaceful coexistence. Speaker 0 mentions the punishment for homosexuality, suggesting they should be thrown off a mountain. Speaker 1 confirms that this is supported by a Hadith. Speaker 0 also mentions the destruction of buildings as a form of punishment, indicating support for the death penalty.

Speaker 0 asks what group they are with and then expresses belief in the Holocaust. They question why it is illegal to question the Holocaust in 18 countries. When asked if they think it should be illegal to question the Holocaust, they answer yes. The speaker mentions being in 3 seats and wanting power. They tell someone to leave and make a crude comment about subscribing to someone's beliefs.

The speaker states that instead of force, laws are now being used, citing Canada's Islamophobia law M103. Another speaker says the only options are "ballot or bullet" and that participating in democracy is now their "jihad." Voting is now considered an obligatory action, a "jihad" to elect people who want Sharia law. It's claimed that in the last U.S. election, over 800 Muslim candidates ran for office. One speaker suggests that within six years, there could be 50 Muslims in Congress, replacing the current system with people who represent the prophet.

Ich will die Scharia in Deutschland. Jeder Muslim sollte die Scharia weltweit unterstützen. Wenn Muslime in der Mehrheit sind, ist es ihre Pflicht, Deutschland zu übernehmen. Es gibt keinen liberalen Islam, der von der politischen Dimension des Islam trennt. Die Scharia muss in allen Lebensbereichen gelten. Die Installation eines islamischen Staates könnte, wenn nötig, auch mit Gewalt erfolgen, wenn Muslime in der Überzahl sind. Ich habe immer gesagt, Deutschland verdient eine umfassende Islamisierung, die alle Aspekte des Lebens umfasst, wie Gebet und Fasten. --- I want Sharia in Germany. Every Muslim should support Sharia worldwide. When Muslims are in the majority, it is their duty to take over Germany. There is no liberal Islam that separates from the political dimension of Islam. Sharia must apply to all areas of life. The establishment of an Islamic state could, if necessary, also involve violence when Muslims are in the majority. I have always said that Germany deserves a comprehensive Islamization that encompasses all aspects of life, such as prayer and fasting.

Speaker 0 expresses a desire for Sharia law in Germany, stating that every Muslim should want it worldwide. Speaker 1 asks if Speaker 0 would disregard the German constitution to achieve this, to which Speaker 0 replies affirmatively. Speaker 1 then asks how Germany could become an Islamic state, and Speaker 0 explains that it is a Muslim's duty to take over when they are the majority. Speaker 1 acknowledges Speaker 0's honesty and mentions the disagreement with liberals who advocate for peaceful coexistence. Speaker 0 mentions the punishment for homosexuality according to their beliefs. Speaker 1 confirms that it is part of Islam, citing past instances of punishment.