Is Tobacco Control Part Of ISIS’ Global Caliphate?

Yesterday in the Mail:

ISIS arrest 50 people for SMOKING and will flog them in public for the ‘crime’

Fifty men were arrested in the district of Yarmouk, south of Damascus

It is likely they will be publicly flogged for the ‘crime’ of smoking

ISIS’s strict Sharia law says all intoxicants as ‘haram’ or forbidden

The terror group is known to burn huge piles of cigarettes and alcohol

In what sense is ISIS really any different for Tobacco Control? I bet TC would like to flog smokers in public. And maybe they’ll soon be able to.

For isn’t Sharia law gradually being introduced in the Western world, often with government connivance? For example, is this true?

Sharia law in UK is now in penetration phase 4. Muslim imams in the UK now outnumber UK’s Christian pastors, and converting empty church buildings into mosques has become a cottage industry.

In 2008, UK’s government formally recognized the first Sharia Law court, and the Archbishop of Canterbury – the head of Church of England – conceded that adopting elements of the Sharia law into UK’s court system was “unavoidable.”

Since then, over 100 Sharia law courts have been established across the UK. Although they technically lie within the UK’s Tribunal Court system, these Sharia courts have been issuing rulings that contradict Britain’s common law, as well as European Union laws.

In 2011, Britain’s Muslims began demanding that Sharia replace British common law and become the only law in towns with large Muslim populations, including Birmingham, Bradford, Derby, Dewsbury, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Luton, Manchester, Sheffield, Waltham Forest and Tower Hamlets, an East London Muslim enclave whose streets are already plastered with posters declaring, “You are entering a Sharia controlled zone: Islamic rules enforced” (below) and where Muslim imams now issue death threats to women who refuse to wear the Muslim veil.

I wonder if Islam actually has a hand in Tobacco Control? ISIS follows a fundamentalist, Wahhabi doctrine of Sunni Islam. From the Telegraph:

In July 2013, Wahhabism was identified by the European Parliament in Strasbourg as the main source of global terrorism.

Wahhabism has become increasingly influential, partly because of Saudi money and partly because of Saudi Arabia’s central influence as protector of Mecca.

The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, condemned Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil), insisting “the ideas of extremism, radicalism and terrorism do not belong to Islam in any way”.

Somewhat paradoxically, however, members of the Saudi ruling class have applauded Wahhabism it for its Salafi piety – i.e. its adherence to the original practices of Islam – and the movement’s vehement opposition to the Shia branch of Islam.

What if Saudi money is being given to the WHO and other organisations to fund anti-smoking and anti-alcohol campaigns throughout the world? We know that billionaires like Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg give money to such organisations. Why not the Saudis as well?

I’m simply asking these questions, not providing the answers.

But is it really likely that the global juggernaut of Tobacco Control operating out of the WHO  is completely separate from the Islamic State that shares the same goals, and which has declared itself a global caliphate? For in a sense, the WHO already is effectively a global caliphate to whom more or less every country in the world is subservient. For a ‘global caliphate’ is really just another name for a single one-world government of the kind currently being pursued by globalists. What if ISIS’ global caliphate already exists, but is better known to the rest of us as the UN, or the WHO, or Tobacco Control?

About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Is Tobacco Control Part Of ISIS’ Global Caliphate?

  1. Interesting questions Frank. And it’s certainly quite likely that with the number of players out there that there *IS* some money and political pressure coming, perhaps not from the hard core of ISIS on the ground itself (they’re probably a bit too preoccupied with their own day-to-day craziness) but certainly from whatever sources of wealth support them.

    Wonder what the result of a demonstration by smoking un-veiled women in one of those Sharia areas would be?

  2. Tony says:

    Off topic but nice to see the MSM noting that humans evolved in a smoky atmosphere and so we’re well adapted for smoking tobacco. Presumably Neanderthals would have hated smoking.

    • Joe L. says:

      A downside to the discovery of fire: It may have paved the way for smoking

      That’s the most asinine Tweet I’ve ever seen. It certainly seems like the NY Times is trying to make people feel guilty for our ancestors discovering fire because without fire there would have never been smoking. I thought ‘White Guilt’ was stupid but ‘Fire Guilt’ might take the cake.

  3. Tony says:

    If the Saudis are funding the anti-smokers and the WHO, it would not be the first time Islamists have supported a Western attempt to create a New World Order. It seems Hitler greatly admired their ideology and they fought for the Nazis. At least assuming this article is broadly true:

    I only recently discovered that the word ‘Iran’ actually meant ‘Aryan’.

  4. waltc says:

    As an analogy or a slightly tongue-in-cheek musing, sure. But in reality? Anti-smoking started in the west long before Islamism, let alone sharia, was a factor in western life or culture. Even long before secondhand smoke was invented. The Royal College, in a passage I’ve quoted here before, was proposing bans as early as the 1960s as a way to make smoking socially unacceptable. Godber was preaching, and Banzaf and Repace were already acting in the 1970s. Does western anti-smoking–originally conceived by fanatics who just personally hated cigarettes, and rationalized as a health move by the 1964 surgeon general’s report and later rationalized as a Public Health move by the remarkable discovery of secondhand smoke– have anything in common with religious fanaticism and notions of mortal (and punishable) sin ? Yep. But that too has roots in western puritanism. I’d say it’s just a convergence of ideas and of deep-seated proclivities in universal human nature but not a collaboration between middle easr and west. ( And in fact it’s been western wackos like Bloomberg who’ve urged fatwas against smoking in some of the less theocratic middle east countries.) Perhaps, too, in the west, healthism, as a cult and credo, has risen in inverse proportion to a marked decline in the established religions, keeping the zealots’ notions of taboos and sins and replacing God with Statistics.

    • Joe L. says:

      I’d say it’s just a convergence of ideas and of deep-seated proclivities in universal human nature but not a collaboration between middle [east] and west.

      These are not mutually exclusive. Wouldn’t you agree that a convergence of ideas could have led to a collaboration between the Middle East and the West?

  5. harleyrider1978 says:

    A Religious War on Smoking

    Posted on June 17, 2014 by Frank Davis

    A few days back, the prohibition of tobacco and alcohol in Iraq by Muslim extremists raised the question of whether Western antismoking organisations would support such measures.

    H/T Harley, it would seem that at least one Muslim group in Indonesia was getting funding from a Michael Bloomberg-owned organisation in 2010:

    An organization owned by the mayor of New York City has channeled over US$390,000 to Muhammadiyah as part of a global anti-tobacco campaign, but the country’s second largest Islamic organization denied the funding influenced its recent edict banning smoking.

    A. Fattah Wibisono, a deputy secretary at Muhammadiyah’s council tasked with issuing religious edicts, acknowledged that his organization was cooperating with the Bloomberg Initiative to Reduce Tobacco Use, a philanthropic organization established in 2006 by Michael R. Bloomberg to fight tobacco use in low- and middle-income countries…

    The Bloomberg Initiative says on its website,, its program with Muhammadiyah aims “to mobilize public support towards obtaining religious policy on tobacco control and to support FCTC [Framework Convention on Tobacco Control] accession”.

    Muhammadiyah issued an edict banning its followers from smoking on Wednesday, basing its argument on the Koran, which bans Muslims from taking their own lives. It also urged the government and the House of Representatives to ratify the FCTC.

    Muhammadiyah denied that it received funding to issue the edict. But it would seem that “obtaining religious policy” of this sort was precisely the aim of the Bloomberg Initiative, and it got exactly what it wanted.

    And this shows that antismoking organisations are now prepared to reach beyond governmental public health agencies and attempt to secure religious support in their war on tobacco and smokers.

    It has, in short, become a religious war on smoking.

    Of course, the war on smokers always was a fanatical religious war, masquerading as a public health campaign. Tobacco Control is a religious cult. So it’s really only revealing its true nature by acquiring Islamic allies.

    But it raises the question of whether the Bloomberg Initiative grant is just one of many such grants being made by Western antismoking organisations to other Muslim groups. After all, since Al Qaeda is strongly antismoking, it cannot be beyond the realms of possibility that Al Qaeda has itself been the recipient of similar funding. And since ISIL/ISIS in Iraq is an offshoot of Al Qaeda, they also may be receiving funding from Western antismoking organisations.

    And if Islamic groups are being funded, why not Christian and Buddhist and Hindu ones as well? Has the Bloomberg Initiative approached the Vatican with a view to having smoking added to the list of Seven Deadly Sins?

    And since this is now a religious war on tobacco, might we not begin to ask what the religious affiliations of the Tobacco Controllers might be? Perhaps we will find that many of them are converts to Islam, and maybe even members of Al Qaeda. Maybe someone should ask Deborah Arnott which chapel or mosque or coven she attends.

  6. mikef317 says:

    Two points on the “is this true?” link.

    First the “you are entering a Sharia controlled zone” sign. I (and most readers) could easily print up a batch of these signs and post them around our neighborhoods. Unless I see people actually enforcing Sharia laws (which could be easily faked by actors of modest skill) the sign itself means nothing. I can’t speak for England, but much like the “areas where police don’t patrol,” the idea that major British cities have ceded their legal authority to some religious body strikes me as absurd.

    Re above, the pictured sign has an “h” at the end of Sharia (i.e., Shariah). Is there a spelling variant or is this just sloppy sign making?

    Second, from the link, bottom right, open the Halal Meat page. The next three paragraphs (links disabled) are from the “should we eat halal meat” section.

    Halal meat must not be eaten for at least three reasons. Firstly, Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic groups that are paid to inspect and certify meat as being halal funnel some of those fees to Muslim “charities,” including the Holy Land Foundation, Hamas and Hezbollah. So those who do not wish to support Islamic terrorists should not buy anything with a halal label on it.

    Secondly, “Bismillah” means “In the name of Allah,” while “Allahu Akbar!” means “Allah is Greater!” So halal meat come from animals that are sacrificed “in the name of Allah,” who is being declared “Greater” than the gods of other religions. This is blasphemy to Christians who worship the one true God (see True Gospel), but it should also be offensive to Buddhist, Hindus and the adherents to other religions.

    Thirdly, Muhammad chose Allah, the moon god, from among the 360 pagan idol of ancient Mecca to be the sole god of Islam. The Bible clearly instructs Christian to refrain from eating things that are identified as having been offered to an idol*, which is precisely what the halal label identifies.

    Much like kosher in the Jewish religion, Muslims have halal dietary rules about killing and eating animals. Reading a text about “sacrificing” animals in the name of “Allah the moon god” and warning Christians (“who worship the one true God”) about blasphemy doesn’t inspire confidence in the author’s rationality. And the first paragraph warning about Islamic terrorists doesn’t help. (I’ve heard that some black market cigarette profits also go to Islamic terrorists.)

    In the U. S., many religions have “laws” about food, marriage and divorce, childhood “coming of age,” etc. Believers follow these laws; non-believers don’t. End of story.

    I don’t have time to go into other topics, but Walt’s 3:09 AM comment strikes me as pretty sensible.

  7. sackersonwp says:

    King James was against it, too (1604).

    Generally what we’re looking at here is Puritanism, and we’ve had that before. One of the worst avoidable disasters in our history. Elizabeth held the country together during her lifetime but the Stuarts blew it.

    With luck, we may be able to prevent the next Puritan Civil War..

  8. Clicky says:

  9. harleyrider1978 says:

    The governments and even the courts broke their own laws on copyright protection and patent besides intelectual property rights.Its not just dangerous that they did that to tobacco but that means by the same means they can basically outlaw free or dissenting speech at the same time under the same guise. It proves once and for all the the rule of law no longer applies to anything anywhere on the globe. If the governments can just do what they want regardless of the laws then nobody or anything is safe,anarchy then rules.

  10. Clicky says:

  11. tony says:

    I bet the Department of Health’s building is owned by Saudis which would certainly give them strong connections with UK anti-smoking and all round Healthism.
    ”In an attempt to prevent the 19th-century Gothic building from disintegrating beyond repair, MPs will be relocated to the Department of Health offices in Whitehall while a multibillion-pound refurbishment begins in 2020.

    …The decision is likely to cause dismay among many MPs because their new temporary home, Richmond House, is held under an Islamic bond scheme and forbids the sale of alcohol.”

No need to log in

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.