Connect with us


Pakistan’s Talibanization (Part One)



Tehrik i Taliban Pakistan TTP

The “marked intensification of the ‘Talibanization’ of Pakistan…reached a crisis and turning point in early December 1998,” wrote House Taskforce on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare Director Yossef Bodansky in 1999. His book, Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America, documented the recurring destabilizing dominance of Islamic politics in Pakistan.

Bodansky defined this “‘Talibanization’ of Pakistan” as the “transformation of the state and society into the kind of harsh ultraconservative regime run by the Taliban in Afghanistan.” This process


has been in progress since late summer 1998. Faced with insoluble social, political, and economic crises that threatened the very existence of Pakistan, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif sought to compensate by adopting a strict version of the Sharia as the country’s legal system.

Bodansky elaborated:

By mid-September, Islamabad was arguing that Islamization offered the only chance of holding Pakistan together as it slid toward political and social collapse amid technical bankruptcy and increasing political assertiveness by the local Islamist parties. Relying on their powerful militias and allied Kashmiri terrorist organizations, the Islamist parties flexed political muscle Nawaz Sharif could no longer confront. By the end of the month the Pakistani government was hanging by a thread, and the crisis was exacerbated by economic disaster and a collapsing social order that brought the country to the verge of a civil war. The Islamist members of the army and ISI high command warned Nawaz Sharif that the only alternative to chaos was to implement “Talibanization”—the transformation of Pakistan from a formally secular pseudo-democracy into a declared extremist Islamic theocracy.

Pakistan’s National Assembly voted 151 to 16 on October 9, 1998, for what Bodansky described as a “constitutional amendment formalizing the Talibanization of Pakistan,” namely by implementing Islamic sharia law. As Guardian journalist Jon Boone wrote in 2013, “Sharif tried to turn Pakistan into an Islamic caliphate ruled by sharia.” However, the bill died in Pakistan’s upper house, the Senate, where Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League—Nawaz (PML-N) was in the minority, after the Senate refused to vote on the amendment. This qualified Bodansky’s assertion that Pakistan had become “formally an Islamist theocracy committed to the spread of militant Islam.”

Nonetheless, Sharif had other avenues to promote Pakistan’s Islamization, such as by magnifying long-term trends in the military and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). As Bodansky noted,

Sharif orchestrated a profound purge of the entire military and ISI high command, throwing out the Westernized elite and replacing them with Islamists who are ardent supporters of bellicosity toward India, active aid for the war by proxy in Kashmir, and assistance to the Taliban in Afghanistan and other Islamist jihads.

Sharif’s promotion of sharia preceded his 1997-1998 term as prime minister. During his first administration in 1990-1993 as Pakistan’s chief executive, he introduced the 1991 Enforcement of Shariat Bill, which both of Pakistan’s legislative houses adopted by simple majority. As Pakistani journalist M. Ziauddin noted, this “Act sought interpretation of all laws in the light of Shariah and also sought setting up of commissions for Islamisation of educational and economic systems and the media.”


As finance minister and then chief minister in Pakistan’s Punjab state in the 1980s, Sharif had previously accepted the Islamization campaign under military dictator General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq (1977-1988). As the Pakistani journalist Khaled Ahmed wrote:

When ideology stiffened under the pious military ruler, General Zia, Nawaz Sharif was with him, following the lead given by him and didn’t object when the laws against blasphemy and desecration of the Quran were passed and even made more draconian. Zakat tax meant to be spent on the poor can’t be spent on non-Muslims who are counted among the poorest communities in Pakistan. Muslims who are born in Christian hospitals and study in English-medium schools funded by Christian charity don’t mind if poor Christians are not helped with Muslim charity.

Another Pakistani general, Pervez Musharraf, overthrew Sharif in 1999, leading to his exile in Saudi Arabia in the years 2000-2007. When he returned to Pakistan, he reentered politics and became prime minister for an unprecedented third term in 2013-2017. At the time of his election, Boone noted, “old foes and longstanding friends say Sharif is a changed man.” “One former enemy said the years living in exile in Saudi Arabia had partly cured Sharif of any enthusiasm he might have once had for giving religion an even bigger role in national affairs,” the journalist explained.

Boone observed why some would

argue that the 63-year-old leader of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) is the best equipped to tackle a daunting in-tray, including a failing economy, chronic energy shortages and an ever-rising tide of extremism. Sharif has scored full marks for refusing to conspire with the army to bring down the last government, something of a tradition in a country that has seen three bouts of military rule. Instead he chose to allow the stumbling coalition led by the PPP [Pakistan People’s Party] to become the first elected government ever to finish a full five-year term.

Given such daunting problems in Pakistan, minor changes of heart in leaders such as Sharif are small consolation. Moreover, support for Islamization in Pakistan extends far beyond a few political figures, as the next article in this series will discuss.



Netherlands: Muslim adviser to ruling party spent time in prison as part of jihad group that wanted to kill Wilders



Soumaya Sahla

Soumaya Sahla has just resigned as an adviser to the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), the party of Prime Minister Mark Rutte. This is because it was recently revealed that in 2005, Sahla was arrested and charged with terrorist activities as a member of the Hofstad Network, an Islamic jihad group in the Netherlands that wanted to murder Wilders for criticizing of Islam. She had an automatic weapon when she was arrested, and spent three years in prison. The VVD apparently didn’t know or care about her past, until Wilders called attention to it. After all, they hate Wilders, too.

“Frits Bosch column: Soumaya had the entire VVD by the tail,” translated by Gary Fouse from “Column Frits Bosch: Soumaya had hele VVD bij de staart,” by Frits Bosch, De Dagelijske Standaard, January 27, 2022


Since 2011, Soumaya Sahla has been the right hand of the VVD celebrity Frits Bolkestein, 88. She was never a problem for the party until Geert Wilders rang the bell, and her past was revealed during the Second Chamber (Parliament) talks over the coalition accord. The mainstream media and the (2nd) Chamber were furious that Wilders came forward, he was “racist”. Until big objections arose against her from the VVD itself, “How can this be, why didn’t we know?”. A spicy detail is that Geert Wilders himself enjoyed the mentorship of van Bolkestein as a faction member of the VVD. It is completely right that Wilders came forward. Fortunately, there is still someone awake in the 2nd Chamber.

It would be appropriate if the mainstream media swiftly offered their apologies to Wilders. Naturally, they won’t do that. The moral level of the mainstream media and Chamber members is lousy, but that’s not news. Ignore the potential danger of a dangerous threat.

Soumaya is working on a dissertation on “the orthodox, religious worldview”. Sahla is Muslim, fine. But she was and perhaps still is orthodox, Islamist, Salafist. I hope that she will also read the books by Christopher Hitchens, “God is not great” and by Afshin Ellian, “Allah does not know better”. They (would) save her a lot of work.

Islam has the controversial practice of taqiyya. It would allow Muslims, “for the good cause” to feign integration and moderation, to emerge like a devil out of a box as a true Muslim if that makes sense. So in England, in part of London, sharia law applies. Here no. Do (Kauthar) Bouchallikht and Sahla practice taqiyya? We’ll never know.

The next question is how is Kauthar Bouchallikht doing, also with her “fine past”. She is keeping a low profile and so is the Green-Left (party). Incomprehensible that these women with a terrible history, got through the beauty commission of our political parties. It works every time. Where is the thinking? This cannot be?!


They are, indeed, “clean women”. Somaya Sahla is herself stunning in a pretty suit in order to come across as especially adapted. Would she “tickle” Bolkestein in his (sensitive) place? What do you think?

Bolkestein has been a first-class mop throughout his unimpressive political career. A frightfully vain fellow, as I once noticed during a seminar on Islam. He is a man who says A but shrinks from B. He thought that we and (Pim) Fortuyn would cut a sorry figure internationally. Now he has made a fool of himself. Justifiably, this dull party is in a heavy downward trend.


Below, from Blikopnieuws (see link) is a translation of Sahla’s statement:


“There has been a lot of commotion in the past weeks about me and my past. I regret that deeply and feel the need to say a few things about it. I want to be held accountable for a period of 16 years ago which I am not proud of. It is a black page in my life. I deeply regret the choices that I made then, and everyone in my circle knows that about me. I turned those pages a long time ago. I now see that it is good that (I) also express this regret publicly.

I gladly dedicate myself daily to the safety and freedom of our beautiful country. From this motivation, I am also actively involved in the VVD. The commotion that has arisen stands in the way of my positive contribution at this time. Thus, I am resigning my chairmanship in the J and V thematic network. I remain motivated to look where I can make a contribution in a free and safe society. I am also remaining in the VVD.”

Continue Reading


PA Court Finds State’s “Universal Mail-In Voting Act 77” Unconstitutional



pa mail in ruling 01

A big new ruling just came out of Pennsylvania, where a state court ruled that PA’s “Mail-in Voting Act 77” was unconstitutional.


Gee, that would’ve been nice to know about a year ago, right?


You may recall the TIME Magazine bombshell piece that made a lot of waves for revealing this was how they “fortified” the election — by changing the laws without actually making them a “law.”

Tricky move. 

Hard to call it “cheating” when the state’s congressional representatives implemented it, right? It looks legit and seems so “official” to people when it’s done that way.

Well, it was a good cover, as we can clearly and sadly see.


MORE NEWS: [VIDEO] Cops Form Jaw-Dropping “Sea of Blue” Straight Down 5th Ave in New York City

Fox 43 reported that a statewide court says Pennsylvania’s expansive two-year-old mail-in voting law is unconstitutional, agreeing with challenges by Republicans who soured on mail-in voting after then-President Donald Trump began baselessly attacking it as rife with fraud in 2020′s campaign.

According to a Commonwealth Court filing released Friday, the court ruled that Act 77, allowing residents to vote by mail in Pennsylvania, violates Article VII, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania constitution.



The Commonwealth Court denied the Pa. Department of State acting secretary’s application for summary relief.
In the ruling, Commonwealth Court President Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt wrote, “If presented to the people, a constitutional amendment to end Article VII, Section 1 requirement of in-person voting is likely to be adopted. But a constitutional amendment must be presented to the people and adopted into our fundamental law before legislation allowing no-excuse mail-in voting can be ‘placed upon our statute books.’”

Friday’s decision by a five-judge Commonwealth Court panel could be put on hold immediately by an appeal from Gov. Tom Wolf’s administration to the state Supreme Court.
The decision throws the state’s voting laws into doubt in a big election year.
The three Republican judges agreed with Republican challengers.

The two Democrats on the panel dissented.



I am sure Dems will challenge this all the way up to the state’s Supreme Court.



Are you sick of seeing ads? Well then it’s time to get rid of them! is proud to offer a PREMIUM VIP MEMBERSHIP that eliminates ads and gives you the BEST browsing experience.

SIGN UP HERE and join us!

Follow Wayne on Rumble!

Continue Reading