Peaceful Muslims Seize French Territory Peacefully

Monday

On our recent article about WikiIslam, "Tranquil" left this interesting comment:

WikiIslam is excellent!

I want to mention a tactic that I believe is very useful in the fight against Islam. Time and time again I come up against the old "but what about the peaceful Muslims?" line.

I have found that one good way to defuse that is to point to France (with its 751 "ZUS zones" — the no-go areas that are very dangerous for non-Muslims).

These zones were set up by the so-called "non-violent" Muslims.

All they had to do was to move into an area in large numbers. Property values then drop (allowing even more of them to move in). The locals moved out and presto — a part of the country is conquered. No guns or bombs needed.

Heck, the French government even has the ZUS zones on its website! This PROVES that these zones — set up by the "non-violent Muslims" — are dangerous.

Two links about these zones:

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2006/11/the-751-no-go-zones-of-france

http://sig.ville.gouv.fr/Atlas/ZUS/

Read more...

Day of the Siege

Saturday

I was talking with two guys at work the other day as we were waiting around, and just to make conversation, I said, "Do you guys know who Charles the Hammer was?" Of course, neither of them did. So I said, "On this day back in 732, a significant historical event happened. For a hundred years after the death of Muhammad, Islamic warriors conquered most of North Africa, including what is now Libya, Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, in a kind of non-stop jihad. Then they went north. They crossed the Straits of Gibraltar and began their eventual conquest of Spain. They plowed their way through Spain into what is now France, but were stopped by Charles Martel, also known as Charles the Hammer."

They thought that was interesting. Awhile later, we had another lull in the work and I said, "I've got another interesting factoid." I've noticed most people (most of the time) are interested in anything that relieves their boredom, as long as it's not too upsetting, so I had their willing attention.

"Nine hundred and fifty-one years after Charles the Hammer, Islamic forces had conquered Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, and Serbia and were massed at the gates of Vienna, Austria, with the intention of conquering Europe. The Austrians were vastly outnumbered, but the walls of the city were formidable. The bad news for the Austrians was that the army of the Ottoman empire knew how to besiege cities. They'd been doing it for centuries and they were good at it. So the Muslim warriors were well on their way to breaching the city walls when suddenly the king of Poland showed up at the head of an army, coming to the aid of their Christian brothers, and the Islamic forces were defeated. The Polish army saved the day! They saved Austria from becoming an Islamic country. They probably saved Europe."

My two workmates were listening intently and seemed to be enjoying themselves, so I kept on talking. "That was the high water mark of Islam's advance into the West. Get this: They were crushed at the gates of Vienna on September 11th, 1683. That's why Al Qaeda chose that date for the 9/11 attack."

Something happened and we had to get back to work, but I could tell these guys will think differently about ISIS and other recent events now that they heard that little history lesson. In fact, one of the reasons I think they were so intrigued is that recent events have awakened their curiosity about Islam. Most people know very little about it, which makes a lot of current events unnecessarily puzzling to them. People seem, more than ever, to want real information.

That was a few days ago. Tonight, I saw a movie about the attack on Vienna. It's called Day of the Siege. I recommend it (see the trailer here). It didn't have great visual effects, but the acting was good and it brought this important historical event to life. There was very little political correctness in the movie. It was honest and straightforward. Watch it with your friends, especially your Christian friends (because the story's main protagonist is a Christian monk and the movie felt like it was made by and for Christians). More people should know about basic Islamic history. It clarifies things and reduces confusion about events in the news. And it makes for a more informed voting public.

Read more...

Useful Resource: WikiIslam

Friday

We'd like to direct your attention to an excellent resource, in case you don't know about it already. WikiIslam.net is an online resource about Islam. If you've ever wondered what zakat is, or whether the principle of taqiyya is widespread (or only used by some Islamic sects), if you'd like to see a timeline of the major events in Mohammad's life or wonder what Islamic doctrine says about rape, WikiIslam is a great go-to resource, complete with references for further study and chapter and verse references from Islamic doctrine.

One of their resources is Citizen Warrior's own famous Answers to Objections series, organized nicely for ease of use. Check it out: Answers to Objections When Discussing Islam on WikiIslam.

Read more...

Can An Open Society Prevent a Persistent and Determined Islamic Encroachment?

Wednesday

The following is an excerpt from a book review of Serge Trifkovic's book, Defeating Jihad. The reviewer is Brian Mitchell. You can read the entire review here.

The excerpt addresses the problem of how an open society can ethically deal with the dilemma created by freedom of religion on the one hand, and laws against sedition on the other. Up until now those two laws have not created a problem. But with the immigration of Muslims into democracies, the dilemma has become obvious.

How will free societies protect themselves from overthrow, and yet remain free? Mitchell writes:

[Trivkovic] insists that Islam itself is “inherently seditious” but recommends action against only “Islamic activism,” defined as the political act of propagating, disseminating or otherwise supporting “Jihad”…, discrimination against Christians, Jews and other “infidels,” discrimination and violence against women and sexual minorities, anti-Jewish bigotry, sanction of slavery, etc.

Trifkovic knows, of course, that the Koran propagates all these things and that there can be no Islam without the Koran. His point seems to be that the Constitution empowers us to ban Islam because of its politics and not because of its religion. “We do not need new legal theories, or a different conception of the First Amendment,” he writes. “[W]e need an educational campaign.”

He might be right about the law. As Justice Jackson pointed out, the Constitution is not a suicide pact, and there is certainly no overestimating the willingness of American jurists, when provided enough political cover, to argue around inconvenient legal obstacles. It seems to me, however, that a paradigm shift sufficient to get us honestly out of our ideological box would require us to admit that the First Amendment’s Anti-Establishment Clause is a large part of the problem. Any schoolboy can see that, if some religions are inherently seditious, a constitution tolerating all religions invites its own overthrow.

Our educational campaign must therefore teach two truths: that Islam is seditious, and that the Founding Fathers were wrong. Teaching the former and not the latter will cause confusion and keep us thinking inside the box.

There is also the danger that the prosecution of “Islamic activism” alone, especially when clouded by the requirement of unrestricted religious freedom, will not protect us from “moderate” Muslims who disavow the seditious aspects of their religion only until they are too strong to oppose. Trifkovic indeed warns that moderates cannot be trusted because Muhammad’s doctrine of taqiyya sanctions dissembling for the sake of Allah. He also warns that nominal Muslims, when demoralized by Western culture, sometimes sincerely rediscover their own true faith — with violent consequences.

What is needed to strengthen this book’s recommendations for a practical response to Islam is a more thorough theoretical treatment of the problem of Popper’s Paradox, which says (in words too plain for Karl Popper himself) that even open societies, if they are to remain open to some, must remain closed to others.

What do you think?

Read more...

Making the Conversation Public: Sam Harris and Bill Maher Debate Ben Affleck About Orthodox Islam

Thursday

Check out the ten minute video below. It will probably remind you of many conversations you've had with your friends and family — the frustration, the drama, the intense exasperation felt by both sides — but it's so refreshing to see this discussion take place on mainstream television.

Bill Maher and Sam Harris insist that what they're criticizing are the IDEAS — the ideas in Islamic doctrine, and the people who uphold and express those ideas.

And, of course, Ben Affleck says it's racist. It's like criticizing all black people.

I thought Maher missed an opportunity. He could have said, "Are black people an IDEA? No. Do they all hold the same IDEOLOGY? No. You're talking about people and we're talking about ideas. We're criticizing an ideology, and that is a perfectly legitimate (and even necessary) thing to do in a free society."

We'd love to hear what YOU would say to Affleck. Please leave it as a comment below.

During this conversation when Michael Steele makes the point that there are, in fact, some very brave Muslims opposing the fundamentalists, I wanted to pipe up and say, "You're making my point FOR me! The reason you call them 'very brave' is that they risk their LIVES opposing the fundamentalist Muslims. A Buddhist who criticizes Buddhist fundamentalists does not risk his life in the same way. Why? Because the Islamic IDEOLOGY is dangerous to everyone except an Islamic fundamentalist."

How would YOU respond? Please leave your comment below. Let's help each other respond well in our conversations with friends and family when the same objections come up.



Read what Raymond Ibrahim has to say about this conversation: Ben Affleck: Portrait of Islam’s Clueless Apologetics. He had a great response to Affleck's comment, “We’ve killed more Muslims than they’ve killed us by an awful lot. We’ve invaded more countries than they’ve invaded us by an awful lot.”

Here's Ibrahim's reply:

Aside from essentially suggesting that “two wrongs make a right,” his assertions reflect an appalling acquaintance with true history — thanks of course to the ingrained lies emanating from academia, followed by Hollywood and the media.

Reality records a much different story. From its inception, Islam has been a religion hostile to all others. Jihad was its primary tool of expansion.

Consider: A mere decade after the birth of Islam in the seventh century, the jihad burst out of Arabia. Leaving aside all the thousands of miles of ancient lands and civilizations that were permanently conquered, today casually called the “Islamic world” — including Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and parts of India and China — much of Europe was also, at one time or another, conquered by the sword of Islam.

Among other nations and territories that were attacked and/or came under Muslim domination are (to give them their modern names in no particular order): Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Sicily, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Greece, Russia, Poland, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Lithuania, Romania, Albania, Serbia, Armenia, Georgia, Crete, Cyprus, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Belarus, Malta, Sardinia, Moldova, Slovakia, and Montenegro.

In 846 Rome was sacked and the Vatican defiled by Muslim Arab raiders; some 600 years later, in 1453, Christendom’s other great basilica, Holy Wisdom (or Hagia Sophia) was conquered by Muslim Turks.

The few European regions that escaped direct Islamic occupation due to their northwest remoteness include Great Britain, Scandinavia, and Germany. That, of course, does not mean that they were not attacked by Islam. Indeed, in the furthest northwest of Europe, in Iceland, Christians used to pray that God save them from the “terror of the Turk.” These fears were not unfounded since as late as 1627 Muslim corsairs raided the Christian island seizing four hundred captives, selling them in the slave markets of Algiers.

Nor did America escape. A few years after the formation of the United States, in 1800, American trading ships in the Mediterranean were plundered and their sailors enslaved by Muslim corsairs. The ambassador of Tripoli explained to Thomas Jefferson that it was a Muslim’s right and duty to make war upon non-Muslims wherever they could be found, and to enslave as many as they could take as prisoners.

In short, for roughly one millennium — punctuated by a Crusader-rebuttal that people like Affleck are obsessed with demonizing — Islam daily posed an existential threat to Christian Europe and by extension Western civilization.

Read more...

Copyright

All writing on CitizenWarrior.com is copyright © CitizenWarrior.com 2001-2099, all rights reserved.

Article Spotlight

One of the most unusual articles on CitizenWarrior.com is Pleasantville and Islamic Supremacism.

It illustrates the Islamic Supremacist vision by showing the similarity between what happened in the movie, Pleasantville, and what devout fundamentalist Muslims are trying to create in Islamic states like Syria, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia (and ultimately everywhere in the world).

Click here to read the article.


Citizen Warrior Heroes

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Visit the blog: Citizen Warrior Heroes.

No More Concessions to Islam

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Visit the blog: Concessions to Islam.

  © Free Blogger Templates Columnus by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP