Does the Sale of Halal Food Support Jihad?


The following was written by Gary Henderson of the Infidel Defense Alliance:

It is astonishing how little the average American knows about Halal, the Muslim commanded process that demands that animals be slaughtered in accordance with Islamist dictates.

In fact, Halal certification charges to everyone in the food chain are an intended tax on infidels who shop at markets who offer halal foods. Infidels should inquire of their local market whether or not they are paying for Halal certification, and if so, find another place to buy their food. In this way we can force Muslims to finance their caliphate in their own stores.

We are already paying taxes for US Government inspections of our food processing facilities. Such oversight is done totally on our behalf, without any imposition of nefarious religious beliefs, and it is conducted for the express purpose of guaranteeing the purity of the food we consume.

Additional inspection processes are totally unnecessary, and their costs are an imposition on the buying public.

Grocery stores are charged halal certification fees and those charges are a cost of doing business, so those burdensome costs are reflected in price increases to non-Muslim customers.

One halal expert, a Muslim, predicts that worldwide profits realized by imposing these costs will eventually exceed one trillion dollars, most of which goes to supporting the violence-prone policies and jihad manipulations of radical Islam/Sharia.

The irony is that halal certification now extends far beyond food products and covers the sale of an incredible variety of non-food items, including cosmetics, household cleaning products, etc., and the array extends so far from food that it can rightfully be considered a "tax racket."

We should demand that the financing of Islam's horrific "religious" practices be borne by their own captive followers, not those infidels whom their caliphate intends to brutally imprison.

When you do your shopping, ask about Halal Certification. Demand that your store post their policies with regard to halal on the front door, in their meat department and several other conspicuous locations.

Watch this five minute video about halal food certification.


Peaceful Muslims Seize French Territory Peacefully


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:


Day of the Siege


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.


Useful Resource: WikiIslam


We'd like to direct your attention to an excellent resource, in case you don't know about it already. 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.


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


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?



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

Article Spotlight

One of the most unusual articles on 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 2008

Back to TOP