New DVD on Islamic Terrorism


Entitled Islam: What the West Needs to Know, the new DVD is a dramatic, eye-opening, powerful presentation of how Islam is related to terrorism. It is just the kind of thing I've been looking for to share with friends. Even if I told them exactly the same thing they would learn on the video, it wouldn't be the same. People listen differently to an authoritative third party, even if you yourself are an authority.

The DVD has an impressive line-up of well-spoken experts in Islam. One of the experts is a former PLO member (and a former Islamic terrorist). What he had to say was sobering.

In contrast to what the experts were saying, the DVD shows clips of George Bush, Bill Clinton, Condoleeza Rice, and Tony Blair, all saying complimentary things about Islam, such as the old standby, "Islam is a religion of peace." Several times, while watching these speakers, you get the impression they have no clue what they're talking about. They've never read the Koran. They're really just guessing, but they're guessing wrong, or they're trying to be politically correct, but spreading misleading and potentially dangerous ideas.

The same kind of misleading statements are made in western universities and in western media.

Not all Muslims are violent fanatics, of course. Far from it. But it is important to understand some basic differences between Islam and religions we're more familiar with in the West (Buddhism, Christianity, and Judaism). Islam is strikingly different from the other religions in at least five important ways.

1. First of all, Islam is more like a political ideology than a personal religious practice, and as such requires the laws of the land to be Islamic. It is the duty of each Muslim to help make their country an Islamic state if it isn't already. This would be only mildly interesting if you didn't know that: 1) Muslims are influencing laws in several European countries already, and 2) Islamic laws are religiously intolerant, completely against free speech, and turn women into property owned by men, etc.

From its beginning, Islam has been both a religion and a system of government. Or, as one of the experts in the film put it, Islam has always been a "geopolitical project." The purpose of the project is to make the whole world submit to Islamic law.

2. The Prophet Mohammad, the man who founded the religion, was a violent ruler. He killed or exiled the men of three tribes of Jews from Arabia, taking their women as concubines. Mohammad himself once personally beheaded 600 Jewish men.

Although this kind of behavior was not unusual for a brutal warlord in his time, it doesn't seem appropriate for what we normally think of as a spiritually enlightened person. Most westerners don't know about this information, and they simply assume the teachings of Islam are similar to the teachings of other religions.

Mohammad ordered the assassination of several of his political opponents. He cut off the hands and feet of men belonging to the tribe of Urania and did not cauterize their bleeding limbs until they died.

The ex-terrorist interviewee said when he was a boy in Palestine, they taught a famous story in school about how Mohammad ordered a Rabbi tortured to find out where the Jews had hidden their gold and silver. His eyes were put out, and he was burned. This was ordered by Mohammad.

Can you imagine the founders of other religions doing something like that? For gold? This is unlike any other religion.

But unfortunately, Islam is similar to other religions in one way: Muslims look to their founder as a model. This is important to understand because it means devout religious faith and violent action are not as contradictory in Islam as they are in other religions. Mohammad is the man to imitate.

3. Islam sanctions deceiving unbelievers. And here is where you realize how important it is to know something about Islam. They have no problem at all, no internal conflict, about lying to Westerners about anything and everything. Including saying things like, "Islam means peace" and "we do not sanction terrorism."

In Terrorists Among Us - Jihad in America, Steven Emerson discovered organizations right here in the U.S. raising money for refugees, or at least that's what the unwitting and generous Americans were told, but their contributions went to funding terrorist organizations.

An Islamic fundamentalist has no problem deceiving unbelievers. He will experience no pangs of conscience. The act is completely permissible in Islamic scripture. As a matter of fact, it is encouraged. Whatever needs to be done to win the war against unbelievers is perfectly all right. Not just all right, it is a religious duty to mislead unbelievers in order to gain political advantage.

4. According to Islam, the only guaranteed way of getting into heaven is to die while fighting for Islam.

5. Muslims everywhere in the world are united by religion, daily rituals, and language. Muslims everywhere in the world have to learn Arabic. You don't get into heaven unless you read the Koran in Arabic.

If I weren't the enemy of these people, and if I was looking at this from a purely memetic point of view, I would be astonished by the brilliance of the memeplex. It provides for its own defense, creates its own relentless spread, makes devout followers that are completely consumed by the memeplex, and provides for the establishment of governments to support the dominance of the memeplex.

In a war of memes, Islam is dangerously powerful.

You might think the experts in the film are all selected to be Islamophobes or Muslim-haters. But they are saying the same thing ex-Muslims say in Leaving Islam. And the same thing an ex-Muslim wrote to us. But maybe they all hate Islam and they're all horribly biased. Ultimately, the only way to find out is to read the Koran itself. I've got a copy and I've been reading it, and unfortunately, the experts in the film were telling the truth.

But although the Koran is the single most important book in Islam, there are other books that are also important: The Hadiths, which contain official supportive material to the Koran.

In the Koran, Mohammad has conversations with the angel Gabriel, sometimes about events in his life. The Hadiths explain these events so people will know what they're talking about. The Hadiths also include instructions and clarifications of what it says in the Koran.

Among other things, the Hadiths have very clear instructions for faithful Muslims: They are to meet the infidels on the battlefield and invite them to either become Muslims or accept Dhimmi status (a subordinate status in society). If they refuse either, then devout Muslims are to kill the infidels on the battlefield.

The Koran has many contradictory statements. For example, in one place (2:256), it says, "There is no compulsion (i.e. coercion) in religion."

Yet in another place (9:5) it says, "Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them...but if they repent and accept Islam...then leave their way free."

What does a devout Muslim do with such contradictions? The answer is written in the Koran itself. It says the one written later (in Mohammad's life) overwrites the one written earlier. In the two passages above, the first one has been overridden by the second one. The second one, unfortunately, was the last revelation Mohammad ever wrote.

But Allah is all-wise, because now those earlier passages can help deceive the infidels. Militant Muslims are using the earlier, more peaceful and tolerant passages, to show us. "Islam is a religion of peace. Here, let me give you a quote right out of our holy book."

Oddly enough, the notion that Islam is a religion of peace is even believed by the most violent terrorists.

How can this be? They believe that when Islam rules the world — when all other religions are wiped off the face of the earth — peace will reign. Therefore, Islam is a religion of peace.

The DVD is packed with interesting, illuminating information. Here are three brief nuggets from the film I found particularly surprising:

1. The ex-PLO man said there were far more applicants for suicide missions than explosives for them to carry with them.

2. If you eliminate the conflicts in the world involving Muslims, the world is a pretty peaceful place.

3. Non-Muslims think of Islam the way the think about other religions, and that is a mistake.

One of the interviewees on the film, Robert Spencer, was very articulate. It was obvious he knew the subject inside and out. Among other things, he said,

"The most important thing the West needs to know about Islam today is that it has a political character, and that it is not simply a religion. But it is a religion or a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers for the purpose of establishing a societal model that is absolutely incompatible with western society.
"Americans need to know this. Western Europeans need to know this, because Muslims are coming into western countries while holding these beliefs and intending to act upon them. They are the motivations behind modern terrorist activity and they are the goals of millions of Muslims in the United States and around the world.
"We need to know this so we can protect ourselves. But unfortunately, because of political correctness, and because of the media and general government unwillingness to face the sources of Islamic terrorism, these things remain largely unknown."

Spencer also said,
"It's unfortunate, but there's no negotiating with the Jihadists. There is no striking a deal with them. Islamic law is very clear on that...Islamic law does not allow for treaties. It does not allow for negotiated settlements between Muslim states and non-Muslim states.
"All it allows for is a temporary period of up to ten years of 'hudna' or what is commonly translated as 'truce' to allow the Islamic forces to gather their strength. But that's not the same as peace as we know it. That's not the same as the absense of a state of war. That's only a temporary lull in a war that the Jihadists consider has gone on for 14 centuries, and are willing to fight for 14 more."

I urge you to get this DVD, watch it yourself (several times) and share it with people. You can order it at here:

Islam: What the West Needs to Know


Is a Terrorist's Culture as Valid as Any Other?


THE MUSLIM TRADITIONALISTS in Afghanistan, who are hell-bent on keeping people in the 7th century, have taken to attacking teachers who teach girls, and even have gone so far as to lie in wait and shoot girls on their way to school.

Read the story of Hashimi. She's been a teacher, even when the Taliban was in power and women were forbidden to teach. She was caught several times and beaten severely. But she was not deterred. Although now the Islamists are not as free to harass women teachers or female students, they still do, going so far as to kill them.

Why did I give you such bad news, and what can you do about it? I want to emphasize the importance of spreading information about terrorism. And to underscore the reason we cannot allow Islamists to take hold of Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere else. These people are relentless, deadly serious, and totally committed.

What can you do about it? You can vote, of course, but you can also make a difference in your everyday interactions. You can help by sharing what you know with others, and by working to improve how well you articulate what you know.

I've said it before: This is a war of memes and you are on the front line. What the majority of people believe about terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism will decide how things turn out. You can't change what everybody believes. But you can influence what your friends believe.

I urge you to influence your friends, especially the ones who think the U.S. should try to appease terrorists and pull out of Iraq. Read how here: Influencing Your Friends.


Wafa Sultan Blasts Islam on Al-Jazeera


WATCH A five-and-a-half minute clip from Al-Jazeera of an Arab-American psychologist (Wafa Sultan) delivering a devastating critique of Muslims and defense of Jews. Sounds like partisan bickering, but try to find a single comment she makes that you can disagree with. She does this within the framework of a debate with a muslim cleric, whose only argument is: "You're a heretic, so we don't have to listen to you." Watch the video:

An articulate rant that says something important is a beautiful thing to behold. Wafa Sultan achieves it in this clip.


EUROPE SHARIATIZED: Beating Of Wives Legitimized By German Court


The following is an article By Serge Trifkovic and we reprint it here with his permission.

The husband routinely beat his 26-year-old German-born wife, mother of their two young children, and threatened to kill her when the court ordered him to move out of their apartment in Hamburg. The police were called repeatedly to intervene. The wife wanted a quick divorce – without waiting a year after separation, as mandated by German law – arguing that that the abuse and death threats she suffered easily fulfilled the “hardship” criteria required for an accelerated decree absolute. The judge – a woman by the name of Christa Datz-Winter – refused, however, arguing that the Kuran allows the husband to beat his wife and that the couple’s Moroccan origin must be taken into account in the case. They both come from a cultural milieu, Her Honor wrote, in which it is common for husbands to beat their wives – and the Kuran sanctions such treatment. “The [husband’s] exercise of the right to castigate does not fulfill the hardship criteria as defined by Paragraph 1565” of German federal law, the judge’s letter said. [emphasis added] The judge further suggested that the wife’s Western lifestyle would give her husband grounds to claim his honor had been compromised.

The reports in German and English do not state this, but Turkish papers have reported that the judge made specific reference to Sura 4, which contains the infamous Verse 34: Men have the authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. The wife’s lawyer, Barbara Becker-Rojczyk, could not believe her eyes: a German judge was invoking Kuran in a German legal case to assert the husband’s “right to castigate” his wife. The meaning was clear: “the husband can beat his wife,” Becker-Rojczyk commented. She decided to go public with the case last Tuesday because the judge was still on the bench, two months after the controversial verdict was handed down.

The judge was subsequently removed from the case, but not from the bench. A spokesman for the court, Bernhard Olp, said the judge did not intend to suggest that violence in a marriage is acceptable, or that the Kuran supersedes German law. “The ruling is not justifiable, but the judge herself cannot explain it at this moment,” he said. But according to Spiegel Online this was not the first time that German courts have used “cultural background” to inform their verdicts. Christa Stolle of the women’s rights organization Terre des Femmes said that in cases of marital violence there have been a number of cases where the perpetrator’s culture of origin has been considered as a mitigating circumstance.

Of some 25 million Muslims in Western Europe, the majority already consider themselves autonomous, a community justifiably opposed to the decadent host society of infidels. They already demand the adoption of sharia within segregated Muslim communities, which but one step that leads to the imposition of sharia on the society as a whole. Swedish courts are already introducing sharia principles into civil cases. An Iranian-born man divorcing his Iranian-born wife was ordered by the high court in the city of Halmestad to pay Mahr, Islamic dowry ordained by the Kuran as part of the Islamic marriage contract. As Chronicles readers may recall, Europe’s elite class is ready for further surrenders. Dutch Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner—a Christian Democrat—sees the demand for Sharia as perfectly legitimate, and argues that it could be introduced “by democratic means.” Muslims have a right to follow the commands of their religion, he says, even if the exercise of that right included some “dissenting rules of behavior”: “It is a sure certainty for me: if two thirds of all Netherlanders tomorrow would want to introduce Sharia, then this possibility must exist. Could you block this legally? It would also be a scandal to say ‘this isn’t allowed’! The majority counts. That is the essence of democracy.” The same “essence” was reiterated in similar terms last July by Jens Orback, the Swedish Integration [sic] Minister, who declared in a radio debate on Channel P1, “We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.”

To all forward-looking Europeans it must be a welcome sign that continental courts are catching up with the leader in Sharia compliance, Great Britain. A key tenet of Sharia is that non-Muslims cannot try Muslims. Peter Beaumont, QC, senior circuit judge at London’s Central Criminal Court, the Old Bailey, accepts the commandment not only in civil, but also in criminal cases. He banned Jews and Hindus—and anyone married to one—from serving on the jury in the trial of Abdullah el-Faisal, accused of soliciting the murder of “unbelievers.” “For obvious reasons,” he said, “members of the jury of the Jewish or Hindu faith should reveal themselves, even if they are married to Jewish or Hindu women, because they are not fit to arbitrate in this case.” One can only speculate what the reaction would be if equally “obvious reasons” were invoked in an attempt to exclude Muslims from a trial of an alleged “Islamophobe.”

Here at home, The New York Times had a bone to pick with the German judge mainly because of her suggestion that Islam justified violence against women. It stated matter-of-factly, “While the verse cited by Judge Datz-Winter does say husbands may beat their wives for being disobedient — an interpretation embraced by fundamentalists— mainstream Muslims have long rejected wife-beating as a medieval relic.”

In reality “mainstream Muslims” do nothing of the sort. New York Times’ claim notwithstanding, the original sources for “true” Islam—the Kuran and Hadith—provide ample and detailed evidence on Islamic theory and the sources of Shari’a practice that remains in force all over the Islamic world today.

According to orthodox Islamic tradition, the verse invoked by the German judge (4:34) was revealed in connection with a woman who complained to Mohammad that her husband had hit her on the face, which was still bruised. At first he told her to get even with him, but then added, “Wait until I think about it.” The revelation duly followed, after which he said: “We wanted one thing but Allah wanted another, and what Allah wanted is best.” Qatari Sheikh Walid bin Hadi explains that every man is his own judge when using violence: “The Prophet said: Do not ask a husband why he beats his wife.”

The scholars at the most respected institution of Islamic learning, Cairo’s Azhar University, further explain: “If admonishing and sexual desertion fail to bring forth results and the woman is of a cold and stubborn type, the Qur’an bestows on man the right to straighten her out by way of punishment and beating, provided he does not break her bones nor shed blood. Many a wife belongs to this querulous type and requires this sort of punishment to bring her to her senses!”

Physical violence against one’s wife, far from being Haram, remains divinely ordained and practically advised in modern Islam. “Take in thine hand a branch and smite therewith and break not thine oath,” the Kuran commands. Muslim propagators in the West “explain” that the Islamic teaching and practice is in line with the latest achievements of clinical psychology: it is not only correct, but positively beneficial to them because “women’s rebelliousness (nushuz) is a medical condition” based either on her masochistic delight in being beaten and tortured, or sadistic desire to hurt and dominate her husband. Either way,

Such a woman has no remedy except removing her spikes and destroying her weapon by which she dominates. This weapon of the woman is her femininity. But the other woman who delights in submission and being beaten, then beating is her remedy. So the Qur’anic command: ‘banish them to their couches, and beat them’ agrees with the latest psychological findings in understanding the rebellious woman. This is one of the scientific miracles of the Qur’an, because it sums up volumes of the science of psychology about rebellious women.

According to Allah’s commandment to men (Kuran 2:223), “Your wives are as a soil to be cultivated unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will.” Therefore “the righteous women are devoutly obedient.” Those that are not inhabit the nether regions of hell. Muhammad has stated that most of those who enter hell are women, not men. Contemporary Azhar scholars of Egypt agree: “Oh, assembly of women, give charity, even from your jewelry, for you (comprise) the majority of the inhabitants of hell in the day of resurrection.”

In the same spirit, courts in Muslim countries, to mention a particularly egregious legal practice, routinely sentence raped women to death for “adultery,” usually by stoning, because they follow the Sharia that mandates this punishment. To the outright divine command of every wife’s obedience to her husband, Muhammad has added a few comments of his own. When asked who among women is the best, he replied: “She who gives pleasure to him (husband) when he looks, obeys him when he bids, and who does not oppose him regarding herself and her riches fearing his displeasure.” Even in basic necessities the needs of the husband take precedence: “You shall give her food when you have taken your food, you shall clothe her when you have clothed yourself, you shall not slap her on the face, nor revile (her), nor leave (her) alone, except within the house.” The husband’s sexual needs have to be satisfied immediately: “When a man calls his wife to his bed, and she does not respond, the One Who is in the heaven is displeased with her until he is pleased with her.”

Such treatment of women might be expected to make Islam abhorrent within the cultural milieu epitomized by the equal-rights obsessed European Union and the neofeminist New York Times, but this has not happened. There is a reason for this. It is the refusal of Islam to accept the wife as her husband’s closest and inseparable loving partner and companion. Islam therefore challenges Christian marriage in principle and in practice. Muslim teaching on marriage and the family, though “conservative” about “patriarchy,” denies the traditional Christian concept of matrimony. Islam is therefore an “objective” ally of postmodernity, a few beatings here and a few rapes there notwithstanding.

“I can only say, Good night, Germany,” says Ronald Pofalla, general secretary of Germany’s ruling Christian Democratic Union, of Frau Datz-Winter’s ruling. Unless the madness is checked it will be good night to us all well before this century is over.

Author: Serge Trifkovic

Read more about how Sharia law is slowly being implemented in the West.

Watch a short video of an articulate rant on the same topic: Islam In Europe And The End Of Freedom


London Honor Killing Highlights Growing Problem


ABC News: "Banaz Mahmod was just 20 years old and her only crime was getting divorced, then falling in love with a man her family did not accept." For this, she got the death sentence, from her own family. In LONDON!

In an article in Reuters, we discover she was:

brutally raped, stamped on and strangled by members of her family and their friends...Banaz Mahmod, 20, was subjected to the 2-1/2 hour ordeal before she was garroted with a bootlace. Her body was stuffed into a suitcase and taken about 100 miles to Birmingham where it was buried in the back garden of a house.
I guess this was all an effort to add more "honor" to the killing.

What's the point of all this? Why would I give you news like this? The main reason is for you to have specific facts to share with your friends when they say things like "we should pull out of Iraq so the terrorists aren't so mad at us" or "we are fighting the war in Iraq only so we can have more oil."

Islamic fundamentalists are determined to defeat the West and establish Islamic law everywhere in the world. They are not joking. They are deadly serious. They don't care how long it takes and they are perfectly willing to kill one of their own for every one of us they kill.

This is not someone's fabricated enemy. This is not the military trying to make sure they have an enemy so they can build their war machine. These are real people in real countries. And they pose a real threat to anyone living in a free democracy. There are groups of them right now in your country planning their next attack and planning for the eventual overthrow of the government.

More people should know about this, and those of us who do know about it should speak up more often. The ignorance of your teammates has consequences. Read and re-read The Cause Of Terrorism and Islamic Terrorism. And share what you know.

Learn about effective and non-upsetting ways to talk about terrorism with people who may not agree with you: War Of Memes. And please, for the sake of freedom of speech and the rights of women, make your voice heard.


Who Islamic Terrorists Hate And Why


AN UNBELIEVABLY LARGE PERCENTAGE of people in democratic countries think Islamic terrorists are killing people because they're angry. The terrorists don't want U.S. forces in Iraq. They don't want the U.S. to support Israel. They're angry about these things, so they attack. But as I said in a recent post, that is not why they are attacking. They are in a war, Muslims against Infidels (and against moderate Muslims).

Whatever the West does, the terrorists will criticize it and use it as an excuse, but they will keep attacking, and they will keep trying to find bigger weapons to attack with. It doesn't matter what we do. What matters is that we're not fundamentalist Muslims.

I just read a gruesome article from the Middle East Quarterly called
Beheading in the Name of Islam. I will quote something from it here, and then I have something to say about the quote.

In Iraq, terrorists filmed the beheadings of Americans Nicholas Berg, Jack Hensley, and Eugene Armstrong. Other victims include Turks, an Egyptian, a Korean, Bulgarians, a British businessman, and a Nepalese. Scores of Iraqis, both Kurds and Arabs, have also fallen victim to Islamist terrorists' knives. The new fad in terrorist brutality has extended to Saudi Arabia where Islamist terrorists murdered American businessman Paul Johnson, whose head was later discovered in a freezer in an Al-Qaeda hideout. A variation upon this theme would be the practice of Islamists slitting the throats of those opponents they label infidels. This is what happened to Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, first gunned down and then mutilated on an Amsterdam street, and to an Egyptian Coptic family in New Jersey after the father had angered Islamists with Internet chat room criticisms of Islam.

As you can see, these victims were not all U.S. soldiers and Jews. Why are they killing all these people? Because the victims are either infidels or moderate Muslims.

The article points out that the purpose of terrorism is to gain political concession. The terrorists behead these people (as opposed to poisoning them) and film it, in order to terrorize.

They're trying to gain political concessions. Ideally, they'd like all Western and Jewish forces out of the Middle East, so they can consolidate their power and establish an Islamic empire.

In an Islamic empire, they will try to live by Sharia law, as the Taliban did in Afghanistan. They will try to follow the Koran devoutly. One of the commands of the Koran is to make war on Infidels until the whole world submits to Islam. I'm not making this up.

As far as I can tell, a little under half the West does not understand this. You come into contact with these people every day. A massive campaign of information dissemination needs to take place, starting with you and me, right where we are. Explain to people what's happening. If they don't believe you, loan them your copy of whatever you have (here are my recommendations), or send them links to whatever think will help them understand.

It is dangerous for so many of our own teammates to be unaware of our collective plight.
Here are some articles I recommend for sharing:

Ignorance Has Consequences

The Cause Of Terrorism

The Short Answer (to the question, "Why is there so much Islamic terrorism these days?"

What Does Islam Have To Do With Terrorism?


What The West Needs To Know


WESTERNERS, AS A RULE, do not appreciate the fact that someone is at war with us. This is not like other wars. This is not one country against another. This is one ideology against all others. It is hard to recognize as a war because the attacks are not concentrated in time or space. They are happening all over the world, almost continually, but at different times by different people, different races, from different countries, and attacking at different places, in what seems to be almost random violence. So we call it terrorism.

they call it war. And while it is hard to recognize as such, I have found a little video clip that makes plain the larger picture. This is something to share with friends of yours who don't seem to get it.

If you spoke one word every two hours, I might not be able to understand your message. But if I wrote down each word you spoke, and then read it all at once, your meaning would be clear. This is similar to the clarity you get in this film. You can see very clearly that a large group, spanning the globe, are very intently waging war, not only on your country, but on every country that is not Islamic. They are not trying to steal anything of yours or occupy your country. They are only interested in the destruction of your culture, and to insure their own ascent into heaven. They are willing to let you live if you convert to a Muslim.

Militant Islam expanded across the earth like an explosion when it came on the scene in the sixth century. Muslim warriors invaded and conquered North Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, and major parts of Europe. Their expansion was finally stopped by force of arms. They were conquered and beaten back over the centuries, and then, because of European colonizing projects all over the world, Islamic countries were divided and held down.
But colonization has been abandoned as a practice, much as slavery was, because it is unfair.

And now militant Islam is expanding.
The attacks are increasing. More attacks in more places, and deadlier attacks over the last few decades as the movement gains momentum. With new technologies, the Islamists' ability to connect with each other has improved enormously. They are on the rise. And whatever grievance they use as the public excuse du jour, they have one ultimate aim: An Islamic world.

This is not going to go away. They are completely committed. They are deadly serious. They are recruiting with frenetic zeal. And they are growing in numbers. They are out to kill us all. Any non-Muslim is an enemy to these people. Even non-fanatical Muslims are enemies to these people.

It's not a comfortable fact, but there it is. If we ignore the situation, it will only get worse. What should be done about it? That's the big question.

Read a review of the DVD: Islam: What The West Needs To Know

Further reading:
The Cause Of Terrorism

Even further reading:
Islamic Terrorism Menu


Is Shari'a Seditious?


The following is an article by David Yerushalmi from the web site We are reprinting it with permission.

THE QUESTION MIGHT BE ASKED: why would SANE’s president David Yerushalmi provide pro bono legal services to give Muslims a voice? The answer lies in the distinction between Islam as a personal religious faith and the religio-political ideology of traditional and authoritative Shari’a which has everything to do with the survival of the West.

The question has been asked of me by good and serious men: Why would I have undertaken to represent ABG Films, and done so pro bono, to give voice to moderate Muslims? The question appears, and I underscore appears, to take on greater import in light of SANE’s sponsorship of our Mapping Shari’a in America project and our call that historical, traditional and authoritative Shari’a amounts to a violation of 18 USC 2385, the text and discussion of which is below. So, let me begin by explaining my reasons for taking on the case of freeing the documentary “Islam vs. Islamists” from those who would suppress it and explain why it is a fit with SANE’s work.

To begin, the men behind ABG Films, Frank Gaffney, Alex Alexiev and Martyn Burke, are serious, dedicated film makers seeking to establish a discussion about the growing problem of violence and intimidation within the Muslim communities of the West. This is work we certainly support. Their motivation of course includes protecting those patriotic and westernized Muslims who call America their home and desire nothing more than to live peaceful and prosperous lives as fully committed Americans.

When I read about the controversy surrounding the film and understood that the PC Elite had effectively joined hands with those forces and institutions in the Muslim world which seek to impose traditional Shari’a (loosely understood as Islamic law since it also includes what in the West we would term customs and even preferences) as the sole criteria for what a Muslim can do and believe, I decided to offer my services as my contribution to the effort to make it possible for the patriotic Muslim voices of the West to be heard.

And the reason is because they should be heard.

American Muslims who fully reject traditional Shari’a as an all encompassing binding law and political ideology and seek to pray and raise their families peacefully and as fully committed Americans deserve that chance like all Americans. Shari’a, as it is taught in the five authoritative legal schools (4 Sunni and one Shia) and propagated most effectively by the Wahhabis of the Gulf States, notably Saudi Arabia, and the Ayatollahs of Iran, demands a political-military voice as much as a religious one – and, indeed, the Shari’a-driven war is as forcefully directed against the fully Westernized Muslims as apostates as against the rest of us as infidels. (We speak of five specific schools because there have been more than five throughout Islam’s history; some of which are no longer extant as viable schools and others which exist but are marginal with very few adherents.)

For that reason I chose to lend my legal skills and effort to the battle to free the film for a full distribution in the near term. Thankfully, we were successful and the “Second Hour”, known as “Muslims against Jihad” has already been featured on Fox News in a discussion format with my clients several times and the main film “Islam vs. Islamists” will be airing on Oregon Public Broadcasting in August and quite possibly across the country soon thereafter. A DVD deal is already in the works with a major distributor.

This film “project” was not and is not in any way contrary to our work here at SANE and our Mapping Shari’a project. In fact, they are complimentary. In both our Mapping Shari’a project and in our effort to fully expose traditional and authoritative Shari’a as the most serious contemporary threat to America’s safety, we recognize that the threat arises out of traditional Shari’a’s demand to monopolize the Muslim — his world, his national affiliation, and even his very patriotism.

It is this Shari’a — a fully developed religio-political ideology — that is used by the “traditionalists” to attack the patriotic and Westernized “moderate” Muslims as “not real Muslims”. It is our committed position that all Americans should stand in solidarity with any American Muslim who wishes to embrace Islam as a purely religious faith — practicing the Five Pillars (commitment to monotheism; prayer; charity; fasting; and pilgrimage) — as a committed American and who rejects traditional Shari’a which demands to control and not merely to inform the entire life of the Muslim, including his attitude about and relations toward his country.

Our effort to fully expose the insidiousness of the “traditionalists” or what we term the “Shari’a-faithful” can best be explained by examining the teaching of Shari’a from the perspective of treason. Today, no serious scholar of Shari’a would deny that the goal of Islam per Shari’a (again, as articulated by the five authoritative schools) is the establishment of a world wide Caliphate ruled according to Allah’s perfect law, the Shari’a. That is simply too fundamental a concept over which to quibble.

Further, all five authoritative schools of Shari’a have also codified that Jihad as war is part of that goal. It is true that a host of issues abound around this question of Jihad, such as the notion of offensive war versus defensive; who is authorized to call for Jihad; is it a collective obligation or an individual one; what kind of tactics may be employed in this war, who are legal targets of violence, and others. But one thing is agreed between the legal schools: if war is the only viable alternative to conquering the land of the infidels, if the ratio of the forces of the infidel aligned against the Muslims are not beyond the prescribed limit, if such a war would be good for the Muslim Umma or people, and if a recognized Muslim leader calls for such a war, then war it must be.

What that means of course is, that given Shari’a as it exists today and as it has existed for over 1000 years, adherents of authoritative Shari’a accept the notion of war to overthrow the US government and other Western nations given the right conditions. And, of course, we see what seems to be a never ending stream of Jihadists fully committed to this goal, which suggests that there is at least a consensus among some Muslims that the conditions have been met for war.

Now, read existing US law as codified in Title 18 (the federal criminal code), Section 2385:

§ 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof —

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

This of course is the Smith Act of 1940, as amended. The Supreme Court has had two occasions to review cases prosecuted under the Smith Act. In the first case, Dennis v. US, 341 U.S.494 (1951), the Court heard appeals from Communist Party leaders who had been convicted of violating the Smith Act and whose conviction had been affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court examined the First Amendment and other constitutional challenges, was unpersuaded, upheld the statute as constitutional, and affirmed the convictions.

The second time the Court took a look at the Smith Act was six years later in the case of Yates v. US, 354 U.S. 298 (1957). By this time, however, the Court was now under the spell of Chief Justice Earl Warren and the other liberal Justices of the time. They had already tested their mettle in Brown v. Board of Education some three years earlier. The question might have been reasonably asked, would the Court sustain the legislation in the face of a First Amendment challenge and effectively overrule Dennis?

The Court delivered its answer by not even addressing the First Amendment issue. What the Court did do was to limit the Smith Act to cases where the advocacy for the overthrow of the government was more than merely theoretical and to require a real nexus between the advocacy and some action that was being urged to achieve the treasonous goal.

Now, if we were to take into consideration that the Jihadists who cite Shari’a do so to advocate the violent overthrow of the US government, one might well argue that this alone satisfies the condition under the Smith Act for a criminal conviction even under the Yates holding. The argument is fairly straightforward.

The Jihadist, following Shari’a, teaches that the purpose of Islam is the submission of the world to Allah’s will as expressed in his perfect law, the Shari’a. Further, anyone who teaches that the Muslim must be faithful and adhere to the traditional and authoritative Shari’a is advocating in effect precisely the same thing. Jihad, which most certainly includes the use and the advocacy of the use of violence in the effort to overthrow the infidel government, is an obligation on the Muslim, either as part of the collective or as an individual. By virtue of the fact that this is a religious instruction and understood to be a call to action — to live by the Shari’a fully and faithfully — and not merely some theoretical theological or political discussion, the call to observe traditional and authoritative Shari’a is the call to arms in a clear and decisive way. It would be hard to understand how this would not be a prima facie violation of the Smith Act.

And, it would seem that for the patriotic and peaceful Muslims, the application of this statute to Shari’a would be welcomed. Once the government announced its intention to use this legislation or something similar to it (such as the SANE Immigration Proposal), the religious, moral, and institutional sway of the traditionalists demanding strict observance of Shari’a would come to an end. This would certainly be true in countries that took this approach.

No more would “moderate” Muslims have to compete for the pulpits in their mosques. No more would they have to suffer the political tirades during Friday prayers, the explicit threats or even the implied threats. They would have total freedom of movement to claim their religion from the Shari’a advocates and demand a new understanding, a wholesale reformation, fully in line with the US Constitution and our representative government.

While this would not arrest the call for Jihad in the Middle East and other Muslim countries, it would certainly clean things up in the Homeland. Without the mosques and the Islamic day schools at their disposal, the Jihadists would be forced underground and with very little room for da’wa or outreach. It is not difficult to build Jihadist cells and even networks when you can openly send your preachers from one mosque to another and when you can teach young Muslim children in private day schools to reject the law of the land and to embrace Shari’a. If that were to be illegal, the Muslim-American landscape would change almost overnight. The Shari’a-advocacy organizations like CAIR could be shut down on the spot. The Fiqh Council of North America would have to reject traditional Shari’a, renounce the very notion of a world under the control of Shari’a, and begin building a new fiqh based upon Western principles. The alternative: face closure and even prosecution.

Will this proposal be controversial? Of course. But it will be for two reasons. One, people of good will might very well react negatively to the idea that you could outlaw anything to do with religion. But this objection need not be given much weight if these same good people think through the proposal. Private, peaceful religious faith is untouched. A Muslim who wishes to pray toward Mecca or even a women who wishes to cover herself with a hijab would be free to do so. What would be illegal would be the advocacy or teaching of these acts of religious faith as a legal obligation arising out of traditional Shari’a as we have defined it.

Two, people of bad faith, both those Muslims with a Shari’a-driven agenda and the Open Society PC Elite who advocate “tolerance” to the point of self-destruction would join hands in the convergence we already see at work today and which I contend was at work with the suppression of the ABG Films documentary.

At the very least, the proposal deserves a fair and considered hearing since there appears little the West can do given its current approach to multi-culturalism and the Open Society. As we see so vividly in Europe, the Jihadists know full well how to exploit this national self-destructiveness. In America, we can witness the same modus operandi with CAIR. Even as the organization’s genesis arose out of terrorist links, and even as one after another of CAIR’s key people were sent off to jail or deported on terrorist-related charges, and even as it now stands as a named unindicted co-conspirator in a federal trial alleging illegal funding of a front group for Hamas, one of the world’s most murderous terrorist organizations, CAIR is given leave not only to exist, but to sue John Doe citizens for doing what patriotic citizens ought to be doing, to agitate for the insertion of Shari’a in all kinds of settings, and to issue press releases after every terrorist act against the West claiming that the only real danger is the danger of a backlash against Muslims – a backlash of course that never materializes except in isolated incidences of hooliganism.

It is time to confront the source of the violence in Islam and to root it out. All Americans should join in this effort willingly and with the best of civil intentions. What is needed in this effort is dialogue but also action. It is not enough given the threat we face merely to talk about these things. It is for this reason that those Americans directly involved in SANE — Christians, Jews, and yes, some very high profile reform-minded Arab Muslims, are engaged in actually Mapping Shari’a. It is for this reason I offered my services as an attorney to ABG Films and why I represent other Muslim reformers, always pro bono, in their efforts to free the patriotic faith-based Muslim from the tyranny of a legalistic political ideology. This murderous ideology was used to organize the native populations of Arabia, Damascus, and Baghdad one thousand years ago into one of the fiercest fighting forces the world has ever seen but is quite obviously a threat to the very existence of the West and the Muslims who wish to live here as patriotic and contributing members of this great nation.


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.


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

  © Free Blogger Templates Columnus by 2008

Back to TOP