Elisabeth's Trial Has Begun


THE FIRST hearing in Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff’s case took place yesterday (November 23rd, 2010) in the court of Vienna, Austria. Charges were brought against Elisabeth because of a seminar she taught.

An eight-hour recording of her seminar will be the central piece of evidence in the trial. The entire audio recording from the seminar will be played in court, permitting the prosecutor to explain in detail what cannot be permitted to be said in public, and why the "religiousness" of Islamic teachings makes it impermissible.

The defense will seek to prove the accuracy and truthfulness of what Elisabeth said in her seminar, thus focusing on the core question: Is it illegal to speak the truth about Islam?

My interest in Elisabeth's case is threefold: First, this is the front line in the war on freedom of speech waged against people who are trying to educate the public about Islam's prime directive, Sharia law, and the third jihad. Her case is similar to Geert Wilders', who is on trial in the Netherlands for similar reasons.

The second reason this case interests me is that Elisabeth used excerpts from the Citizen Warrior article, Why I Am Worried About Islam But Not Christianity, in her seminar. The content you've been reading is on trial. Read more about that here.

The third reason is that Elisabeth is a sweet, soft-spoken, kind-hearted woman, entirely devoid of hatred or bigotry, devoid of rabble-rousing rhetoric, who was simply teaching basic, established, mainstream principles of Islam, calmly, reasonably, in a classroom setting, and she is being charged with a crime for doing so!? The whole idea is an outrage.

The following is an edited version of a blow-by-blow report of the first day of Elisabeth's trial, brought to us by Henrik Clausen, as posted on the Save Free Speech website:

9:41: Austrian TV shows up with a camera crew.

The room has seats for 15, but 25 spectators are there. Austrian TV asks for comments from Elisabeth, but on advice of her lawyer, she says, ”No comments now; talk to me after the hearings.”

The judge informs Elisabeth about her rights: Anything she says can be used against her.

The public prosecutor makes a short summary of various conclusions from Elisabeth's seminar, and, taken out of the context from, they sound ominous, like speaking of a "Burqa ghost" (which you'll find out about in a moment), comparing her statements to those of Susanne Winter, mentioning that Muhammad married a child of six, as well as saying we risk eventually having a civil war.

Elisabeth's defense lawyer talks of the principles of gender equality, freedom of religion and the lack of reciprocity that exists in Islam (for example, other religions cannot be freely practiced in several Islamic countries). The lawyer mentions that Elisabeth grew up in Islamic countries and has experienced the situation of women there directly.

He continues to explain that the statements mentioned were taken seriously out of context, and that some were not public, thus not relevant to the case. And that we should play the entire eight hours of recordings to understand the context.

He proceeds to invoke three expert witnesses who will testify that Elisabeth has spoken the truth: Wafa Sultan, Hans Jansen, and Robert Spencer.

10:53: The judge asks if we are talking about "Islamic extremism" or about "Islam as such?"

Elisabeth explains that we are talking Islam as such, as defined by its scripture, and quotes Erdogan (Turkey's Prime Minister) that there is no moderate Islam anyway.

The judge accepts that we can play the tapes, then proceeds to ask about us being lied to 24 hours a day. Elisabeth explains the concept of taqiyya. The judge says: "That is your interpretation," to which Elisabeth responds: "No, this is the canonical interpretation."

Next question is: "Is Islam in a never-ending war with the West?"

Elisabeth refers to history and newspapers to document that yes, it is a never-ending war with the West and that jihad has at times been considered the sixth pillar of Islam.

11:15: The "burqa ghost" story is related. Elisabeth took a photo of a woman in a burqa in Vienna, and told about this in her seminars. It is difficult to figure out why the public prosecutor finds this offensive, not to mention illegal. The defense asks about this. Elisabeth explains a few things about freedom for women — all women — to decide for themselves.

A reference is then made to some debates Elisabeth participated in where she discussed child molestation, and says: Christian cardinals molest children in conflict with their religion, Muslims do it in line with theirs. As background, the marriage between Muhammad and Aisha is related, as documented by several Hadith authors.

Pedophilia is discussed, in light of Muhammad being the perfect example for Muslims, as stated in Quran 33:21. That means everything Muhammad ever did or said, which is in the hadith, is to be considered a model for behavior for orthodox Muslims.

Elisabeth explains what the hadith collections are, how they constitute an indispensable part of Islam, due to 33:21 and similar suras. And emphasizes that she is not making up statements, merely quoting canonical Islamic scripture.

11:34: The Judge opens a discussion by asking if we’re talking of "all Muslims" here.

Elisabeth says no because most Muslims do not know what is in the Quran, which is in a language (Arabic) they do not understand, and thus place their confidence in the imams for interpretations.

Judge: "Is every Muslim a jihadist?"

Elisabeth: "No, not at all. But jihad is an obligation for Muslims. This is about the teachings of Islam, not about Muslims."

Judge: "But you said 'Muslims' in the seminars?"

Elisabeth: "Yes, but I said it in a context which is needed to understand the relevance of this."

Judge: "What percentage of Muslims are jihadis?"

Elisabeth: "I don't know. Not the majority. One thousandth is enough to be a problem, though."

Then the quote about "Islam is shit" is debated. Elisabeth points out that she was debating and using visual quotes (with her fingers). And she asks if it is punishable to say "Islam is shit."

12:06: The defense lawyer goes through some point of the charges, asking Elisabeth:

Lawyer: You said: "Muslims kill due to Islamic teachings. Christians also kill, but not due to their religious teachings." Are there not verses in the Bible that encourage killing?

Elisabeth: Not in the New Testament, and not actively used today.

Her defense lawyer explains the death threats against Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the security she needs. Elisabeth tells about the killing of Theo van Gogh and the Quran quotes used to justify that.

Lawyer asks: Are there child marriages in Islamic countries?

Elisabeth: Yes, for example Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Afghanistan. Also the late ayatollah Khomeini recommended pedophilia, and the current Iranian President Ahmadjinedad recommends his teachings. According to Islamic law, these marriages are legal and justifiable.

Lawyer: Are corporal punishments, like chopping off limbs, part of Islamic law?

Elisabeth: Yes, this is described, for instance, in Reliance of the Traveller.

(Elisabeth and her defense lawyer have explained about the classical Sunni Islamic book, "Reliance of the Traveller," unwrapping a fresh copy in court.)

12:40: The lawyer continues to ask Elisabeth to explain various statements:

Lawyer: What is meant by, "We are decadent?"

Elisabeth: That's the point of view of Islamic fundamentalists.

Lawyer: What is meant by, "We do not want Sharia here, full stop?"

Elisabeth: Free, secular societies is what we want.

Lawyer: What is meant by, "Islamic law is not compatible with free societies, we need to understand this."

Elisabeth: Islam is a whole, and this whole is not compatible with free societies like the Austrian.

Laywer: Did you see any veiled Muslim men?

Elisabeth (laughing): No, this is an obligation just for women.

Lawyer: You were referring to Paris, Brussels, Rotterdam. What is the meaning of that?

Elisabeth: This is a reference to the no-go zones, where Sharia is effectively the law. There immigrant youth torch cars, throw stones at the police, etc.

Prosecutor: Are each and every one of these persons Muslims?

Elisabeth: The majority are.

Lawyer: What is meant when you say: "How many times have we been told that Islam is a religion of peace?" Is this an incitement to hate or violence?

Elisabeth: I do not mean to incite hatred or violence. We need to be informed, make people aware, inform our politicians and write letters to the newspapers.

Lawyer: What is meant by, "We do not want gender apartheid or polygamy."

Elisabeth explains polygamy in Islam, and the fact that this is a reality in Europe today. Elisabeth speaks about the First Amendment of the US Constitution, the absolute right to express ones’ opinions, as a fundamental prerequisite for a sound democracy.

At this point, more people have arrived. There are 18 seats for the audience, 30-35 listeners total.

14:00: The news journalist, Dolna, was called as witness. Technicalities of her recording equipment are discussed by the judge, including the fact that of the first seminar, only a half hour was recorded.

The judge asked if some of the statements quoted were from breaks, not from the seminar proper. The reason this is important is that three or four people heard those comments, not the 32 or more, which is the criterion for a statement being considered "public." This is a crucial question for legal reasons, as only statements made to a large group can be punishable.

The judge dug further into the methods of the journalist. Why did the journalist quote statements made in the breaks that were not part of the lecture? The journalist answers: "For journalistic reasons."

Further, the judge asked if it was made clear in advance that the journalist would be recording the seminars. She responded that she had not told anyone, as her work constituted "investigative journalism."

The lawyer probed further into the issue of the quotes being part of the prepared seminar, or offhand comments in the breaks.

Next, the events concerning the opera, "Idomeneo" were discussed. The performance of this classical Mozart piece scheduled to be performed at the famous opera house, Deutsche Oper Berlin, was cancelled due to Islamic pressure. The director had added decapitation of Buddha, Jesus and Muhammad to the original play. Fear of riots or violence caused the play to be cancelled. The well-known German magazine Focus had, in that context, written that we should under no circumstances cave in to pressure like this.

This rounded off the day after roughly three hours of hearings. Since there is a need to play the complete recordings (eight hours) from Elisabeth's seminar, the next hearing is scheduled for January 18th.

Read more about Elisabeth's case, and find out what you can do to help her out: The Leading Edge of Freedom: How to Support Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff.


Reading the Quran is Like Being in an Auto Accident


Sometimes people don't "get it" until they see it for themselves. For example, try telling a cocky teenage boy he needs to be a more cautious driver. He will think, "Yeah, yeah, I've heard it all before, but I'm such a skilled driver and I have such lightening-fast reflexes, I don't need to worry about it."

But watch what happens after he's in a horrible accident, or even sees one. Watch what happens when he makes a mistake while driving and the accident kills his best friend. It's the kind of experience that can change his attitude for the rest of his life. When he sees how dangerous driving can be, when he sees how one small mistake can lead to an unimaginable tragedy, it can change his attitude toward driving permanently and in an instant.

The same thing happens when people read the Quran.

I've told you before that you need to read the Quran because it will give you a solid feeling of authority when you talk to your fellow non-Muslims about Islam. And you should encourage others to read it for two reasons: First, the fact that you're pushing them to read the Quran will tend to give them more confidence in everything else you say about Islam. And second, because reading the Quran for themselves will have an impact on them that all your talking cannot have, in the same way witnessing an accident can change a cocky teenager into a cautious and responsible driver.

Focus on the Quran. It is the central text of Islamic doctrine. It is considered the holiest of books by Muslims around the world. And it will reveal pure Islam more directly and more palpably and with more authority than anything else. Use all the persuasion skills you can acquire to convince people to take the pledge and read the Quran.


Training Course for Citizen Warriors


YOU WANT to educate your fellow non-Muslims about the terrifying brilliance of Islam and I have something to recommend that will help you: The Dale Carnegie Course: Effective Communications and Human Relations. It's the perfect training for a citizen warrior.

I can't believe I haven't thought of this before. I took the course about 23 years ago, and it made a huge difference. And it recently occurred to me that an important factor in my ability to educate people face-to-face is the training I got all those years ago — training available to you now.

Our most important task is to educate people. This requires an ability to persuade, to successfully connect with people, to organize your thoughts and get them across clearly, and ideally, to keep your stress level down. The Dale Carnegie course will help you in all of these areas.

The training takes place over a period of 12 weeks, one night per week, three and a half hours per night. And in every class each participant will give two short speeches. That's a lot of practice. And you get excellent coaching from the course leader. Of all the public speaking training I have gotten — and I've gotten quite a lot — by far the very best was the Dale Carnegie Course.

People graduate from the course with the ability to really communicate, not just the ability to make good gestures or use vocal variety or any of the other things a lot of public speaking programs focus on. The Dale Carnegie Course goes right to the core of communication and connection and will really teach you how to get your message across in a way that penetrates.

Dale Carnegie originally created a class to help people conquer their fear of speaking in public. But he noticed that most of the problems people talked about in their speeches were human relations problems. He thought he might teach some basic principles of human relations along with public speaking in the same course. So he looked around for a book on human relations but couldn't find one he thought was good enough, so he wrote one: How to Win Friends and Influence People, which became one of the bestselling books of all time. You will use that book and learn to apply those time-tested principles during the course.

One of the great things about the Dale Carnegie Course is learning to express yourself more freely. You'll gain that elusive quality known as charisma. Even if you are already charismatic, you'll become more so.

The course is especially good for people who have a fear of public speaking. You'll start out sitting in front of the class with three other people and all you have to do is answer the course leader's questions. It's very easy. Even if you're afraid to speak in public, this isn't stressful. And the course slowly progresses from there, step-by-step, allowing you to remain comfortable all along the way until you're standing up there by yourself giving a prepared speech and having no trouble whatsoever doing it. Many famous people have taken the course and swear by it (including Warren Buffet, which you can see here and here).

I would recommend this course to anyone, but it is especially valuable for those of us who wish to awaken our fellow non-Muslims about Islam's prime directive. You'll get the tools you need to be effective.

And I have something else to say. Although my focus here is making you a better citizen warrior, the Dale Carnegie Course will be personally good for you — you'll be happier and more expressive, you'll have more personal freedom of expression, and it will be great for your ability to bring people to our side.

Think about it. It's a substantial investment of time and money. But you will not regret it. I think you will, like me, come to think of it as the best money you've ever spent and the best investment of time you've ever made.

The Dale Carnegie Course is available almost anywhere. Check out their website to find a course in your area. I should get a commission on this; I'm giving a pretty good "sales presentation." The first evening of the course is free for everyone. If you like it, you can sign up. If not, you got a free class. And they actually teach you something useful the first night. And no, you are not put on the spot or asked to give a speech in the first class.

One of the most prominent features of the military is constant training. The military never stops training its soldiers. And we citizen warriors should also constantly focus on training, on getting better, on improving our skills, and the Dale Carnegie Course is one excellent way to do that.

More information:


Assumptions About Islam are Rampant

The following is an excerpt from the excellent book, The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran, by Robert Spencer:

When reading the Koran, it is vitally important to keep in mind that Westerners, whether religious or not, and Muslims often have vastly differing frames of reference, even when considering the same individuals or concepts. Several years ago, former President George W. Bush and Karen Hughes, his former Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, issued greetings to the world's Muslims on the occasion of the Islamic Feast of Eid al-Adha, which commemorates the end of the pilgrimage to Mecca, the Hajj, and Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son.

In December 2006, Bush issued a statement that read in part, "For Muslims in America and around the world, Eid al-Adha is an important occasion to give thanks for their blessings and to remember Abraham's trust in a loving God. During the four days of this special observance, Muslims honor Abraham's example of sacrifice and devotion to God by celebrating with friends and family, exchanging gifts and greetings, and engaging in worship through sacrifice and charity."

And the previous January, Hughes had declared:

Eid is a celebration of commitment and obedience to God and also of God's mercy and provision for all of us. It is a time of family and community, a time of charity....I want to read to you a message from President Bush: "I send greetings to Muslims around the world as you celebrate Eid al-Adha. When God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son, Abraham placed his faith in God above all else. During Eid al-Adha, Muslims celebrate Abraham's devotion and give thanks for God's mercy and many blessings."

In speaking of Abraham, even when doing so in the context of Eid al-Adha, Bush and Hughes were probably thinking of Genesis 22:15-18, in which Abraham is rewarded for his faith and told he will become a blessing to the nations: "By your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice."

But the Muslim audiences that Bush and Hughes were addressing probably did not read Genesis. They read the Koran, in which Allah says that Abraham is an "excellent example" for the believers when he tells his family and other pagans that "there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred forever, unless ye believe in Allah and Him alone" (60:4). The same verse relates that Abraham is not an excellent example when he tells his father, "I will pray for forgiveness for you."

Thus the Koran, in the passages cited by Bush and Hughes, holds up hatred as exemplary, while belittling the virtue of forgiveness. Bush and Hughes were therefore inadvertently reinforcing a worldview that takes for granted the legitimacy of everlasting enmity between Muslims and non-Muslims — and doing so, naively, while attempting to build bridges between Muslims and non-Muslims. This demonstrates once again how crucial it is for American policymakers to have a detailed understanding of Islam's theological and cultural frame of reference, and of the actual teachings of the Koran. For lack of this understanding, careless statements continue to be made, and policy errors keep multiplying.


Aim for a Target in Your Conversations


YOU ARE more persuasive when you have a goal. Aiming at a particular target increases your ability to persuade. The question is, what's a good thing to aim for? My suggestion is to aim at something small that will help educate the person. Ideally something that doesn't cost anything.

If you live in America I think your best bet is to aim for getting the person to subscribe to ACT! for America's e-mail updates. The updates don't overwhelm subscribers with too much information and they choose good things to cover. And it's free. It's a small commitment and over time a subscriber will learn more about Islam's relentless encroachment.

I also suggest you set a target for how many people you will get to subscribe. Sales organizations often have contests, which turns the persuasion process into a game. Why do they do this? It helps keep the task interesting and fun. And people tend to accomplish more when they have a target they're trying to reach.

Set a target for next month: Say you will get 10 people or 20 people, or whatever seems possible for you, to sign up for ACT! for America's e-mail updates, and
keep track. Have a chart on your wall. And when you get another person to sign up, make another hash mark. Reward yourself at the end of the month if you hit your target.

When you have a target, when there's something you're aiming at, it affects what you say and how you say it — affects it in a
positive way. You'll automatically and quite naturally focus more on persuading and connecting than on arguing or "winning" or defeating the other person. Your orientation will be different. Different in a good way. You'll be more effective.

So choose a target. Choose something to aim at. If you're in a country where ACT! for America is not active, choose something else. The reason I chose ACT! for America is that their updates are good, but they tend to focus on events in the United States and Canada. So if you're not in one of those countries, that's probably not your best option for a target. But pick something like that. Get the person to subscribe to Jihad Watch, for example, or Europe News. Or get them to subscribe to Inquiry into Islam. Or get them to "like" your favorite counterjihad Facebook page. Or whatever. Pick something that will not be overwhelming, but will be informative.

If you have created your own counterjihad page on Facebook (and I sincerely hope you have), it would make your successes easy to keep track of. Facebook automatically emails you a weekly report telling you exactly how many fans you gained that week.

However you do it, get people to
subscribe to something. It can help the person become more committed to the cause over time. Aim for only a small commitment at first. Let a greater commitment blossom from there.

The principal here is to have a target, and keep your target in mind. Keep aiming for your target. Remember your target while you're talking to someone, and always aim for that target in your conversations. This will improve your ability to persuade, it will help you keep a good attitude, and will ultimately lead to more awakened people.


America At Risk: The War With No Name


ONE OF the easiest ways to educate our fellow non-Muslims is to loan them a DVD to watch. A new DVD by Newt and Callista Gingrich (Newt's wife) is one of the best I've seen. It is tastefully and professionally done.

Because Gingrich is a well-known conservative, some of your liberal friends may not be interested, but perhaps you can convince them to watch this 82-minute movie for the sake of openmindedness. Make sure you have good rapport when you ask.

This movie is less fear-mongering and more professionally produced than I've ever seen in a film about Islam. It includes brief clips of interviews with quite a few people you are probably familiar with, all of them quite articulate: Frank Gaffney, Walid Phares, Andrew McCarthy, Bernard Lewis, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, Michael Ledeen, Debra Burlingame, former UN Ambassador John Bolton, former CIA Director R. James Woolsey, Tony Blankley, Steven Emerson, Michael Scheuer, Reihan Salam, and others.

There are no slow parts to this film. It keeps the viewer engaged through the whole thing. Near the end are several well-deserved criticisms of Obama, so Obama fans may turn it off at that point, but by then most of the important information has already been presented.

The film is up-to-date; it discusses the Obama administration's recent policy to expunge language from U.S. security agencies that suggest any Islamic connection, and many of the experts discuss how that policy impairs security.

Get yourself a copy or two (or more) and begin loaning them out to your friends. Convince your library to buy a copy too. Learn more about the film here: America At Risk.


The Enemy of Us All


A growing movement in Europe is explicitly anti-Muslim (click here to read more about it). This is both good news and bad news. The good news is the problems inherent in Islamic encroachment into Western democracies is being spoken about publicly. The bad news is that some of the most outspoken are white supremacists.

For those of us who are not racists but who see the growing threat of Islamic encroachment, the white supremacists are a problem. People on the other side, the multiculturalists and the Muslims and many of the most ardent anti-conservatives see anyone who speaks out against Islam or tries to educate people about Islamic doctrine as racists and white supremacists and fascists. And, in fact, there are some fascists who speak out against Islam. But we're not all fascists, of course. We're not all white supremacists. We're not all racists. Not by a long shot.

What is racism? It is an overgeneralization. It says because some members of the racial group have a particular characteristic, all members of the race have that characteristic.

The blind multiculturalists also overgeneralize when they say all people in the counterjihad movement are racists. They are making exactly the same mistake they are accusing us of making (that most of us are not making). That is, since a few of us who are working to curb Islam's prime directive are racists, then anyone who says they don't like Islamic doctrine is a racist. It's the same mistake. It's an overgeneralization.

And even those of us in the counterjihad who are not racists often make the same mistake against both Muslims and multiculturalists by thinking that all Muslims believe X, or all multiculturalists are Y.

Another example of the same mistake is "white guilt" (as it is known in America) or "post-colonial guilt" (as it is known in Europe). This guilt is being exploited by many orthodox Muslims. It makes us less able to defend ourselves, and the source of the guilt is the same mistake: Overgeneralization.

America had slaves. That was wrong. But should I feel guilty about that? I've never owned a slave or endorsed the idea. I have no idea if any of my ancestors did, either, and even if they did, it wouldn't matter. Any crime committed by an ancestor does not make me guilty. And any bad action taken by someone with the same skin color as me does not make me guilty either. This guilt — that allows orthodox Muslims to get away with things they wouldn't be able to get away with otherwise — is caused by the overgeneralization (all white people are guilty and have ammends to make).

One of the things non-Muslims dislike the most about the content of Islamic teachings is "kafir hatred," which is, of course, the same mistake again. The doctrine says Muslims are the best of people and non-Muslims are the worst of people. These are overgeneralizations.

On all sides, it's the same mistake, and it makes any productive conversation almost impossible. If you believe you do not make this mistake, I suggest to you that you're probably wrong. It is a natural mental error our brains are prone to make.

How can we get out of this mess? How can we have productive conversations about Islam with our fellow non-Muslims? How can we help school those who are against our cause? The answer is to be specific, and insist on others being specific too.

We in the counterjihad are talking about Islamic doctrine. We must make it absolutely clear that we're talking about doctrine, not people. We're talking about Islamic ideology, not Muslims. When we're talking about a Muslim, we need to speak about a particular Muslim. Our overgeneralizations usually come from talking about a group of people rather than a specific person or an ideology. Any group of people contains individuals. Any group of individuals will be different from each other, will have different levels of belief, will have different levels of commitment to the ideology, will have different understandings and familiarity with the ideology, and will have different characteristics from each other.

And we can speak specifically about Sharia law. This is a very effective way to avoid overgeneralizing.

We can also make a clear distinction between the different kinds of Muslims: Orthodox and heterodox, Jihad-embracing Muslims and Jihad-rejecting Muslims, Practicing Muslims and MINOs.

Do whatever you can to be as specific as possible and avoid overgeneralizations. We must be eternally vigilant with our own thoughts, with our own speaking and writing, and we must carefully and deliberately expose the error when others make it. And when we're pointing it out in others, we should avoid ridiculing them for making the error. The tendency to overgeneralize is a natural by-product of the brain's functional design (read more about that here) and requires constant vigilance from all of us to prevent our brains from making this error.

Overgeneralization gets in the way of good communication. It gets in the way of accurate thinking. It impairs our ability to solve problems.

Overgeneralization is the enemy of us all.


Thinking Outside the Argument Box


I am constantly imploring you to stop using an "either-or" approach to educating your fellow non-Muslims about Islam. If what you're doing isn't working, try something else. But what? I thought we could start collecting some ideas. We'll keep them all collected on a single post: How to Think Outside the Persuasion Box so when you feel like you're getting nowhere with someone, you can go to one place to get ideas.

There are many books on the topic of persuasion, and many books on arguing. But these are dealing with two different things. Argumentation is about logic and facts and evidence, and only works on the audience listening to the argument. Persuasion includes facts and logic but includes something more: The human element. Emotions, culturally-specific triggers, rapport, memories, allegiances, feelings, psychological factors, associations, subliminal influences, etc. These elements of persuasion work directly on the person you're talking to, and work best one-on-one, which is usually what most of us are doing when we talk about Islam — we're talking personally to one person at a time.

I recommend studying persuasion rather than argumentation (unless you're a public speaker).

If you're arguing with someone and feel stuck, it's time to add something else to your side. You're arguing on a level field — argument against argument, fact against opposing fact, logic against logic. The effort often feels futile. The argument goes round and round and doesn't seem to get anywhere. When this happens, add something extra to your side. Add something outside the argument box.

You can find good ideas in books on persuasion. One such book is Get Anyone to Do Anything and Never Feel Powerless Again by David J. Lieberman (also available on audio). Here are a few ideas quoted from the book:

1. Studies show that when our self-awareness is heightened we are more easily influenced. This suggests that when we can see ourselves — literally — in a reflection, we are more persuadable. Having a conversation by a mirrored wall or reflective panel will increase your chances of influencing the person.

2. Reciprocal persuasion: Researchers found that if someone had previously persuaded you to change your mind, he would be more inclined to reciprocate by changing his attitudes about something when you ask. Similarly, if you had resisted his appeal and not changed your mind, he would often "reciprocate" by refusing to change his own mind. You can use this very easily to your advantage by saying, "I thought about what you said regarding [any previous conversation where he was explaining his point of view] and I've come to agree with your thinking. You're right."

3. Studies conclude that when a person holds an opposing view, you should adopt a two-sided argument. When you're dealing with a stubborn person, we can likely assume that he's based his opinion, at least in part, on fact. Therefore, a one-sided argument will appear to him as if you are not taking his thinking into consideration. Consequently, in this instance, present both sides (following the rule of primacy, be sure to present your side first) and you will find him more malleable in his thinking.

I quoted all three of the ideas above from a single page of Lieberman's 180-page book. As you can see, these kinds of ideas might help you get outside of a deadlock. They can help you continue the fight, but in a new way. They can make your conversations more interesting and challenging for you. They can make your efforts feel less futile. And they will increase your success rate.

I'm challenging all of us to do what the teacher in Freedom Writers did, and when you can't seem to reach someone — when you seem unable to make your message penetrate — that you find a way rather than simply blaming your listener. Find a way around the impasse. Use ideas from books on salesmanship, persuasion, and influence to help you get around the obstacles interfering with your goal.

And when you find something that works well, please share your story with us on Talk About Islam Among Non-Muslims.


What the UK Poll Means to Us

AFTER DECADES of bending over backwards to welcome Muslims into their country and conceding to their "special needs," what has been the result? A poll of the children of Muslim immigrants shows they are more orthodox than their parents, less willing to integrate into British society, less tolerant of non-Muslims, and more violent than their parents.

Just like everywhere else in the world, appeasing the holders of a supremacist doctrine is good for the supremacists and bad for the appeasers.

Another poll shows that British citizens have intuited something is wrong. Seventy-five percent of them think Islam has negatively contributed to British society. And yet very few know much about Islam. A large percentage of them didn't want to know more about Islam — at least from Muslims.

Forty percent of British citizens didn't know who Allah was, and thirty-six percent didn't know who Mohammad was.

The Muslims' answer to this information is to step up the disinformation campaign. The Islamic Education and Research Academy thinks that because these negative opinions about Islam were formed with not much knowledge about Islam, it is an opportunity for them to positively influence non-Muslims with a public relations campaign.

A better answer is to promote an international campaign to get non-Mulsims to read the Quran. British citizens may not know much about Islam, but the Muslim population in Britain is so high, they can see it is having a bad influence on their society, perhaps without knowing why. Their ignorance about Islamic doctrine makes them easier to manipulate. Reading the Quran would innoculate them against the kind of disinformation campaigns orthodox Muslims are famous for.

We must find a way to convince our fellow non-Muslims to take the plunge and read the Quran. Getting a smallpox vaccination may hurt a little, but then you can spend the rest of your life immune to it.

Read more about the British polls


The Neverending Pressure to Yield to Islam


Whenever ORTHODOX Muslims are present, any non-Muslims nearby will be subjected to a constant pressure to yield to Islam. Devout Muslims will never cease pressing for concessions and accommodations from non-Muslims until the whole world is brought under Sharia law. For those who strictly follow the Quran and the example of Mohammad, they know it is their religious duty to do so.

Many non-Muslims have yielded to the pressure already, as you can see here: A Master List of Concessions.

It almost doesn't matter if the percentage of Muslims pressing for concessions is small. The "vast majority of peaceful Muslims" we're always talking about really don't help matters. They don't protest when the devout, orthodox, politically-active Muslims press for concessions. They don't resist it, for the most part.

The conflict is between orthodox Muslims and non-Muslims who don't want to make any more concessions. And unfortunately, this conflict will likely be a permanent part of our lives for the rest of our lives. Our best chance to curb the Islamic incursion into our freedoms is a population educated about this phenomenon, educated about the goal, and educated about their methods. When that kind of education is fairly widespread, the constant pressure from orthodox Muslims will easily be resisted.

Never has it been clearer that eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.

Citizen Warrior is the author of the book, Getting Through: How to Talk to Non-Muslims About the Disturbing Nature of Islam and also writes for Inquiry Into Islam, History is Fascinating, and Foundation for Coexistence. Subscribe to Citizen Warrior updates here. You can send an email to CW here.


Tennessee is a Leader In the Fight Against Sharia


The following was written by Joanne Bregman, a concerned citizen from Tennessee, published here with her permission:
TOWARD THE END of the 2010 session of the Tennessee General Assembly, the “American and Tennessee Law for Tennessee Courts” bill was passed (HB3768/SB3740). You might be surprised to know that Tennessee was the first state in the country to pass legislation of this type and now other states are looking to follow our lead.
Supporting the sovereignty of our state to protect its jurisprudence from the encroachment of foreign law that is discordant with our Constitutional liberties, this type of legislation has become ever more relevant in light of the aggressive efforts to advance the imposition of Sharia law in the United States. And because of the way our new law defines “foreign law, legal code or system,” it was duly noted during the House sub-committee meeting that our new law applies to Sharia law.
Sharia, often referred to as “Islamic Law,” is a legal code based on the Quran and the Sunna (Hadith and Sira). Sharia law is all-encompassing, meaning that it covers all aspects of life, including criminal law, domestic law, warfare (jihad), the how-tos of state governance, personal ethics, and prayer. Sharia regulates down to the minutest detail everything that happens in this life and the afterlife. Adherents believe that Sharia is the will of Allah, and as such, is sacred law and considered to be perfect and unchangeable for all time.
Most importantly, Sharia does not recognize "man-made law" such as our U.S. and state constitutions. Sharia is explicit in its exhortation that the very existence of man-made law constitutes a transgression of the sinners who enacted the law:

The source of legal rulings for all acts of those who are morally responsible is Allah. (a1.1) It is not a sin to comply with man-made laws that require buying auto insurance or having a photo ID because “the authorities are responsible for the sin, not the individual forced to comply.” (w42.3 and w50.4)

Sharia regulates belief, speech and the status of women as well as non-Muslims. It dictates all matters criminal, civil and financial. It even prescribes the rules pertaining to women removing their facial hair and wearing perfume when they are outside their home. Sharia is said to dictate a complete way of life. There is no such thing as a separate secular authority or secular law under Sharia, since religion and state do not exist as separate from one another.
Sharia is the stated and officially-recognized law of the land in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan, three nations with some of the most horrible human rights records in the world. It is no coincidence that these three nations are also heavily involved in jihadist terrorism. Sharia is also fast emerging as a parallel system of jurisprudence in many other countries with Britain being one of the most affected (read more about that here).
Examples of Sharia law include:

• violent jihad against non-Muslims to establish Islam’s rule worldwide (known as the caliphate)

• killing of apostates from Islam

• killing of adulterers and homosexuals

• severe discrimination against women, including persecution of women and execution by stoning of women who are suspected of adultery

• bodily mutilation for petty crimes such as theft including, limb amputations, gouging out of eyes

• severe discrimination against, and the subjugation of, non-Muslims

• financial jihad (“jihad with money) for those Muslims who cannot engage in physical jihad using force.

The purpose of Sharia is submission. Because Sharia adherents believe that Allah is the divine lawgiver they also believe that no other law may properly exist, and for this reason the world for Sharia adherents is divided into dar al-Islam (House of Islam or literally, House of Submission, where Sharia is enforced), and dar al-harb (House of War where Sharia is not enforced). The commanded objective is to carry out jihad indefinitely until all are dominated by the dar al-Islam. Sharia tries to attain this objective using non-violent methods. However when required, and under specified sets of conditions, the use of violence and outright war to establish the supremacy of Sharia is not just allowed, but required. This use of force or war is called jihad. Jihad also includes other non-violent methods such as lawfare, infiltration, subversion and information warfare.
Here is a very important point that is often misrepresented by Sharia adherents or apologists in an effort to make the adherence to Sharia look like any other “religious” practice: Sharia is very different from other forms of religious law, such as Jewish halacha law or Catholic canon law in that neither of the latter is meant to apply to non-Jews or non-Catholics respectively. In contrast, the very goal of Sharia is for all to live under its domination. Moreover, neither Jewish nor Christian doctrine permits the pursuit of a theocracy in place of our constitutional republic.
The leading proponent of global Sharia law is the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a block of 57 Islamic countries that has a permanent delegation to the United Nations and is the largest single voting bloc in the U.N. While the General Assembly of the U.N. adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the OIC instead, adopted the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI) affirming that Sharia was the sole source and basis of human rights and that any freedoms in the UDHR that conflict with the Sharia, do not apply to the OIC members.
So for example, the CDHRI states in Article 22(a) that “Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Sharia.” The Sharia makes it a criminal offense to say anything derogatory about Mohammed, Islam or the Quran. Or, as noted several years ago by Awadh Binhazim (the Muslim chaplain at Vanderbilt University) during a panel discussion about the Mohammed cartoon controversy, “Islam is not something to ridicule” and that Sharia adherents do not share the value of free speech as it is recognized in the United States. This is the same Awadh Binhazim who was recorded on video last year confirming that the doctrine he is required to follow (Sharia), commands capital punishment for homosexuality.
The threat from Sharia extends far beyond that of violent jihad. The non-violent variety of jihad is sometimes referred to with three interchangeable terms — “creeping Sharia,” “stealth jihad,” and “civilizational jihad.” The Muslim Brotherhood, just like al-Qaeda and the Taliban, exists to bring this about albeit at this time, by non-violent jihad. The Brotherhood’s internal documents discovered during the prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation, make it clear that civilizational jihad waged by stealth is only the prelude to imposing Sharia by force.
Lest you think the Muslim Brotherhood is just another political action group, think about this — the Muslim Brotherhood formed in Egypt in 1928 with the stated goal of implementing Sharia law worldwide and in this way, re-establish the global Muslim caliphate. The Brotherhood’s ideology as stated by its founder Hassan al-Banna:

A Muslim individual, Muslim family, Muslim nation, Muslim government and Muslim state should be able to lead Islamic governments, should be able to unite the dispersed Muslims, should be able to regain their honor and superiority, and should be able to recover their lost lands, their usurped regions and their occupied territories. Then it should be able to raise the flag of Jihad and the call towards Allah until the entire world is benefitted by the teachings of Islam.

The Muslim Brotherhood has been banned in Egypt. Even today the Global Muslim Brotherhood Report reported more arrests in Egypt of top Muslim Brotherhood leaders.
But the Muslim Brotherhood is alive and well and active in the United States. In fact, if you go on their website you can read in their by-laws in Art. 3, the following:

The Islamic nation must be fully prepared to fight the tyrants and the enemies of Allah as a prelude to establishing an Islamic state.

There is neither a geographical nor political boundary for the Islamic state because the Muslim Brotherhood defines Islam as a political and social ideology indistinguishable from their religious beliefs, all of which is reflected in Sharia law. Based on the evidence developed during the 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial, (the largest terrorism-financing trial in U.S. history), we know that virtually every major Muslim organization operating in the U.S. is controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood or a derivative thereof. Some of the organizations include the:

• Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR)
• Islamic Society of North American (ISNA)
• North American Islamic Trust (NAIT)
• Islamic Circle of North American (ICNA)
• Muslism Students Association (MSA)
• International Institute of Islamic Thought (IITI)
• Fiqh Council of North America

In 1981, the Muslim Brotherhood used NAIT and took over the Bridgeview mosque in suburban Chicago. In 2004 the Chicago Tribune, in a lengthy article titled “Hard-liners won battle for Bridgeview mosque,” reported that the mosque leaders condemned Western culture, praised Palestinian suicide bombers and openly raised money to aid terrorists. The area around the mosque is reported to be an enclave.
Muslim Brotherhood front groups include the:

• Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC)
• American Muslim Task Force (ATF)
• Muslim American Society (MAS)
• Council on Islamic Education (CIE)
• Cordoba Initiative

And to top it all off, it was proven during the Holy Land Foundation trial that the leadership of the Foundation, and the Foundation itself, were Hamas entities. (Hamas was formed out of the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood).

Hamas = Muslim Brotherhood = CAIR, et al
CAIR is Hamas

The objective that binds all of these groups is the professed goal of supplanting our Constitution with Sharia law. This is also the message taught explicitly to young students in Islamic schools in the U.S. The popular student textbook reportedly used in most madrassas entitled “What Islam is All About” on page 377 in the Chapter “What is an Islamic Society? Section C, How Do We Become Great Again?” states the following:

“Muslims dream of establishing the power of Islam in the world. Muslims of all types and backgrounds agree that the Islamic system is the best for humanity in this life.”

Recall that the objective of non-violent jihad is to insinuate Sharia slowly into the target society and culture over time. This has already occurred in much of Western Europe:

• In the United Kingdom, 85 Sharia courts operate openly with the force and authority of common law. Originally meant to strictly settle disputes between Muslims, 15% of the cases they hear now involve disputes with non-Muslims.

• In several nations, including Sweden and France, Muslim enclaves have developed which are essentially autonomous zones that are ruled by Sharia law. A recent report from the U.S. Family Research Council estimates that as many as 35 Islamic enclaves have been established in the U.S.

• In the United Kingdom, Canada and South Africa, due to the “necessity” of accommodating Muslims into the welfare system and succession and inheritance laws, polygamous Muslim marriages are now
de facto recognized by the respective governments.

Lest you think that this will not become a problem in the United States, think again. Sharia is already starting to appear in our courts, especially in the area of family law.

• You probably didn’t know that there is something called the “Texas Islamic Court.” It decides cases according to Sharia and its rulings sometimes end up in the Texas state court.

• The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a Muslim Brotherhood organization named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, conducts arbitrations in the U.S. according to Sharia.

• There have been dozens of instances in which Sharia has been invoked in U.S. courts, mostly unsuccessfully, but not always.

In Tarikonda v. Punjari, a Michigan lower court upheld a Sharia-compliant triple talaq divorce performed by the husband in India, leaving the wife without any marital property or custody rights. The Court dismissed the wife’s challenge to the Indian divorce. The appellate court reversed, finding that the Indian divorce violated the wife’s due process and equal protection rights and additionally, was contrary to the public policy of the state.
In Hosain v. Malik, a Maryland appellate court upheld the enforcement of a Pakistani custody order applying the Islamic law of Haznit, requiring that a child who had been brought to the U.S. by her mother, be returned to the father. Regardless of whether in enforcing the Pakistani order the Maryland court truly ruled in “the best interests of the child,” it must be noted that the Pakistani order that was upheld had been issued in a Pakistani court without representation for the mother. The mother didn't appear in court in Pakistan because if she had showed up, she would likely have been arrested for adultery and been subject to public whipping or death by stoning. The Maryland court did not believe that her absence from the Pakistani proceeding for the stated reason was repugnant to Maryland public policy because as they stated, such punishments were “extremely unlikely.”
State lawmakers across America are starting to take action to prevent the U.S. from ending up like Western Europe, a victim of "creeping Sharia." Before the Oklahoma counter-Sharia ballot initiative made big headlines, Louisiana along with Tennessee, had already introduced bills preventing Sharia from creeping into our legal system. Senator Dewayne Bunch and Representative Vance Dennis were the first in the country to shepherd a bill nicknamed “American and Tennessee Laws for Tennessee Courts” to passage.
Because the Sharia is an anti-constitutional doctrine which stands in direct contradiction to the 6th Amendment and all of the freedoms and liberties found in our U.S. and state constitutions, our new law directs judges and lawyers to protect those rights. There should be no reason to see decisions from Tennessee courts such as those cited above. We are also pleased to report that legislators across the country are planning to use the Tennessee model to prepare for the 2011 legislative session. Eisenhower’s comment regarding Communist infiltration is as relevant today as it was in 1952:

…all of us…must remember that the Bill of Rights contains no grant of privilege for a group of people to destroy the Bill of Rights.


Focus on the Undecided


W. Clement Stone, in his book, The Success System That Never Fails, said when he first started as a salesman he was spending an inordinate amount of time arguing with people who ended up not buying anything. He expended time and energy on these people with no results. It physically and emotionally wore him out.

So he instituted a rule for himself that if he wasn't getting anywhere after a predetermined amount of time, he would just pleasantly cut the conversation short and go onto his next prospect. He would cut his losses and move on, even if he had hope that he might yet change the person's mind. His new policy created startling results. "Wonderful things happened," he wrote. "I increased my average number of sales per day tremendously."

I think we need to be more efficient in that way too.

In a Citizen Warrior article (click here to read it), I wrote about a debate conducted by Intelligence Squared. Before the debate they took a poll of the audience. A certain percentage of them were for the proposition that Islam is a religion of peace, and certain percentage were against the proposition, and a certain percentage were undecided.

After the debate those who were for and those who were against hadn't changed their opinions very much, but a lot of the undecideds changed their opinion to "Islam is not a religion of peace."

The results of that debate show that we might benefit from using W. Clement Stone's philosophy and cut our losses when we run across someone whose mind is made up already (unless you have nothing else to do because you're stuck in a waiting room with them for awhile, or unless you have no other people to talk to and you've already convinced everybody you know except those whose minds are already made up).

In other words, let's first focus our efforts on the people in our lives who haven't yet made up their minds about Islam. We will make far more progress in far less time. Once all of the undecideds have been educated, then let's turn our attention to the stubborn ones (approaching the least stubborn first). Let's be efficient. Let's be maximally effective. Let's change the most minds we can in the shortest possible time.

Another added bonus we might get from this policy is that the stubborn ones may become less so. Stone says when he started limiting the amount of time he wasted arguing with people, his daily average went up. "What's more," he wrote, "the prospect in several instances thought I was going to argue, but when I left him so pleasantly, he would come next door to where I was selling and say, 'You can't do that to me. Every other insurance man would hang on. You come back and write it.' Instead of being tired out after an attempted sale, I experienced enthusiasm and energy for my presentation to the next prospect."

It's possible that the tremendous stubbornness we sometimes run into may ease up when we stop pushing so hard. Doing something unexpected can often cause a change in mental and emotional patterns. Pleasantly ending an argument without winning may be just the sort of surprising maneuver that could help change someone's mind.

But in the meantime, you'll be focusing your attention on where you can have the most impact.


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.


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

  © Free Blogger Templates Columnus by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP