Introducing An Inquiry Into Islam


MOST SITES that write about Islam (and are written by non-Muslims) are offensive to a lot of people, and some of them are people we need to reach. If the only people we try to educate are people who already know what we know, of course, we're just singing to the choir and essentially wasting our time.

We need ways to reach people who feel an aversion to anything that smacks of bigotry. That's why I want to turn everyone onto the web site, An Inquiry Into Islam. The purpose of the site is to provide us — people who already know about the terrifying brilliance of Islam — material to share with people who don't know much about it.

I copied several of the best articles from Citizen Warrior to the new site, but then I assiduously edited them for a new audience: For someone who is deeply skeptical of any criticism of Islam, for someone who thinks it is racism or bigotry to criticize Islam, for someone who wants the straight story but is skeptical of anyone who seems even the slightest bit "conservative."

The web site is set up with a very limited number of available articles, and that won't change. All the articles are at the top right of every page, so navigation is extremely easy. The sight looks bright, clean, and simple. It is as user-friendly as I could make it. I also made it as unbiased and neutral in its point of view as possible.

I invite you to poke around and send me suggestions on improving it. Do I say anything that has too rough an edge that might turn people away? Let's make this a tool we can use to help awaken the people in our lives to the incredibly surprising truth about orthodox, mainstream Islam. I hope you can find good uses for it.

Check it out: An Inquiry Into Islam.


Creating a New Parallel Religion


IN A BIOGRAPHY of L. Ron Hubbard entitled, Bare-Faced Messiah, the author wrote, "On 25 July 1968, while Hubbard was still in Bizerte, the government in Britain finally decided to take action against Scientology. Kenneth Robinson, the Health Minister, stood up in the House of Commons and announced a ban on Scientology students entering the UK. 'The Government is satisfied,' he said, 'having reviewed all the available evidence, that Scientology is socially harmful. It alienates members of families from each other and attributes squalid and disgraceful motives to all who oppose it. Its authoritarian principles and practices are a potential menace to the personality and well-being of those so deluded as to become its followers; above all, its methods can be a serious danger to the health of those who submit to them.'"

When I read that, I was thinking to myself, "Why couldn't they investigate Islam and reject it as socially harmful, attributing disgraceful motives to all who oppose it, and its authoritarian practices a potential menace to its followers?

The answer is obvious: Because Islam is an "established" religion. It has been around awhile and has lots of followers. The British government could get away with banning incoming Scientology students because Scientology is new and has relatively few followers.

And this got me to thinking about something someone suggested to me awhile ago: What if we started a new religion? I don't mean sincerely starting a religion, but creating what looks like a real religion, but with the same basic principles as Islam, but with different names. A website could be created that looks like the central headquarters of the new religion, outlining all the tenets of the religion.

Then we could write and speak about this new religion without getting any flak at all. Europeans who find it increasingly difficult to criticize Islam could switch to criticizing the same things about this new religion. They couldn't get into trouble because there are no adherents to this new religion, so nobody would be offended. And nobody else cares if you criticize a new religion.

I think if you criticized an unknown or new religion — if you criticized the exact same teachings as Islam, but didn't call it Islam — it would help people see the teachings for what they are. It would get outside the cultural immune system that makes the whole subject of Islam taboo.

To give you an idea of what this might be like, someone has invented a religion to make fun of Scientology. The new religion is called "Tarvu." Check out their web site. Its purpose is different — it just makes fun of Scientology. But we could create a web site that seriously parallels the core principles of Islam, but without any reference whatsoever to Islam itself.

Let us know what you think of this idea. Email us or leave a comment.


More on Using Scientology to Criticize Islam


I'M READING another biography of L. Ron Hubbard, this one entitled, Bare-Faced Messiah. I've mentioned before (in this article) that when you encounter resistance to your criticism of Islam, you can sidestep to talking about Scientology, which has many parallels with Islam. Nobody seems to mind when you criticize Scientology (except a Scientologist, of course).

You can criticize something about Scientology, and then say the same thing about Islam, and if someone gives you a bad time about it, you can ask, "Why is it okay to talk about Scientology but not Islam?"

It is no more racist to talk about Islam than Scientology, for example. And you can make that point very effectively and very reasonably, and thereby greatly reduce the flak you take for doing something everyone in free nations should be engaged in: Religious and political criticism and free discussion. What's the point of free speech if we aren't exercising it?

Anyway, below are eight excerpts from Bare-Faced Messiah. As you read, I'd like you to consider what a conversation might be like if you said, "I was reading something about Scientology today that really surprised me." Then talk about it for a bit. And then say, "It reminded me of something very similar about Islam." And talk about that for a bit. This is received with less resistance than talking about Islam only. Give it a try and you'll see what I mean.

Here are the eight excerpts from the book:

1. While Hubbard (L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology) was skirmishing with the FBI, he was also tightening his grip on the Scientology movement and urging his followers to take action against anyone attempting to practise Scientology outside the control of the 'church'. He derided apostates as 'squirrels' and recommended merciless litigation to drive them out of business. 'The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease,' he wrote in one of his interminable bulletins, casually adding, 'If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.'

In the same bulletin he offered the benefit of his advice to any Scientologists unlucky enough to be arrested. They were to instantly file a $100,000 civil damages suit for molestation of 'a Man of God going about his business', then go on the offensive 'forcefully, artfully, and arduously' and cause 'blue flames to dance on the courthouse roof until everybody has apologized profusely'. The only way to defend anything, Hubbard wrote, was to attack. 'If you ever forget that, you will lose every battle you are ever engaged in.' It was a philosophy to which he would adhere ardently all his life...

2. The same month as the Freedom Congress, the Central Intelligence Agency opened a file, No. 156409, on L. Ron Hubbard and his organization. CIA agents trawled through police, revenue, credit and property records to try and unravel Hubbard's tangled corporate affairs. It was a task of herculean difficulty, for the Church of Scientology was a cryptic maze of ad hoc corporations. The printed notepaper of the Academy of Scientology gave only a hint of its labyrinthine structure — on the left-hand side of the page was a list of no less than seventeen associated organizations, ranging from the American Society for Disaster Relief to the Society of Consulting Ministers.

Agents traced a considerable amount of property owned either by Hubbard, his wife, son, or one of the daunting number of 'churches' with which they were associated, but the report quickly became bogged down in a tangle of names and addresses: 'The Academy of Religious Arts and Sciences is currently engaged as a school for ministers of religion which at the present time possesses approximately thirty to forty students. The entire course consists of $1500 to $1800 worth of actual classroom studies...The public office is located at 1810-12 19th Street N.W. The corporations rent the entire building...

'The Hubbard Guidance Center, located at 2315 15th Street, N.W., occupies the entire building which consists of three floors and which was purchased by the SUBJECT Organization. The center also rents farm property located somewhere along Colesville Road in Silver Spring, Maryland, on a short-term lease. The center formerly operated a branch office at 8609 Flower Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland. In addition to the Silver Spring operation, the center has a working agreement with the Founding Church of Scientology of New York, which holds classes at Studio 847, Carnegie Hall, 154 West 57th Street, New York City. Churches of this denomination number in excess of one hundred in the United States...'

3. While he was still in Melbourne, Hubbard received an urgent telephone call from Washington with some bad news. Nibs (Hubbard's son), he was told, had 'blown'. To Scientologists, 'blowing the org' (leaving the church) was one of the worst crimes in the book: it was almost unbelievable that the highly-placed son and namesake of the founder would take such a step. Nibs had simultaneously held five posts in Scientology's increasingly cumbersome bureaucratic structure: he was Organizational Secretary of the Founding Church of Scientology, Washington, DC; Chief Advanced Clinical Course Instructor; Hubbard Communications Office World Wide Technical Director; and a Member of the International Council.

[Nibs] failed to take into account the fact that his father would automatically view his defection as an act of treachery...

4. Returning to a familiar theme, Hubbard urged his followers to defend Scientology by attacking its opponents: 'If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace...Don't ever defend, always attack. Don't ever do nothing. Unexpected attacks in the rear of the enemy's front ranks work best.'

5. 'It was not really possible to question what was going on,' explained David Mayo, a New Zealander and a long-time member of the Sea Org (the headquarters of Scientology worldwide, which was a small fleet of ships), 'because you were never sure who you could really trust. To question anything Hubbard did or said was an offense and you never knew if you would be reported. Most of the crew were afraid that if they expressed any disagreement with what was going on they would be kicked out of Scientology. That was something absolutely untenable to most people, something you never wanted to consider. That was much more terrifying than anything that might happen to you in the Sea Org.

'We tried not to think too hard about his behaviour. It was not rational much of the time, but to even consider such a thing was a discreditable thought and you couldn't allow yourself to have a discreditable thought. One of the questions in a sec-check (a security check, using a lie detector, which is done frequently throughout the organization) was, "Have you ever had any unkind thoughts about LRH?" and you could get into very serious trouble if you had. So you tried hard not to.'

6. Now sixty-two, Hubbard was also beginning to ponder his place in posterity. The Church of Scientology had been swift to make use of the recently enacted Freedom of Information Act, which had revealed that government agencies held a daunting amount of material about Scientology and its founder in their files, much of it less than flattering. Hubbard, who had never been fettered by convention or strict observance of the law, conceived a simple, but startlingly audacious, plan to improve his own image and that of his church for the benefit of future generations of Scientologists. All that needed to be done, he decided, was to infiltrate the agencies concerned, steal the relevant files and either destroy or launder any damaging information they contained. To a man who had founded both a church and a private navy this was a perfectly feasible scheme. The operation was given the code name Snow White — two words that would figure ever more prominently over the next few months in the communications between the Guardian's Office in Los Angeles and the Commodore's hiding place in Queens, New York.

7. At six o'clock on the morning of 8 July 1977, 134 FBI agents armed with search warrants and sledgehammers, simultaneously broke into the offices of the Church of Scientology in Washington and Los Angeles and carted away 48,149 documents. They would reveal an astonishing espionage system which spanned the United States and penetrated some of the highest offices in the land.

8. This is a quote from the government sentencing memorandum on Mary Sue Hubbard and the others, October 1978: "The crime committed by these defendants is of a breadth and scope previously unheard of. No building, office, desk or file was safe from their snooping and prying. No individual or organization was free from their despicable conspiratorial minds. The tools of their trade were miniature transmitters, lock picks, secret codes, forged credentials, and any other device they found necessary to carry out their conspiratorial schemes. It is interesting to note that the founder of their organization, unindicted co-conspirator L. Ron Hubbard, wrote in his dictionary entitled Modern Management Technology Defined that "Truth is what is true for you." Thus, with the founder's blessings, they could wantonly commit perjury as long as it was in the interests of Scientology."

All of this could be pulled straight out of the Muslim Brotherhood's playbook. Go on the offensive. Attack people who impede your goals. Use the courts to harass. Be merciless until people are apologizing profusely. Invoke "freedom of religion" as a cloak of protection. Create lots of different important-sounding organizations, and make the names seem mainstream and respectable, and try not to use your own religion's name in the title to throw people off your trail and to make it seem like a coalition of many religions. Create a "labyrinthine structure" of organizations to make it difficult for anyone to follow the money. Consider apostates as enemies to be destroyed. Criticism of the religion or the founder is completely forbidden, resulting in unthinking, uncritical (and therefore fanatical) followers. Scientologists use a lie detector. Islam uses Allah, who knows every thought you think and will judge you and punish you accordingly. Infiltrate government agencies in order to protect and promote the religion. And lying is allowed if it is done to further the goals of the religion.

Begin to talk about Scientology and Islam together and your conversations will be more interesting, less contentious, and more productive. With this new strategy, we should be able to reach more people in less time. Our goal is to educate non-Muslims, focusing on the undecided, because whoever is most organized will win.

Read about the Muslim Brotherhood's labyrinthine structure of their organizations

Read about Scientology's "Fair Game" policy

Read more about Scientology.

There's a biography of Hubbard that I think is the best book to read for an overview of Scientology. The book is called Messiah or Madman?


What Should Be Done?


In an extended conversation about Islam with a friend of a friend, after quite a bit of writing back and forth, he asked, "What do you think should be done?" What you'll read below is what I wrote back. The reason I'm publishing this is because I think many of the people you talk to about Islam in your conversations haven't given it much thought and don't really know what kind of solution you have in mind, and I think sometimes they react in a way that rejects the solutions they assume you must have in mind. So it's worthwhile to let people know what you think ought to be done about it. They might have an easier time listening to what you have to say about Islam.

One of the things my friend of a friend mentioned was how comforting it is to know that most Muslims don't like terrorism. With all that in mind, here is how I answered him:

That's a good question. What is the solution? I think basic knowledge would be a good first start. Most people know almost nothing about Islam, even in the CIA and FBI. Even among politicians. I don't know all the solutions we'll come up with, but I know we'll make better solutions if we know what we're really dealing with.

If more of us knew more about Islam, I think we'd be less likely to make mistakes like foolishly allowing Sharia law to be written into the constitutions of both Iraq and Afghanistan. That was a big mistake. I don't believe it would have happened if more non-Muslims had read the Koran.

When someone in Afghanistan was going to be killed for converting out of Islam (apostasy is illegal, punishable by death under Sharia law), the U.S. State Department said, "Hey, what are you doing? Your constitution says you have freedom of religion." To which Afghans said, "Yes, freedom of religion within the bounds of Sharia law." The people in the State Department didn't know what they were dealing with.

So I think we need to at least know. That would be a start.

I think Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Norway are on the right track: They have explicitly banned Sharia law.

And I think another good thing to add would be a flex fuel bill. It has the potential to significantly cut off funds to Saudi Arabia, which is a major source of our problems with Islam. They fund madrassas and mosques around the world, and because they pay for them, they control what is taught there, and they are teaching orthodox Islam: Hatred of non-Muslims, political action, Sharia law for all, etc.

According to this article in the Wall Street Journal, Saudi Arabia controls an unbelievable 90% of the world's Islamic institutions. We need to cut off their money, and introducing mandatory flex fuel capabilities in cars sold in America would allow fuels to compete, which would bring down prices and take money away from Saudi Arabia.

We need more people who know more about Islam so that we can have more and better solutions to its growing influence.

I don't really want anything from Muslims. I want non-Muslims to stop pretending the problem doesn't exist. I want non-Muslims to discover that Islam is not a religion of peace and stop trying to pretend it is.

The biggest Muslim organizations in America — ISNA, CAIR, MSA, etc. — have all been created as arms of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the largest international Muslim organization in the world. And the Muslim Brotherhood has said, in internal documents, that violent acts of terror are tactically foolish against America. They think 9/11 set their agenda back because it caused Americans to learn more about Islam. So they have revamped their strategy to keep a low profile, to infiltrate, to undermine and to sabotage. Terrorism against America doesn't work. We're not the kind of people who cower in fear and comply. Overt acts of violence against us make us aggressive.

Anyway, the fact that many Muslims "hate terrorism" isn't as comforting as it ought to be.

And I agree with you, we should not overreact. And we should completely reject collective punishment, abandonment of reason, and we must keep the rule of law. I am advocating first and most importantly that people read the Koran. I think non-Muslims should know what's in it, mainly because so many non-Muslims assume they know what's in it and are dangerously mistaken. And I think you really have to read the whole thing to get the full impact of this amazing doctrine.

I don't think advocating knowledge is an overreaction.

I think in hundreds of little ways, once non-Muslims know what Islam is about, all the political insinuations of Islamic law into Western democracies will be curtailed, without bloodshed and without hatred. It will just be stopped because we would understand what is motivating it, we would understand what's behind it, and we wouldn't want any part of it once we knew what it was.

The Muslims-in-name-only can go on about their lives without any trouble — and without even knowing anything is going on. The active, orthodox Muslims will find themselves curbed whenever they try to limit freedom of speech or infiltrate the FBI or any of the other things they've been able to get away with because so few people know even the most basic information about Islam.

One place we differ is that you think things are already getting better, and I think things are getting worse. Muslim infiltrators with a political objective (Islam's prime directive) have gotten into the military, the FBI, the CIA, and actually advise President Obama just as they did with former President Bush. Why? Because even people at that high level believe the nonsense that Islam is a religion of peace. Muslims are gaining control of cities in Europe, the "radicals" are regaining control in Turkey and Egypt, they are gaining control of Lebanon, Malaysia, and Indonesia. They are exerting influence over American media, Hollywood movies, what's written in American textbooks, and it goes on and on and on. Not much is getting better. And lots of things are getting worse. And I'm an optimist!

I think your attitude that "things are getting better" is just another way to try to put this issue in a box so you don't have to worry about it any more. Throughout this conversation you seem to have tried your best to come up with anything you could think of to avoid having to accept the existence of something you don't want to be true. It reminds me of that scene from the first Terminator movie.

Kyle Reese has been sent back from the future to protect Sarah Connor, but she thinks she will just get away from the terminator and go on about her life. She was refusing to get it. Didn't want to get it. Does this sound familiar?

Kyle finally grabs her wrists and yells at her: "Listen! That terminator is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity or remorse or fear, and it absolutely WILL NOT STOP — EVER — until you are DEAD!"

At that point, she doubled over. All the breath went out of her body. It looked like she'd been punched in the stomach. She finally realized her situation. She stopped resisting it and started thinking about what could be done about it.

It seems to me you're not there yet. You still think you can go on with your life and ignore it and everything will be okay.

But it will not stop. It will keep getting worse until it intrudes in your life in a way you can't ignore. You're a smart man. I believe some day you will get it, and it will hit you hard. But after that point, you'll stop resisting it and start thinking about what should be done about it.


How to Stay Relaxed and Feeling Good While Talking About Islam


WHEN I WAS in high school, I remember my friends and I making the observation that when we didn't have girlfriends, girls didn't seem interested in us, but once we had a girlfriend, suddenly interested girls were everywhere we turned. And we knew why: Because we no longer felt we needed a girlfriend. We didn't have that anxious mood about us any more. If girls liked us, that was fine with us. And if they didn't like us, that was fine with us too, now that we had someone who liked us a lot. We were confident, self-assured, and relaxed.

The same principle applies to talking about Islam. If you can find a way to not "need" someone to believe you or agree with you, they are more likely to believe you and agree with you.

So if you find yourself getting somewhat upset during conversations about Islam, I suggest you change the way you think about it so if someone agrees with you, that's fine with you. And if they
don't agree with you, that's fine with you too. But I mean really fine with you (rather than trying to convince yourself it's fine, even though you are actually upset). Find a way to think about it so you feel good about it however the conversation goes.

How can you think about it so you have that kind of relaxed confidence? Experiment with different perspectives and see what works for you. For example, I have convinced myself that I am on "the leading edge" and that eventually it will become common knowledge that the doctrines of Islam are not peaceful but intolerant, politically domineering, and violent. Over the last nine years of writing this blog, I have seen good evidence that my assumption is true: More and more non-Muslims are waking up to the truth about Islam.

Since that's the case, any particular individual I'm talking to doesn't really matter in the long run. If they believe me, I have gained one more recruit to our side. If they don't believe me at the moment, they will eventually learn the truth, and they'll remember I'm the one who said it first. I know this is a little silly, but this perspective works for me. It helps me not have any anxiety about whether they are convinced or not. This helps prevent me from getting upset, and makes me more persuasive.

Here's another perspective I have deliberately cultivated: There are already a whole bunch of us who have educated ourselves about Islam. In other words, I already have a girlfriend. Of course, being Citizen Warrior, I am in communication with a lot of people who share my understanding of Islam. But anyone can find plenty of like-minded thinkers by reading the comments on Take the Pledge: Read the Quran, reading the comments on Jihad Watch articles, joining a counterjihad Facebook group, etc. You can easily expose yourself to an almost unlimited number of educated counterjihadists who share your understanding of the situation. And when you do, it will help you feel less alone, isolated, or "needing" anyone's approval on this topic.

And another perspective I cultivate is a trust that if things get worse — if we can't reach enough people fast enough — it will only cause more people to open their minds to the facts about Islam (click here for an example). There was a strong movement in the United States against getting involved in "Europe's war" until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Then suddenly the majority of Americans completely changed their opinion.

I know what you're thinking: 9/11 didn't suddenly change everyone's opinion. But it did wake up many of us, and we're waking up the rest. And each "mistake" orthodox Muslims make causes more of us to awaken, so even if I completely fail to convince anyone in a one-on-one conversation, I have planted the seeds of understanding, and as events unfold, they will come to see the truth, so I don't need to convince them now.

These perspectives help me stay relaxed in conversations, and make me more persuasive. I'm sure they are but a few of the many possible perspectives that might help. Experiment with yourself and find what works for you. And if you would be so kind, please share with us what works here: Talk About Islam Among Non-Muslims.


Shariah Finance Watch Has a List of Shariah Compliant Banks


According to Shariah Finance Watch, the following banks are "Shariah Compliant." Is your bank on this list?

There are at least two reasons to boycott such banks: First of all, Sharia compliant banks are required to donate two percent of their profits to Muslim "charities," which are often jihad-related groups, because, of course, jihad is an inextricable part of Islamic doctrine.

Secondly, the widespread existence of such policies at banks ostensibly legitimizes Sharia law — a backward, misogynistic, intolerant, totalitarian form of law that has no place in the modern world.

To see the latest list of Shariah compliant banks, click here. Here is the original list of Shariah compliant banks:

Alpha Natural Resources Asset Acceptance Capital Corporation

Aviva Plc


Barclays PLC

BNP Paribas Group

Citibank, N.A.

Credit Agricole, S.A.

Deutsche Bank AG

Dow Jones & Company Inc.

Equity Insurance Group Limited

Goldman Sachs Group

HBOS plc

HSBC Holdings plc

INVESCO Perpetual

Julius Baer Group

Maersk Logistics

Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.

Morgan Stanley

NYSE Euronext

Silicon Graphics, Inc.

Singapore Power

All of the following are also Sharia compliant:

* Bank Negara Malaysia (The central bank of Malaysia)
* CIMB Group (CIMB Bank + CIMB Investment Bank + CIMB Islamic Bank)
Anchor Banks (Major / Commercial banks)
* Affin Bank Berhad
* Alliance Bank Berhad
* AmBank Berhad
* CIMB Bank Berhad
* EON Bank Berhad
* Hong Leong Bank Berhad
* Malayan Banking Berhad (Maybank)
* Public Bank Berhad
* RHB Bank Berhad

Foreign-owned banks (commercial only)

* ABN AMRO Bank (M) Berhad
* Bangkok Bank (M) Berhad
* Bank of America (M) Berhad
* Bank of China (M) Berhad
* Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ (M) Berhad
* Citibank(M) Berhad
* Deutsche Bank (M) Berhad
* HSBC Bank Malaysia Berhad
* Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation (M) Berhad (OCBC Bank)
* The Standard Chartered Bank (M) Berhad (StanChart)
* The Bank of Nova Scotia (M) Berhad (Scotiabank)
* JPMorgan Chase & Co.Bank (M) Berhad
* United Overseas Bank Bank (M) Berhad (UOB Bank)

Offshore Banks and Branches in Labuan

* ABN AMNRO NV (Labuan Branch)
* Affin Bank Berhad
* Al-Hidayah Investment Bank (Labuan) Ltd (Labuan Branch)
* Aminternational (Labuan) Ltd (Labuan Branch)
* AmMerchant Bank Berhad
* Bank Islam Malaysia Berhad, (Labuan Offshore Branch)
* Bank Muamalat Malaysia Berhad, (Labuan Offshore Branch)
* Bank of America National Association Berhad, (Labuan Branch)
* The Bank of East Asia Ltd (BEA) (Labuan Branch)
* The Bank of Nova Scotia (Labuan Branch)
* The Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Limited (Labuan Branch)
* Barclays Bank PLC (Labuan Branch)
* BNP Paribas (Labuan Branch)
* Calyon (Labuan Branch)
* Capital Investment Bank Limited (Labuan)
* Cathay United Bank (Labuan)
* CIMB Bank (L) Limited
* CIMB (L) Limited (Labuan)
* Citibank Malaysia (L) Limited (Labuan)
* City Credit Investment Bank Limited (Labuan)
* Commercial IBT (Labuan Branch)
* Credit Suisse (Labuan Branch)
* DBS Bank Limited (Labuan Branch)
* Deutsche Bank AG (Labuan Branch)
* Dresdner Bank AG (Labuan Branch)
* ECM Libra Investment Bank Limited (Labuan)
* The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited Offshore Banking Unit (Labuan)
* ING Bank NV (Labuan Branch)
* The International Commercial Bank of China (Labuan Branch)
* J.P. Morgan Malaysia Ltd (Labuan)
* J.P. Morgan Chase Bank National Association (Labuan Branch)
* KBC Bank NV (Labuan Branch)
* Kuwait Finance House Labuan Berhad (Labuan Branch)
* Lloyds TSB Bank PLC (Labuan Branch)
* Mizuho Corporate Bank Ltd (Labuan Branch)
* Macquarie Bank Limited (Labuan Branch)
* Maybank International (L) Ltd (Labuan Branch)
* Morgan Stanley Labuan Investment Bank Limited (Labuan Branch)
* Natexis Banques Populaires (Labuan Branch)
* OSK Investment Bank (Labuan) Limited (Labuan)
* OCBC Limited (Labuan Branch)
* Public Bank (L) Limited (Labuan)
* Rabobank Nederland (Labuan Branch)
* RHB Bank (L) Ltd (Labuan)
* The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC (Labuan Branch)
* RUSD Investment Bank Inc (Labuan)
* Schroders Malaysia (L) Berhad (Labuan)
* Societe Generale (Labuan Branch)
* Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation (Labuan Branch)
* UBS AG (Labuan Branch)
* United Overseas Bank Limited (Labuan Branch)

Investment banks

* Affin Investment Bank Berhad
* Alliance Investment Bank Berhad
* AmInvestment Bank Berhad
* Asian & Euro-American Merchant Bankers (Malaysia) Berhad (Aseambankers)
* CIMB Investment Bank Berhad
* Ecmlibra investment Bank Berhad
* Hwang-DBS Investment Bank Berhad
* KAF Investment Bank Berhad
* Kenanga Investment Bank Berhad (formally K&N Kenanga Berhad)
* MIDF Investment Bank Berhad
* MIMB Investment Bank Berhad
* OSK Investment Bank Berhad
* Public Investment Bank Berhad
* RHB Investment Bank Berhad
* Southern Investment Bank Berhad

Islamic banks

* Asian Finance Bank (M) Berhad
* Bank Islam Malaysia Berhad
* Bank Muamalat Malaysia Berhad
* Hong Leong Islamic Banking Berhad
* CIMB Islamic Bank Berhad
* RHB Islamic Bank Berhad
* AmIslamic Bank Berhad
* Affin Islamic Bank Berhad
* Al Rajhi Banking & Investment Corporation (Malaysia) Berhad
* EONCAP Islamic Bank Berhad
* Kuwait Finance House (Malaysia) Berhad
* Maybank Islamic Berhad

Development Financial Institutions (Government-owned banks)

* Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Berhad (Bank Rakyat)
* Bank Simpanan Nasional Berhad
* Bank Pertanian Malaysia Berhad
* Export-Import Bank of Malaysia Berhad (Exim Bank)
* Bank Perusahaan Kecil & Sederhana Berhad ((Small Medium Enterprise) SME Bank Berhad)
* Sabah Development Bank Berhad (SDB)
* Sabah Credit Corporation Berhad
* Lembaga Tabung Haji
* Credit Guarantee Corporation Malaysia Berhad (CGC)
* Malaysian Industrial Development Finance Berhad (MIDF)
* Bank Pembangunan Malaysia Berhad (BPMB) (The development bank of Malaysia)
* United States

HSBC Amanah
HSBC Securities (USA) Inc.
452 Fifth Avenue, Tower 25
New York, NY 10018
Tel: (1 212) 525 8142
Fax: (1 212) 525 8143
Catharine Furrer-Lech
Chair UBS Islamic Finance Committee
Citi Islamic Investment Bank


Bushido and Islam: Creepily Similar


I RECEIVED an interesting email from a woman who calls herself Western Feminista, who has eloquently commented before at Talk About Islam Among Non-Muslims. She was struck by the strange similarity between Islam and Bushido. I thought we could use this in the same way as comparing Islam with Scientology (which I recommend here), in the sense that we may be able to get around some of the defensiveness non-Muslims have about Islam by talking about similar teachings in other religions. Here are some of the similarities Western Feminista found: Blind Submission: Devotion to the Emperor (as a direct descendant of the Sun Goddess, Amaterasu Omikami) and the view that the Emperor was an earthly agent of divine origin. His decisions and judgments were, by default, moral and legal. Muslims also revere Mohammad, the direct chosen Prophet by Allah (God). He will sit next to Allah interceding on behalf of believers on Judgment Day. It is his dictation of the word of Allah that make up the Koran that all Muslims must adhere to. His utterings are by default, moral and legal. Humiliation and Shame: The notions of "saving face" and the avoidance of shame have also been an integral part of Japanese culture for centuries. To admit one's wrongdoings, or worse the wrongdoings of an ancestor, would be a disgrace according to the belief in filial piety. Lower-ranking soldiers were often beaten for the “crime” of serving a superior's rice too slowly, and sick and wounded soldiers were treated with disgust. (Infringement of the Laws of War and Ethics (January 1945) “Many incapacitated soldiers, with a good chance of recovery, have been disposed of on the grounds that they are useless to the Emperor. A-17 Division Order commands medical officers to dispose of any sick and wounded who become a liability.”) Perceived insults from Allied prisoners were met with executions, and attempts to “shame” POWs by forcing them to bow, fight for food, etc., were routinely used. Women civilians were “shamed” by being used as “comfort women.” Islam is also a Shame/Honour-based culture — obsessed with keeping face, guarding against the threat of humiliation and over-the-top reactions to the slightest perceived insult. An excellent example is the Mo-toon worldwide frothing-at-the-mouth scenario, Theo Van Gough, the film “Submission,” Geert Wilders' stand against Islamification, a fatwa issued against Pokemon Toys…the list is innumerable and is growing daily. Dhimmis are “shamed” by having to pay protection tax (jizya). Women are subjugated in the name of “honour” daily. Free Thought Banned: In Bushido, the Confucian precepts also set the parameters for a samurai's unquestioning obedience to his daimyo. Within the Confucian context, a "Just War" was any undertaking that the ruler sought to fulfill. They could not be questioned by anyone because that would demonstrate disrespect for authority and a questioning of the authority's divine judgment. In Islam…“the verses of the Qur'an and the Sunnah summon people in general (with the most eloquent expression and the clearest exposition) to jihad, to warfare, to the armed forces, and all means of land and sea fighting." Those who can only find excuses, however, have been warned of extremely dreadful punishments and Allah has described them with the most unfortunate of names. He has reprimanded them for their cowardice and lack of spirit, and castigated them for their weakness and truancy. In this world, they will be surrounded by dishonour and in the next they will be surrounded by the fire from which they shall not escape though they may possess much wealth. The weaknesses of abstention and evasion of jihad are regarded by Allah as one of the major sins, and one of the seven sins that guarantee failure. (Al-Banna) We can also look to Islamic leaders for backup: “Keep on fighting for the application of Islamic law. If this state and nation wants to become great, safe, and at peace then it has to return to Islam one hundred percent without bargaining. If not, then it will be destroyed.” (Abu Bakar Bashir, spiritual leader of the Indonesian Mujahideen) "I am one of the servants of Allah. We do our duty of fighting for the sake of the religion of Allah. It is also our duty to send a call to all the people of the world to enjoy this great light and to embrace Islam and experience the happiness in Islam. Our primary mission is nothing but the furthering of this religion." (Osama bin Laden, May 1998) R-E-S-P-E-C-T: Bushido also stressed respect for others, however, the term others was very illusive and often manipulated to mean almost anyone or only a select few. POWs being held by the Japanese Imperial Army were taken on death marches, starved, beaten, beheaded, shot and certainly not respected…the mere fact that they had surrendered, sent them to the bottom of the food chain. We have seen lots of examples put forward by Islamic apologists stating the same thing — that Islam is a peaceful religion that accepts women, Christians and Jews with respect…the passages from the Koran are too many to show here that is not the case… War as a means to an end: Bushido sees war as an act that could purify the self, the nation, and ultimately the whole world. Within this framework, the supreme sacrifice of life itself was regarded as the purest of accomplishments. “Do not live in shame as a prisoner. Die, and leave no ignominious crime behind you.” Yamamoto Tsunetomo's Hagakure (1710) Ritual suicide (seppuku) was preferred over a life of shame (defeat), and was adopted as a means of war by the Japanese Imperial Army. (Kamikaze tactic during WWII — this was also consistent with the Bushido Code’s requirement of self-sacrifice.) The idea that war is a way of “purifying” the whole world is another area where Islam agrees — the whole globe should become Islamic. Islam means submission, and so the House of Islam includes those nations that have submitted to Islamic rule, which is to say those nations ruled by Sharia law. The rest of the world, which has not accepted Sharia law and so is not in a state of submission, exists in a state of rebellion or war with the will of Allah. It is incumbent on dar al-Islam to make war upon dar al-harb until such time that all nations submit to the will of Allah and accept Sharia law. Islam also believes the premise that dying while waging jihad is the purest of accomplishments…”But nothing compares to the honour of shahadah kubra (the supreme martyrdom) or the reward that is waiting for the Mujahideen.” (Al-Banna) Employment Opportunities: It was not unusual for civilians to be routinely slaughtered by the Japanese Imperial Army, as well as taken as forced labour for war projects. (Thai/Burma Railway used civilians taken from Indonesia as well as Malaya and other neighbouring SE Asian countries, as well as POWs.) Islam has a long history of taking slaves by force, and is currently still perpetrating horrors against indentured servants from other countries, especially in Saudi Arabia. Conclusion: The punishments meted out to civilians and POWs by the Imperial Japanese Army have been recorded by history as shocking — atrocities that still sicken to this day. The belief in their superiority over all others led to acts of pure evil being perpetrated, for which they were condemned by all western nations. Why then, does a doctrine that is easily aligned with Bushido still exist? (Bushido already having been condemned as inhuman and vile.) Why is this doctrine still being allowed to infiltrate our daily lives? Why does the media apologise and excuse it? Why do the politicians of the same nations that held war-crime tribunals against the JIA now trip over each other to appease the latest practitioners? At the end of WWII, a declaration was given to the Japanese to sign….one of the conditions read:

"We do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation...The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established."
In other words, "No More Bushido." Why then, can I not say, "No More Islam" without being accused of hate speech? When I asked Western Feminista if I could reprint her analysis, she said yes, and then added: I sat down after watching the mini series “The Pacific” and Googled the JIA and Bushido and just picked out a few bits that struck me as being creepily similar. I thought it was strange that so many people compare Islam to Nazism (Jew hatred etc) — but I haven’t heard anyone looking at it from a “religious spiritual” side…everything the JIA did was in the name of the Emperor and the belief that he was a divine being unable to be criticized. (Even Hitler had people who doubted him…but the Emperor didn’t.) My Grandfather was on the Thai Burma railroad, and he always said that theirs was an ideology that encompassed every aspect of their lives, was completely irrational and evil to the core…


Islam: What the West Needs to Know


AN EXCELLENT video you can use to help educate people is Islam: What the West Needs to Know. It is available on DVD, and that's probably the best way to share it — buy some extra copies and keep them in circulation, eventually loaning them to everyone in your social circle.

But if you want to share it online, it is available on Google Videos in its entirety. Here it is:

"Islam: What the West Needs to Know" on Google Videos

It's a great overview of the basic principles of Islam, and why non-Muslims ought to be concerned about it.


What Really Makes Me Mad is Understandable


WHEN I TRY to educate my fellow non-Muslims about basic Islamic doctrine, they often automatically assume I hate Muslims. They don't have a way of reconciling my criticism with any model of the world they are familiar with, and the only way to understand me is to conclude I must just be a "hater" or have a prejudice against Arabs or Muslims. But I have found some success in clearing this up by explaining how I look at the whole subject. Something like this...

I think of Muslims as being divided into three categories. There are those who understand the doctrine well and believe in it and are committed to following its dictates. This is a relatively small percentage, although nobody knows how small. I would guess it is somewhere between five and twenty-five percent of Muslims. That's a pretty big range, I know, but like I said, it's hard to know for sure.

The second category of Muslims are those who know about the doctrine but secretly reject parts of it. They do it secretly because it says in the doctrine they are not allowed to reject any of it, and also because in many parts of the world it is physically dangerous to reject any part of Islamic doctrine publicly. I believe this group is another ten to twenty percent of Muslims. That's just a guess.

The third category is the biggest. These are Muslims who don't know what their own doctrine says. They grew up Muslim, their parents were Muslim, and they never thought of having a choice about being Muslim, but they've never been interested enough to find out what Islamic doctrine says.

With an understanding of the three categories, I can now explain that I do not hate "Muslims." What bothers me is that people in the first category — the true believers — are successfully exploiting the third and very large category of ignorant Muslims, and successfully fooling most of the non-Muslims.

And even that doesn't bother me as much as the fact that the true believing Muslims are successfully exploiting and fooling so many people simply because people refuse to look. It's not like the information is hard to find. The ignorant Muslims have not taken the time to explore their own doctrines enough to accept or reject them. And the ignorant non-Muslims essentially refuse to look. They make assumptions instead, and self-righteously defend their assumptions. But the doctrines are widely published and abundantly available. That's what really bothers me.

I feel like Winston Churchill must have felt during the 1930's. He read Mein Kampf. The book was available for anyone to read. Churchill was trying to get people to simply look, but for the most part people did not want to look for fear of what they would find. What a frustrating, angering situation. That's why I appear frustrated and angry sometimes when I'm talking to people. It is not hatred toward Muslims. It is anger at our ridiculous situation: A group is actively working toward a terrible goal which has been widely published in the open, but so many people do not want to know about it. Under the circumstances, I think intense frustration is a normal response.

Anyway, when I explain it this way, I think people better understand my passion for the subject and see it differently, and that helps them listen to whatever else I have to say. It prevents them from "shutting their ears," so to speak. It prevents them from just dismissing what I have to say (because they won't listen to "hatemongers" or prejudice people).

If you feel the same way, try explaining it to people when you can see they are misunderstanding your passion for the subject. And tell us how it worked (or didn't work) on Talk About Islam Among Non-Muslims.


Geert Wilders Publicly Supports Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff


LAST WEEK, the Gates of Vienna reported that the judge in Elisabeth's trial added a new charge against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, prompting Elisabeth’s Voice to reactivate their fund-raising initiative to help Elisabeth meet her legal fees. The new charge is "denigrating religious symbols of a recognized religious group." The new charge is easier to prove, and it increases her chance of being convicted.

Now Geert Wilders has come out publicly and officially in support of Elisabeth. She received this email from Mr. Wilders:

The Austrian anti-jihad activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff is currently on trial in Vienna for speaking the truth about Islam. Her case is much like mine and that of all the other people in Europe who are being charged, tried, convicted, and silenced for daring to speak out against Islam.

Elisabeth is a courageous woman whose staunch defence of liberty, freedom of expression and the search for truth are an inspiration for us all. She is a beacon of light, not only for Austria but the entire West.

I fully support Elisabeth in her resistance to the oppression that has been forced upon her. And I especially support her in her defence against a charge brought by the Vienna court in an attempt to silence her.

It is important to defend those who are being prosecuted by the state for their convictions. We need to exercise our own right of speech on their behalf. If we do not speak out today for people like Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, we will all be silenced.

If you want to contribute to her defense, visit Elisabeth’s Voice and make a donation using PayPal. Or, if you prefer, you can send a bank transfer using the following information for international payments:

Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich
IBAN: AT513150042908021602

Made out to: Public Notary Mag. Martin Scheichenbauer, Hemmaweg 5, A-9342 Gurk

The defense fund is not under Elisabeth's control, and disbursements from it will be made solely to pay her legal fees.

If you are unable to contribute, please pass the word along to anyone who might be able to help. Post stories about Elisabeth on your Facebook page. Make comments on blogs. Email your friends. Talk about it to people you know. We all need to fight to keep Elisabeth and others like her from being silenced.

Here are more articles on Elisabeth:

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff Versus Sharia

The Latest on Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff

An Interview with Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff

The Leading Edge of Freedom: How to Support Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff

Elisabeth's Trial Has Begun


Keeping Private Information Private at Spokeo


A NEW ONLINE USA phone book,, has collected lots of personal information about you. They've got everything from photos you've posted on Facebook or the web, your credit score, photos of where you live, your income, your age, your home address.
But you can remove yourself by searching your name and then clicking on your name. A smaller window pops up. Go to the bottom of the smaller window and click on the Privacy link to remove yourself.
Once you put in your information and click, you will see a small sentence that tells you to check your email.
Go to your email and click on the "confirm" link. Within one day, you can check back and your information will be gone.


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