How Should We Treat the Muslims in Our Midst?


LIVING AMONG US, we have many Muslims who are undoubtedly as innocent of terrorism, political subversion, and Islamic supremacism as we are. But we have a problem, don't we? These innocent fellow countrymen — and the terrorists, subversives, and supremacists — all call themselves "Muslims."

Many non-Muslims explain the situation to themselves that "
there are extremists in every religion" and let it go at that. But those of us who have studied Islamic doctrine and Islamic history have discovered that "letting it go at that" would be a big mistake. And of course, those who simply look at the news can see that there must be something about Islam that produces more "extremists" than other religions.

In fact, the "extremists" are not any more "extreme" than
the many devout followers of other religions. The difference is that the teachings devout Muslims follow are more definitively hostile toward non-followers than any other mainstream religion's teachings.

So we are in a quandary, and so are the innocents who call themselves Muslims (but who ignore or are unaware of
Islam's intolerant teachings). We don't want to make the mistake of overgeneralizing and becoming hostile to someone just because he says he's a Muslim. But we don't want to support or encourage or befriend a Muslim who is following the teachings of the Koran because it says it's okay to pretend to be a non-Muslim's friend, but to never actually be their friend, and it says "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them." These are not the beliefs or motivations we want in a friend, or in someone we invite home to dinner, or even in someone we speak freely with.

We know how to deal with orthodox Muslims who are actively pushing for concessions from the West, but what about in our personal lives? Should we live in suspicion of all Muslims? Should we automatically hate someone we know is a Muslim? Would you want to live that way? No, probably not. Should you ignore what you know about Islamic doctrine and treat everyone the same? That doesn't seem sensible either.

We're in a real quandary, and so are heterodox Muslims who have rejected the worst of Muhammad's teachings.

Our difficulty can be resolved with a simple change in our personal policy. We can consistently treat the Muslims among us a particular way and it will solve our problem and hopefully bring this issue into the light of day where we can reasonably deal with it like adults.

Before I describe the personal policy I advocate, I need to clarify something. An "innocent Muslim," or what has often been called a "moderate Muslim" would necessarily have to reject jihad except in the sense of a "personal inner struggle." That would be a Muslim who rejects (or is unaware of)
97 percent of the references to jihad in the Hadith. For a Muslim to be truly innocent, she or he must reject (or be ignorant of) much of the "sacred" example of Muhammad, which means rejecting (or being unaware of) the 91 passages in the Koran that tell Muslims to follow Muhammad's example.

An innocent Muslim must also reject (or is unaware of) the
intolerance, hatred, and violence toward non-Muslims in the Koran. And an innocent Muslim would reject (or be ignorant of) the subordinated position of women in Islamic doctrine.

For any non-Muslim who has studied Islamic doctrine, the above description is a reasonable starting point for a Muslim we can welcome in our midst.

What brought this up was reflecting over the last ten years. We started in 2001, about a month after 9/11. And in that time, we've heard from hundreds of Muslims, all of them arguing that we don't know what we're talking about because "true Islam" is peaceful and tolerant.

In all that time, we have never heard from a Muslim — not once — that acknowledged the existence of the immense number of passages in the Koran that non-Muslims find disagreeable — passages that anyone with an IQ over 70 could understand are disagreeable to non-Muslims. And not once have any these Muslims acknowledged the existence of
the egregious example of Muhammad — an example anyone with the slightest amount of human empathy would understand might be offensive or even frightening to non-Muslims.

What we've heard again and again was that it's all taken out of context, and that the terrorists have it all wrong and nobody else except the terrorists believe in or follow such teachings, or the teachings don't exist.

Over the years we've come across a very small number of genuinely jihad-rejecting Muslims, like
Tawfik Hamid. And of course, if someone genuinely rejects the hatred, political ambition and calls to violence in Islamic doctrine, they don't complain to us about what we write here on Citizen Warrior. They don't have a problem with criticism of Islamic doctrine (they are strong critics of the doctrine themselves).

But after rejecting so much of Islam (given our definition of an "innocent Muslim" above), even Muslims have a hard time understanding why such a person would call himself a "Muslim," but who are we to say how any person should define himself?


Okay, so our situation is that we don't know how to treat the Muslims in our midst, and the "innocent Muslims" don't know how to identify themselves as "jihad-rejecting Muslims." Here is the solution: We should stop coddling the innocent Muslims and start being very matter-of-fact about our situation. We need to stop talking around this issue. We need to stop avoiding the source of the problem. We need to deal with Muslims forthrightly with this attitude: "You either firmly reject jihad or we must assume you embrace it. It is counterproductive for everyone for us to bend over backwards trying to prove how tolerant we are."

If Muslims want to be welcomed into this society, they need to start standing up and making their voices heard. They must openly acknowledge and unambiguously and categorically reject the hatred, misogyny, and violence in their core doctrines, or we must assume they don't.

Many of us are reading their source books. We know the doctrine. We would be foolish not to assume a Muslim believes in Islamic doctrine. So it is up to
Muslims to tell us they do not believe in that doctrine, and to say specifically which parts of the doctrine they do not endorse.

What got me thinking about this was
an article by Christopher Hitchens who said that Governor Mitt Romney (a Mormon) firmly stated "that he did not regard the prophet, or head of the Mormon church, as having ultimate moral and spiritual authority on all matters. Nothing, he swore, could override the U.S. Constitution."

Why did Romney feel he needed to say that? Because many of us are aware of Mormon doctrine. So he openly reassured us as to where his loyalties lay.

Have you ever heard a Muslim do this? And yet Muslims are in a worse situation. They experience far more suspicion and hostility in our society than Mormons. But rather than doing what Romney did, what do Muslims do? Usually they blame
us for the suspicion and hostility, and imply the problem is our lack of "tolerance."

So here's the situation: We've become aware of Islamic doctrine and we don't like it, so we naturally wonder where the Muslims among us stand, and instead of saying, "We acknowledge the intolerance and violence of our core doctrines, and we reject them totally," they tend to open up with hostility, and so deepen our suspicions. The hostility and finger-pointing and the avoidance of honesty are exactly what we would expect from someone who
believes in the supremacist, intolerant teachings of Islam.

And weak, vague assurances are not good enough. "
We reject the killing of innocents" doesn't work any more because too many of us know already that nowhere in the Koran does it imply non-Muslims are innocent. It implies just the opposite.

Muslims need to be clear and explicit, and
we need to demand that of them without apology. From a non-Muslim's perspective, our open demand for honesty is a rational response to the facts, and nothing to be embarrassed about.

We need to make it clear what someone must do to be welcome in this society if they call themselves a Muslim. And we need to be clear that our "tough-love" attitude toward them is a sane response to what we know of their ideology.


Imagine you were putting an avowed communist in charge of the Federal Reserve. You wouldn't do it without very firm assurances from him that he
completely rejects the economic model of communism. You have to demand that assurance because you are familiar with the basic tenets of the communist ideology.

You have to assume when someone says he's a communist that he believes in the communist ideology. It's an assumption we can take for granted. Otherwise, what does it mean to say you're a communist?

That's what it means: That you believe in the communist ideology.

Same with Islam: You say you're a Muslim. That means you believe in Islam's ideology. Fine. I am familiar with Islam's teachings. And no, I don't want you running the country or involved in law enforcement or teaching my children or writing textbooks or working in counterterrorism or joining the military, unless you can assure me about what parts of that ideology you reject. This should be plain common sense, but of course, it only makes sense to someone who is familiar with the Islamic ideology.

If you assume it is impossible for a religion to advocate intolerance, supremacism, mysogyny and violence to non-believers, this policy and this attitude would not make sense. If you assume the teachings of any religion could be used to justify anything, it would not make sense to you either. But if you are a non-Muslim and you've read the Koran, you know what I'm talking about.

Others are coming to the same conclusion, and I've seen many more direct challenges to Muslims who say they are moderate. They are being asked pointed questions like, "Do you repudiate what Hamas is doing?" and "I am a Buddhist; do you consider me a kafir?" and they're asked to sign
the Freedom Pledge and if they won't sign it, they are asked why they won't. These are steps in the right direction.

But more interviewers need to become educated enough about Islam that they can ask stronger, more specific questions. And this challenge needs to become incessant from all of us, everywhere. Muslims must be made to face the discomfort. They must realize they have to come right out and say, "Yes, there is a political agenda in Islam, and I completely reject it" or they will not be welcomed or trusted (or invited to any "interfaith dialogs for peace and understanding").

For someone who is unfamiliar with Islamic doctrine, all this would sound terrible and unfair, but we would do the same for any person who openly declared their endorsement of a seditious or treasonous or intolerant or violent ideology and who wanted to live among us as equals.


There are three reasons Muslims are reluctant to say what parts of Islamic doctrine they reject:

1. It says in the Islamic doctrine they can't reject any part of the Islamic doctrine.

2. They fear for their lives. According to Islamic doctrine, the penalty for apostasy is death. They might also merely fear to be ostracized by their community. Heterodoxy, even if not accompanied by the death penalty, can be socially penalized severely in Muslim communities.

3. They don't reject it. They are going along with the Western society program until Muslims have greater political strength, at which time, they will start applying the political, supremacist teachings of Islam. This approach must be fairly common, given the patterns of modern Islamization.

It would take a very brave person, even if he was truly a jihad rejector, to volunteer an admission of apostasy. We must, in a sense, force their hand and then help protect jihad rejectors from reprisals.

This issue must be forced into the open or we will continue to suffer in a confused and paralyzed limbo while orthodox Muslims paint all of us into a corner (the non-Muslims and jihad-rejecting Muslims alike) by continuing their Islamization of the West.


a video profiling three American Muslims, who all presented themselves as regular American citizens, the Muslims seemed baffled as to why non-Muslims might look at them suspiciously, but they also seemed equally self-righteous about how silly and misguided that is, and not one of these American Muslims mentioned the supremacism and intolerance at the core of their doctrines. Worse, they acted as if no such doctrines exist. They acted as if such a notion was preposterous.

One of the women in the video even pointed out that believers of other religions don't get this kind of scrutiny or prejudice. I wanted to tell her, "That's right. It's been a long time since anyone worried about the Amish rioting, beheading people, infiltrating governments, threatening violence to silence their critics, changing the contents of public school textbooks, or blowing up buses.
Ideology actually counts."

We don't have a situation where religions are all the same but one is being picked on unfairly. We have a situation where most religions share many principles about universal love and kindness, but Islam does not. According to Islamic doctrine, Muslims are the best of people and non-Muslims are the worst of people and deserve to suffer in this life and burn in the afterlife.

One Muslim man in the video implied that if only people could get to know him and his family, their suspicions would disappear. I wanted to tell him, "Whether or not your family members are personable is not what concerns us. We wonder whether you believe in jihad in any form. We wonder if you pay your
zakat and thus potentially fund suicide bombers. We wonder if you participate in CAIR or ISNA or any of the other Muslim organizations under the umbrella of the Muslim Brotherhood and we wonder if you've aligned yourself with the Brotherhood's goal to sabotage and undermine our government. We wonder if you believe in reverse integration and if you're striving in the way of Allah to Islamize America. We wonder if you follow the Koranic teachings to never make friends with non-Muslims — to go ahead and fake it, but never actually befriend them or like them."

If he is actively working toward
Islam's prime directive, no amount of "getting to know him and his family" will matter. What might matter is if he acknowledged those teachings and told us he rejected them. That would at least be a start. But in the video, which would make any PR hack proud, you hear nothing that even approaches that level of honesty.

If these American Muslims are really so baffled, they should read their own doctrines. And if they have read them, their "bafflement" is a deceit because anyone reading the Koran or Muhammad's words and deeds would not be baffled in the slightest. It would be obvious what non-Muslims don't like about it.

Why does it matter? These Muslims are not a threat to national security, are they? Why not let them continue in their innocence?
Because they are having children, and in a recent study in Britain, researchers found that second-generation Muslims are more "radical" than their immigrant parents. That is, they hold more orthodox views. In other words, they believe in Islam's prime directive. They are more committed to jihad than their first-generation parents.

Why would this be? Because of what I'm harping on: All these "perfectly nice Muslims" in the video are raising their children without ever telling them that supremacist and intolerant teachings are strewn throughout the Koran and Sunna, and without saying, "but we completely reject those teachings." No, they say nothing of the sort. They do just the opposite. They tell them being a Muslim is wonderful, that the Koran is the word of the Almighty, and that Muslims are being unfairly persecuted by non-Muslims around the world.

So our young Muslim grows up alienated from his surrounding culture and ignorant of Islamic doctrine and yet considering it an elemental foundation of his identity that he is a Muslim. This makes him fairly easy to recruit by devout Muslims who simply tell the kid to read the Koran and discover
his obligations as a Muslim. The teenager is only too eager to see his parents as hypocrites, and becomes a devout Muslim, committed to jihad like it says in the Koran he is supposed to be. The result: Second-generation Muslims are more radical than their immigrant parents.

Another video, this one produced by teenaged American Muslims, who clearly have no clue about the doctrines of their own religion, yet feel self-righteously justified in vilifying non-Muslims who know more about their own religious doctrines than they do: The End of Islamophobia.


In an article entitled,
Why 'Islamophobia' is Less Thinly Veiled in Europe, the author, Robert Marquand, writes, "In university settings and among some Muslim moderates, frank reappraisals of the Koran are under way, which includes a tougher look at its calls for militancy." He presented this fact as if it should put all our worries to rest.

Some Muslims are taking a tougher look? That is not a big relief. Islamic doctrines are clear, straightforward, and easy to find. They don't need to be "looked at" — they have been looked at, studied, memorized, clarified, and analyzed for 1400 years. And they were pretty clear and straightforward to begin with. They don't need to be looked at. They need to be vociferously repudiated, explicitly and forcefully.

Violent and intolerant teachings in Islamic doctrine are not superfluous addendum that can be easily discarded; they are embedded deep in the core of Islam throughout its doctrine and throughout its history. And orthodox Muslims are acting on these passages all over the world, killing people, destroying property, wrecking lives, and worming their way into positions of power. They're doing it right now, today.

Someone will die today because of these doctrines. By any definition, the situation is urgent. A "tougher look" doesn't cut it. Not even close. Does Marquand really think we can all relax now because some Muslim intellectuals at a few universities are taking a "tougher look?" He must be joking.

Marquand quotes Ahmet Mahamat, an immigrant from Chad who lives in France. Mahamat said, "Immigrants are linked to criminality or delinquency or fanaticism." He meant "linked in peoples' prejudiced minds." Poor Mahamat. We are supposed to feel sorry for him. But I wanted to tell him to suck it up and prove people wrong, just like every immigrant group before him has had to do.

Almost everywhere, when immigrants arrive on foreign shores, they face prejudice. And if they work hard and prove themselves loyal members of that society, they are eventually accepted and embraced.

That's how it works. You want to be on our team? Then prove yourself worthy. We don't owe you anything. We've already let you move here — the rest is up to you. If anything, you owe us.

But Mahamat is pursuing the example of Muhammad the Whiner. "I look in the eyes of so many people," he says, "and what I see does not correspond to who I am. They see another me."

I want to tell him, "Look, Mahamat, we know
the ideology you supposedly believe in. You say you're a Muslim. We naturally assume you believe in Islam. We assume you are an adherent of Islamic doctrine, which would mean you believe in the supremacism and intolerance inherent in your ideology. Either stop calling yourself a Muslim or explicitly say, 'I reject jihad, I reject Muhammad's political, supremacist model, and I embrace Western values of freedom, women's rights, religious equality, etc.' It took me all of ten seconds to say that, so what's the problem? If you can't honestly say those things, then our suspicions are correct, so quit your whining and get used to permanent rejection because you do not belong in this society."


When you know something about an ideology, you treat the person differently,
and you should. You don't feed a Jain a steak dinner when they come to your house (Jains believe you should not kill any living creature). You don't invite a Buddhist with you on a deer hunt (Buddhists refrain from harming living beings).

If you know about someone's ideology, you usually will (and definitely should) treat them differently.

And in the same way, if someone's ideology calls for unrelenting jihad against non-Muslims until the whole world submits to Islamic law, generally speaking, you don't invite them to come live in your country and bring their wives. And if they are already in your country, you usually will (and definitely should) be wary of them until they prove their devotion and loyalty to your country and the principles your society is founded on.

This should be common sense. If it doesn't make sense to you, your first step should be to
take the pledge and read the Koran.

For those who unevasively reject jihad in their speech and action, we should treat them like anyone else. No better, no worse.

I know many will think, "I don't care what they
say. They could be lying." And of course that's true. But this is the place to start. The next step is to see if their actions match their words. This is true with anyone. If someone says they are on your team, you don't automatically trust them with your children. You get to know them. If their behavior doesn't match what they say, you stop trusting them, just as you should.

But the point is, none of us should be at all shy about speaking frankly about the principles in Islamic doctrine. Speak openly about it, and ask Muslims directly where they stand.

This policy will be hard on everyone in the short run but ultimately it will solve a huge problem we now face, which is that heterodox Muslims are reluctant to speak up about what they really believe, and that leaves us not knowing how to treat them. Who is committed to jihad and who isn't? We don't know who to trust or how to treat them. We are collectively filled with an awkward uncertainty about Islam.

Meanwhile, true believers in jihad are busy Islamizing the West while we hesitate, paralyzed by our uncertainty. This has got to stop immediately.

We call on all non-Muslims in the free world to join us in this stand — to put the onus on each individual Muslim (not just "Muslim organizations"). We must make this clear to every person who calls himself a Muslim: If you do not openly reject the doctrine of jihad when given an opportunity to do so, we must assume you abide by it and believe in it since it is a central part of your religious doctrine.

The result will be an openness and clarity that will allow us to move forward, stopping the orthodox Muslims from proceeding with their Islamization project, freeing the heterodox Muslims from their prison of silence, and freeing ourselves from having to live with uncertainty, suspiciousness, or hatred in our day-to-day lives.


Anonymous 6:26 PM  

treat them the exact same way they treat us intheir countries, no citizenship, jail if they break any of our laws, deportations, population exchanges.

Citizen Warrior 11:25 PM  

Anonymous, what about Muslims born here? You would deny them citizenship?

Anonymous 11:37 PM  

We should challenge Muslims amongst us to understand John Lennon's "Imagine" and Joni Mitchell's "Woodstock".

Anonymous 12:07 AM  

Citizen Warrior, this is as superb an article as your Islamic memeplex one!

What you are essentially challenging is the 'Silence of the Ummah".

It would be interesting to see how many (if any) Western Islamic institutions (CAIR etc.) will have condemned the suicide bombing of the UN in Nigeria within,say, 24 hours of this atrocity?

Also, how they condemn it - on the technicality of not having given 'fair warning' that the UN should convert?

Anonymous 12:10 AM  

Citizen Warrior, what you are also saying is that we have a situation here of the "Silence of the Lambs" vs. the "Silence of the Ummah" that cannot continue without the "lambs" eventually going down.

Anonymous 12:14 AM  

If the Islamo-ignorant Westerners remain both ignorant and Islam Non-Resistant, then the Politically Correct and the Western Left will herd us off the cliff into the sea like the Mad Sheep Dogs in far From the Madding Crowd.

Anonymous 1:54 AM  

The Ummah is never silent when it comes to many subjects.

"The horrific bombing and massacres in Norway should be heeded as wake-up call for the growing threat for more than a decade posed by far-right extremists and other groups in Western countries. The West has been in denial of the danger they pose to our societies despite mounting evidence."

Since the Ogre Of Oslo's massacre, Islamic terrorists have already killed far more in the first month post Oslo alone.

If the Ummah can condemn Oslo its Silence in the wake of the weekly atrocities performed in the name of Islam is inexcusable.

The Ramadan Bombathon keeps the score:

600 dead in almost 150 attacks in 26 days of Ramadan.

Anonymous 9:45 AM  

Excellent evaluation of the situation, and the only solution is honest discussion.

For decades, Muslims have been able to hide behind our ignorance of the roots of their religion; this is changing, and they fear the exposure.

The majority of American Muslims are shocked and embarrassed when they research the writings and history that forms the basis of their religion.

The only true moderate Muslim is one who rejects these writings; pretty hard to do when you know the consequences.

AmericaForever 3:42 PM  

That's quite an article ! But it's too long to respond to every thought, so I'll just say a few words :

Am I a bigot ? Sometimes I feel so guilty that I find all Muslims kind of repulsive. Shhh---don't tell anyone I admitted this ! I hate to think I am prejudiced , but I can't bring myself to find a lot of room in my heart to consider ANY Muslim, radical or otherwise someone I'd want to dine at my table.
Maybe it's that it is hard for me to separate a follower of Islam from Islam itself. Then too, think of all the Muslims we have caught just before they were able to go all the way and commit an act of terrorism : they were considered just "good neighbors"; not very different from any other citizen.

Bigotry IS wrong, I know, and it is just another word for unfairness. Since I have never been unfair to any Muslim nor do I intend to be, maybe I don't have to apologize after all.

You say we should be "straight across the table" with them and have then understand how we feel about their behavior as citizens of this country. Ha- I know that sounds like a good idea, but you have to be prepared to be pegged a "hater" or a "bigot" or a "racist". Do you think even the most "benign" Muslim is not going to try and get sympathy by making averyone believe he/she is a victim of your "negative attitude " ?

Of course nobody will ever admit they can't stand Muslims .

I have a vision of the future- the future belongs to Islam. What a thought.

Citizen Warrior 4:48 PM  

Someone emailed this comment:

Dear C.W.,


To strengthen your points, I provide one example and add to it using capital letters (the addition makes it clear what we want and that includes their non-paticipation in any fashion and their word that they will not support the doctrine(s) in any way including, but not limited to, giving money to the cause:

"So it is up to Muslims to tell us they do not believe in that doctrine, and to say specifically which parts of the doctrine they do not endorse, AND WHICH THEY WILL NEVER PARTICIPATE IN OR SUPPORT IN ANY WAY."

Anonymous 3:29 AM  

Alas, Muslims have to deny the perfection of their prophet to embrace the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

Faced with this predicament, the Islamic nations brought out the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI) as an alternative.

But this is subject to Sharia Law - and inevitably the CDHRI will clash with the UDHR.

If they succeed in subjugating the world to Islam taqiyya will no longer be necessary so to be true to their faith they will have to stone adulteresses.

Thus Muslims are faced with having to refute major portions of the Islamic Memeplex to align themselves with a non-violent outlook.

Unlike Christians, they do not have a New Testament abrogation of the Old Testament.

Anonymous 3:35 AM  

Even if Muslims in the West signed a "contract" denouncing the violent requirements of Islam they can do so via taqiyya.

So we will never know if they are being sincere or not.

Sooner or later, in this century or the next, war between Islam and the Rest of The World is inevitable.

The danger is that Muslims will practice taqiyya until they have reached Critical Power at which point the Islamic Screws will be turned upon the rest of us.

Then it will be too late ...

Ade 5:28 AM  

Excellent article. This sets out the correct attitude for those of us who don't want to hate and don't want to be intolerant but do want to protect our Western values.

Anonymous 2:02 PM  

The 'Arab Awakening' and the 'Arab Spring' have come whilst there is still time to prevent the subjugation of the world to Islam.

The Islamists within the Three Arab Spring nations (Tunisia, Egypt,Libya) will not be able to contain themselves.

With no West to blame now the Arab Spring nations will be in the spotlight.

Especially Libya who relied upon Nato to oust Gaddafi.

All we have to do now is observe how they unfold.

As they unfold for the worst we can observe how the Muslims in the West react to this.

We should also concede that both Iraq and Afghanistan were futile missions and we need to learn from these mistakes.

The sole mission now should be to withdraw and abandon these two nations to their Islamic fate.

However, we need to evacuate the remaining half a million Christians from Iraq.

At least in Afghanistan we would only need a single planeful to do the job.

Europe should stand by to absorb the Copts and India to absorb all non-muslims from Pakistan.

Citizen Warrior 3:53 PM  

Someone sent this in an email:

After 9/11, I didn't see any of the "innocent Muslims" marching with U.S. flags on behalf of their fellow Americans, who had just been slaughtered by Muslims. As far as I am concerned, they are the enemy.

This was my response:

Blind, undiscriminating, overgeneralized hatred is just as mistaken as blind, undiscriminating, overgeneralized trust.

Overgeneralization is the enemy of us all.

Citizen Warrior 11:29 AM  

Someone emailed me this question:

How do I address to a conservative "friend" on FB who think Muslims in America should have the same rights as non-Muslim Americans when considering that Muslims in other countries do not really grant or respect the same rights to other non-Muslim minorities?

Do Muslims in America respect our US Constitution and First Amendment more or less concerning criticism of Islam, its core doctrines, law practices, and actions of the followers? Do they place US Constitution on greater, equal, or less footing with the Quran?

Here was my response:

One of the principles of America that we have struggled to apply is to treat each person according to his merits rather than according to his religion or race. So your friend is right. Muslims in America should have the same rights. A Muslim in America is not responsible for what Muslims do in another country. It is the ideology that is responsible, and the individual people who choose to follow that ideology. If there is a person in America that calls himself a Muslim and yet does not follow much of the ideology, giving it only lip service or not even that, should he pay the price for a fanatic in Saudi Arabia? No. That would be like taking away the rights of a Chinese American because China is a dictatorship. We don't operate that way in America. It would be very un-American.

When we find a Muslim, or indeed anyone, who is actively working to undermine our government or Constitution, however, their activity should be curtailed. Should we SUSPECT a Muslim more than an Amish farmer? Yes. A Muslim is more likely to commit sedition, based on the ideology they say they believe in.

Anonymous 9:10 AM  

Citizen Warrior, your principled response to the email on how Muslim Americans should be treated is excellent.

Your site urges resistance to the supremacism of Islam without hatred or racism.

Ultimately we are all more similar to each other at DNA level than we think.

The difference is the mind poison that is fed into us ...

With his wisdom Mandela freed the majority of whites from the supremacist yoke of Apartheid that had entrapped them within petty cages of racial hate ...

Somehow we need to free Muslims from the yoke of Islam so that they too can be free to express the natural humanity that is inherent in all of us.

Anonymous 9:02 PM  

I have found the even the so called "moderate muslims" impossible to have a dialogue with - they are so indoctrinated that they refuse to think rationally and openly...

we must expose the "evil" that Islam is...

Horatio 7:57 AM  

Your link to the Freedom Pledge is incorrect. Should be

Anonymous 2:34 PM  

If they say they are Muslim, then they hate you, PERIOD! If they tell me they're Muslim, then I hate them too! These people are the most hateful people on earth, and need to be reckoned with. If you don't eradicate them, they will kill you. Open your eyes America. Just what does it take to make you believers???

Anonymous 7:30 AM  

Speaking of Tawfiq Hamid, he has resources to help us do what you are talking about.

Your ideas are briefly summed up on his web page, "ABCs of Radical Islam".

In addition he has prepared a brief comic brochure, "Mr. Tolerance", based on this concept that can also be printed out and given to Muslim acquaintances to see if they agree. It might simplify the conversation or make it easier for those who feel uncomfortable with a direct verbal confrontation:

Anonymous 2:33 AM

Gary Fouse 8:47 AM  


Being active in the anti-Jihad movement and knowing many Muslims, your article hit me personally and helps me deal with my own dilemma.
Just last month, I personally delivered a copy of the Freedom Pledge to Maher Hathout in Los Angeles, who claimed he had never received it. He has now-on videotape.

Great writing.

Christopher Logan 10:46 PM  

I agree with the we should question them part, and I do on a near daily basis. Not ONE of them has condemned Sharia Law. But sorry CW, this plan to separate the "good" Muslims from the bad is a proven failure in Europe.

Letting them come here no matter what they say is suicidal. If their immigration is not ended, it is just a matter of time until we lose this war.

@Ade....tolerating Islam is a slow death sentence for the West.

Reading some of these comments makes me see that we just might lose this war. We will not win by being nice, and we will not win with what is being done now. CW...the way America operates is not winning this war. The rules must change.

That is not a call for violence.

Take care.

Christopher Logan 10:50 PM  

CW...if they are made aware of the Sharia campaign that is taking place across America and do not leave Islam, they are part of the problem. Apparently things have to get as bad here as they are in Europe for people to call for the tough measures that are needed to win this.

Robert the Biker 6:46 AM  

Kindly explain to me how the islamic doctrines of taqiyya and kitman allow me to accept as truthfull any statement by a muslim.

Citizen Warrior 1:44 PM  

Robert, that is a problem. Perhaps lie detection technology might be used. Or some of the human lie detector techniques that Paul Ekman is teaching our security people.

Citizen Warrior 1:46 PM  

Paris, you must be from Europe? I understand Europe is in a desperate situation, and you may be right -- actually deporting Muslim immigrants may be necessary to save Europe.

I don't know how you would deport a Muslim born in your country, though.

Citizen Warrior 1:46 PM  

I mean, where would you send them? Who would take them?

Unknown 12:15 PM  

CW - a very well written article, and crystallizing many thoughts I've had, about how to determine the mind-set of a Muslim. Since, by definition ( the Koran), they are against the west, against democracy, and against human rights.
I was seriously wondering about a lie detector. Taquiyah is a powerful mechanism, to disguise the truth.

Citizen Warrior 4:20 PM  

Thanks, Chris. A lie detector may be the only answer to the dilemma.

Anonymous 2:38 PM  

To be honest I once was amicable to all, I am not anymore, I feel they are still Muslim, This is our country not theirs if it is so great then they should go back, i realize this is not a politically correct, but I wish to be not threatened while I am not a train by not seeing the face of cloaked woman, and I do not wish to have fear that I never had to experience.

Hassaan 9:08 PM  

Do NOT believe the lies of the Islamophobic bigots and LIARS.

The holy, pure, perfect, and infallible Prophet Muhammad (SAW/Peace be upon him) is NOT as they say and NEVER did as they said.

The holy, pure, perfect, and infallible Prophet Muhammad (SAW/Peace be upon him) is the BEST example for humanity.

In reality the holy, pure, perfect and infallible Prophet Muhammad (SAW/Peace be upon him) IS the MOST honourable, righteous, pious, kind, sincere, handsome, beautiful, pure, intelligent, honest, modest, knowledgeable, and GREATEST creation of God Almighty.

Islam is the best way of life.

The Quran is the perfect text of God Almighty!

Anonymous 9:00 PM  

Hassaan said:

"The holy, pure, perfect, and infallible Prophet Muhammad (SAW/Peace be upon him) is NOT as they say and NEVER did as they said."

"The holy, pure, perfect, and infallible Prophet Muhammad (SAW/Peace be upon him) is the BEST example for humanity."

A question with reference number 1809 issued on 3/8/1421 (Islamic calendar) regarding mufa’khathat was presented to the grand Mufti Abu Abdullah Muhammad Al-Shemary.
The inquirer asked the following:

"It has become wide spread these days, and especially during weddings, the habit of mufa’khathat of the children (mufa’khathat literally translated means "placing between the thighs" which means placing the male member between the thighs of a child). What is the opinion of scholars knowing full well that the prophet, the peace and prayer of Allah be upon him, also practiced the "thighing" of Aisha - the mother of believers - may Allah be please with her."

After the Mufti and his committee studied the issue, they gave the following reply:

"It has not been the practice of the Muslims throughout the centuries to resort to this unlawful practice that has come to our countries from pornographic movies that the kufar (infidels) and enemies of Islam send. As for the prophet, peace and prayer of Allah be upon him, thighing his fiancee Aisha. She was six years of age and he could not have intercourse with her due to her small age. That is why [the prophet] peace and prayer of Allah be upon him placed his [male] member between her thighs and massaged it softly, as the apostle of Allah had control of his [male] member not like other believers."

Is this " the best example for humanity"? If it is, then the Islamic god must be A PEDOPHILE MONSTER.

Hassaan said:

"In reality the holy, pure, perfect and infallible Prophet Muhammad (SAW/Peace be upon him) IS the MOST honourable, righteous, pious, kind, sincere, handsome, beautiful, pure, intelligent, honest, modest, knowledgeable, and GREATEST creation of God Almighty."

The perfect, kind , sincere and righteous prophet of Islam "married" , read raped, a child when she still was playing with her dolls.

"Aisha was still a child when Muhammad married her, and she continued to play with her toys."
-W. Montgomery Watt - Muhammad At Medina (P. 323) - Oxford At The Clarendon Press, 1977,

For all times before Islam, taking a child and sexually molest the child is considered a pure evil. To molest a child at the age of 6 and rape her at 9 while proclaiming being a "prophet" is a despicable evil act. If God picked such "a prophet" to represent him for the entire humanity, proclaiming that he is "the greatest creation " and giving his divine sanction allowing his "prophet" to rape an innocent little girl playing with her dolls, then he would no longer be God but an accomplice in all the criminal acts perpetrated by his evil "prophet". Such God would be equally guilty in committing all criminal acts perpetrated by his "messenger" . Such God would be just a wanton criminal. A Monster of the Universe. That's why Islam cannot have God. Islam is the greatest crime and sin ever committed by man against God. Any god. Islamic god Allah is anti-God.

"Islam is the best way of life."

Sure. For Muslims only.

"The Quran is the perfect text of God Almighty!"

The Koran has seven versions circulating today in the Islamic world. Which version is "the most perfect text"?

Anonymous 4:04 PM  

"I mean, where would you send them? Who would take them?"

Good question offering no answers. However when a situation gets from bad to much worse, hardly this question will be a deterring factor.

√Čric Zemmou,r a French writer and political journalist, in his interview with Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera suggested that all 5 million of the country's Muslims should be deported to prevent civil war. I don't think Zemmour is the only guy in Europe thinking like this. If a civil war really breaks out in France, thanks to Muslims whose presence is like a cancerous tumor for any society, hardly the Frenchies will ask someone who would take their Muslims. North Africa and former French colonies surely could be be their natural place of residence as most of the French Muslims came to France exactly from these parts of the world.

Historically too, expelled nations is not a new thing. in 1922, 1.8 million people were relocated to resolve the Turkey-Greece war. Following World War II, 3,000,000 Germans were expelled from countries of Eastern Europe. When the Indian sub-continent was divided, over 12 million people were transferred between India and Pakistan. No one asked "who would take their people". Why Muslims should be different?

Anonymous 12:34 PM  

I agree with the tough love strategy, sort of. More like a tough shit strategy.
We start by amending freedom of religion in America. In order to do that, there will have to be a significant event in the US where Muslim Americans cause harm to Americans in the name of jihad. Oh wait, that was 9/11. Ok, so maybe that needs to happen again, and this time the idiots have to say "we do this in the name of Durkadurka." Then what do we do? It's sad, and it kind of sucks, but our only option is to fight fire with fire. Religion with religion. We would have *no choice* but to make Christianity our only allowed religion. We do this by saying freedom of religion within Christianity (freedom of denomination). There is also no law that says Americans have freedom FROM religion. This sucks for Buddhists and Jews, but seriously, look at what is on the line here. You can convert back later or practice in private when this threat from these PSYCHOPATHS has been averted. I think, taking human nature into account, amending freedom of religion is the ONLY way to fix this and maintain our way of life. They want us all dead.

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