The Rebellion of Muslim Women May Defeat the Third Jihad


I'VE BEEN reading an interesting book called How Civilizations Die and have come across some surprising facts. The book was published in 2011 and uses very recent population and birth rate data. Here's the bottom line: Women in Muslim countries are helping the counterjihad by not having many children. They are undermining orthodox Muslims by denying them soldiers. Here are some passages from the book:

In November 2010 President Ahmadinejad demanded that Iranian girls marry at the age of sixteen and produce more children... For years, Ahmadinejad has denounced Iran's falling birth rate as a Western conspiracy to hobble his country...In 2006 he declared that Iran's population should nearly double: "I am against saying that two children are enough..."

But Iranian women are doing the opposite of what Ahmadinejad asked. Back in 2006, when he first discovered the supposed Western plot to depopulate his country, Iranian women were having two children on average. By 2010 their fertility had dropped to only 1.7 children. Among the Persians who make up just over half of Iran's people — the rest are Turkish-speaking Azeris, Kurds, Arabs, and Baluchis — fertility is even lower. And in Iran's urban centers, there are even fewer births. In Tehran, the nation's capital, fertility is just 1.5 children per woman.

A country needs a birth rate of 2.1 just to maintain its population at the current level.

This same phenomenon is happening in other places in the Muslim world where women are literate. And the higher the literacy rate, the lower the birth rate. Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan has also pleaded with Turkish women to have more children. In a speech to an audience of women, he asked them to each have at least three children. They ignored him. "Erdogan asked women to have three children, and the demand for contraceptives went up," complained a well-known Turkish academic.

This trend is following Muslims into the Western world. Here's more from the book:

In Germany, for example, Turkish women had on average two more children apiece than German women in 1970. But by 1996, the gap had narrowed to a one-child advantage for the Turks. Muslim women in Austria bore an average of 3.1 children each in 1981, almost double the 1.7 fertility rate for Catholic Austrians. Twenty years later, in 2001, the Catholic fertility rate was down to 1.3, but Muslim fertility had fallen to 2.3. In Holland, Turkish immigrant women were at a fertility rate of 3.2 children in 1990, double the Dutch fertility rate of 1.6. But by 2008, Turkish women in Holland were having only 1.9 children apiece. And in Denmark, the fertility of native-born women reached 1.9 in 2009, against 1.6 for immigrant women. (The figure for Danish women, though, includes second-generation immigrants.)

The pattern also appears to apply to African Muslim immigrants to France, which takes in more immigrants from Muslim Senegal than from any other country in sub-Saharan Africa. Although Senegal's total fertility rate of 5.2 (four children in cities and six children in the countryside) is one of the world's highest, Senegalese immigrants average only 2.12 children, slightly higher than the French average..."

We sometimes fix our attention on the influence orthodox Muslims are having on our culture while overlooking the fact that our culture is also having an influence on the Muslims who move to developed nations.

The more educated the women, the fewer children they bore. The key element is literacy. Literacy reduces both population and fundamentalism (orthodoxy).

All this leads to the inevitable conclusion that if you want to do something to stop the demographic jihad, you should pour your efforts into helping Muslim women become literate, and you should get on it now.

The Girl Effect helps educate young women (read more about the Girl Effect here). While there are many organizations dedicated to literacy for girls, most of them don't work in Muslim lands. But the Girl Effect does.

If you've had trouble talking to some of your friends and family about Islam (trying to get them concerned about the third jihad) I suggest you switch tactics with the resistant ones. Stop talking about Islam with them and promote the Girl Effect instead. Promote literacy for women. Become a fanatic about it. They'll be so relieved, they will gladly join your new cause just to stop hearing you talk about Islam. They never need to know that all their efforts are doing exactly what you've always wanted.


Who is to Blame for Islam's Relentless Encroachment?


WE'VE MENTIONED a page of comments about sociopaths (see article here). In the comments, several sociopaths have posted something. But mostly the posts are from victims of sociopaths — ex-lovers, parents, children, siblings of sociopaths. They tell their story of woe, how they were abused, taken for all their money, toyed with in a cruel way, heartlessly hurt, etc. The point of view of the victims is almost always the same: How can anyone do this to another human being? The point of view of the sociopaths is also consistent: How can anyone be naive, trusting, and foolish enough to let someone do this to them? The same question could be asked of modern Western society. If we didn't have so many people who believed that everyone is good, that every culture is equally deserving of respect, and that every religion is at its core the same as every other religion, we wouldn't be in this mess, regardless of what orthodox Muslims were doing. The reason sociopaths are able to take advantage of their victims is because the victims do not believe someone can be so cold and unfeeling. They don't know anything about sociopathy. They don't know it is possible. And they assume everyone else is like them: Good at heart. A decent, law-abiding citizen who tries to be fair with everyone and who feels empathy for others. The assumption is their undoing. Sociopaths exploit that assumption for all its worth, and leave a trail of broken lives in their wake. Same with the West. The assumptions many of us are making has allowed Islamic supremacism to get as far as it has gotten.


Definition of Multiculturalism


MULTICULTURALISM is a philosophy that appreciates ethnic diversity within a society and that encourages people to learn from the contributions of those of diverse ethnic backgrounds.

There is nothing wrong with multiculturalism. In fact, it's wonderful. It makes the world a better place. It enriches everybody. But wholesale, indiscriminate, across-the-board, reckless multiculturalism is incomplete. It is missing one simple distinction, and that makes it blind.

Multiculturalism is great. Blind multiculturalism can get us into trouble.

The missing distinction is mutuality. It's great to tolerate other religions or ethnic customs if the people following those religions and customs also tolerate ours. It is self-inflicted abuse to tolerate them when they do not tolerate ours. And it is cultural suicide to tolerate a religion that actively tries to undermine or destroy ours.

It is a crime against humanist values to let them be taken away (one small concession at a time) by a less-tolerant culture simply because the less-tolerant culture is more insistent, aggressive, and relentless.

Read more: Multiculturalism and the Defense of Liberty.


The Calcutta Quran Petition


ROBERT SPENCER asks the question: Should the Quran be banned? Here's a quote from his book, The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran:

They tried to ban it in India.

In March 1985, two Hindus, Chandmal Chopra and Sital Singh, entered a Writ Petition at the Calcutta High Court alleging that the Koran violated Indian law because it "incites violence, disturbs public tranquility, promotes, on ground of religion, feelings of enmity, hatred and ill-will between different religious communities and insults other religions or religious beliefs and other communities of India." Quoting numerous belligerent Koranic verses, Chopra explained why these were hardly irrelevant sayings from a dusty, unread book:

While the Koran abounds with sayings which incite violence, insult the religious beliefs of other communities and even exhort the Muslims to kill and murder non-Muslims, the problem is aggravated by yet another fact which has been true in the past and is universally true in our own times, that unlike other communities Muslims are, and even fresh converts tend to become, highly orthodox people and follow the sayings of the book with a fanatical zeal with the result that whichever country has their sizable number amongst its population can never have peace on its soil.


Why I'm Worried About Islam But Not Christianity


First let me say right up front: I am not a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, or a Buddhist, and I never have been. Neither were my parents. But whenever I talk about Islam to people here in America they almost always bring up Christianity. They compare Christianity with Islam, basically implying that I am criticizing Islam but Christianity is just as bad. Even Christians say this to me.

People who know nothing about Islam try to defend it just because they think of Islam as the underdog (an impression orthodox Muslims have carefully created), and good citizens everywhere instinctively want to defend any group (especially an underdog group) against discrimination or "racism" (even though Islam is not a race).

While Islam looks like other religions westerners are familiar with — Judaism and Christianity — and portrays itself as such, it is profoundly different in important ways.

In response to my statement, "Islam makes the attainment of political goals a religious duty," somebody said to me recently, "Christianity is a political religion too." Below is my answer to him.

This is why I'm worried about Islam's relentless encroachment far more than Christianity's:

  • Plenty of people in America and Europe are already aware of the political dangers of Christianity, and have long ago taken steps to prevent it from taking over governments.
  • In contrast, very few people in America and Europe know about the dangers of Islam, and, in fact, people are so reflexively against Christianity, they tend to favor Islam and give it the benefit of the doubt. When I talk to people about the most basic principles of Islam, I am often shocked at how little people know about this religion.
  • Some Christians have political goals, just as some dog fanciers have political goals.
  • But Islam is different in an important way: Muslims have a religious duty to work for political goals — it is a form of devotion and worship — and Muslims don't get to choose what goals they should strive for; the goals have been decreed by Allah. Mohammad was against living in monasteries or living a contemplative life. Muslims do not meditate. The way to show devotion to Allah is to fight for Islam. Literally (and politically).
  • As far as I know, no Christians have expressed any desire to kill me. And it would have no doctrinal support from the New Testament if they had.
  • Many Jihadis have openly expressed the desire to kill all Americans, many Americans have already been killed by them, and they have plenty of doctrinal support from the Qur'an to justify this killing.
  • When Christians kill, it can only be in spite of Christian teachings.
  • When a Jihadi kills, it is likely because of Islamic teachings, and they will tell you so openly and proudly.
  • Christians sometimes push for the spread or protection of Christian ideas.
  • Jihadis push to do away with hard-earned freedoms and replace the laws of free countries with a repressive, backward system (Shari'a law). It is a religious duty for a Muslim to relentlessly strive for the establishment of Shari'a wherever they are. Allah considers "man-made" governments (democracies, for example) to be illegitimate. The only legitimate laws are Allah's.
  • Christian morality insists they tell the truth to all people.
  • Islam's morality insists they tell the truth to fellow Muslims but to lie to non-Muslims if it can further the political goals of Islam.
  • Christians voluntarily try to follow Jesus's example, and he was peaceful and kind.
  • Muslims must follow Mohammad's example (it says so 91 times in the Qur'an they must do so) and Mohammad tortured and killed people.
  • For sinning, Jesus advocated forgiveness.
  • For sinning, Mohammad advocated stoning and beheading.
  • Jesus encouraged his followers to turn the other cheek when people criticized Jesus.
  • Mohammad encouraged his followers to assassinate people who criticized Mohammad. Several people who had criticized Mohammad or Islam were killed by Mohammad's followers with Mohammad's consent and approval. One was even assassinated at his request for the sin of criticizing Islam.
  • According to Christianity, the guaranteed way of getting into heaven is to believe Jesus died for your sins. 
  • According to Islam, the only way for a man to guarantee his passage to heaven is to die while fighting for Islam. By the way, these points I'm making about Islam are not a twisting of Mohammad's teachings; they are not an "interpretation" of Islamic doctrine. Well-read Muslims would agree with my statements. This is all based on mainstream Islamic theology.

Those are the main reasons I am more worried about Islam than Christianity. I used to think Islam and Christianity were very similar, but they are not. Why is Islam so different? The reason is historically interesting.

All other major religions were started within an already-existing state. Islam is an historical exception to this rule.

Any organized government will, of course, put a stop to violent uprisings of a rebellious political group. Christianity arose within the Roman Empire, for example. If Christianity had been a militant or political uprising — if Christianity had tried to take over the government — Rome would have killed or imprisoned all the followers. Probably many military or political religions did start up then, but we've never heard of them. They couldn't get off the ground.

But Islam arose in Arabia when there was no central ruling power. The whole area was comprised of individual tribes. Under those circumstances, the most efficient way to gain converts was by force. And that's how Islam came to be.

Mohammad borrowed many ideas from both Judaism and Christianity, and that's why it bears a superficial similarity to familiar religions. But it is fundamentally different. The circumstances of its time and place of origin led to teachings that were written down and declared sacred, and those teachings now rule 1.3 billion people.

Mohammad's life itself is an example of the principle (that when you don't have power, you cannot promote violence). When Mohammad first started Islam, he was one man with no political power surrounded by many others with their own religions and lots of power. He could not be belligerent or start any wars, so he used persuasion. In the first half of his career, using his persuasive skills, he gained 150 converts. In the second half of his career, he used warfare more and more as he gained numerical and financial strength. Using the "conversion by the sword" method, he gained tens of thousands of converts in the same amount of time. Converting by force is a more effective method if you can get away with it, especially if you can reinforce it with total control of government and the law.

Mohammad created a complete system that rules every aspect of life. But in order to make the system work, Islam must be the law of the land. It doesn't work, for example, to cover all your women so Muslim men are not sexually tempted by their bodies or faces if half the women in the country are not Muslims and walk around in shorts. For the system to work, every woman must be covered. And for that to happen, the government has to follow Shari'a law.

Mohammad used force to gain converts, and all his decrees and justifications for his actions were written down in the Qur'an, which are now memorized and studied by over a billion people, many of whom take the teachings to heart. The result is a powerful, unrelenting push for Islamic political power all over the world. Their percentage of the world's population keeps increasing.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

If you like this article, send it to people who give you the Christianity comparison. Read it several times and use the specific answers next time someone makes the comparison in a conversation. And if you can think of any other good answers, please leave them in the comments to this article for others to use.


How to Justify Continual Jihad and Keep a Clean Conscience


ACCORDING TO the Qur'an, a Muslim must continually and aggressively advance the cause of Allah. It is his duty, whether he likes it or not. And if he doesn't want to burn face down in the fires of hell forever with nothing to drink but boiling water, he had better accept his duty and fulfill it. (Read more about the amazing collection of instructions in the Qur'an.)

The only way a Muslim man can guarantee a place for himself in heaven (and avoid eternal torment in hell) is to die while fighting for Allah.


The Qur'an also says, "Allah does not love aggressors."

What a dilemma. What's the solution?

Muhammad himself provided the way, and every Muslim is duty-bound to follow Muhammad's example. Muhammad always relentlessly advanced Islam, pushed it forward, prodding and poking those who were not Muslims, criticizing their religions and arguing against their beliefs and practices.

When the kuffar (non-Muslims) responded aggressively to Muhammad's aggressiveness, he called it persecution. The way he saw it, Islam is the true voice of the Almighty, and resisting it is evil. When kuffar resist the relentless advance of Islam, they are "fighting against Islam" and "persecuting Muslims" and it is the duty of all Muslims to rise up in defense of Islam.

This is Muhammad's example, and Muslims around the world have been using it ever since. The method is very clever. Muslims can stay in continual war with kuffar and never appear (either to themselves or their enemies) to be the aggressors.

The reason Muhammad's historical example is important is that jihadists around the world are doing exactly the same thing, and many in the West are buying it and thinking of the West as the "aggressors." This point of view undermines the West's ability to defend itself from a non-stop Islamic advance.

So let's look carefully at how it works.
Muhammad was pushy in Mecca (where he first started Islam). He harshly and publicly criticized the religions practiced by others. They resented this (of course) and criticized Muhammad's religion.

Muhammad kept aggressively insisting everyone needed to convert to Islam and give up their old religions. The more actively he insisted, the more actively they defended themselves. The hostilities escalated. Eventually, Muhammad left Mecca. He spoke of himself as "persecuted and exiled" by those who were unfaithful to the one true Allah.

To retaliate against those who had "persecuted" him (and to gain some wealth for his struggling cult) his men attacked caravans going to Mecca.

This was bad for business in Mecca. Their goods were being stolen before they arrived in Mecca, and their people were being killed. Eventually the Meccans sent out warriors to stop the Muslim raiders.
This led to bigger and bigger battles as Muslims "defended Islam."

In a nutshell, Muhammad's example is this: Anything that in any way interferes with Islamic aggressive advance is labeled persecution or attack which justifies war against the ones resisting (whom we shall call the persecutors and attackers) all the while preventing the appearance of the aggressor because Allah does not love aggressors.

Alert your teammates (other members of your country) of this strategy so they can see it for what it is. If we were not falling for the trick, the policy decisions of the free world would be a lot clearer and simpler.


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