A Promising New Movement in Germany


A group who call themselves "Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the Occident" (PEGIDA) have started a weekly demonstration. They are not violent. And they are emphatically not racist. They are very clear that what they are against is their own politicians ignoring an important cultural phenomenon. They want it talked about.

As one writer said in a German news outlet, (Deutsche Welle), the problem is that "we are not having a proper debate over the concerns that many people have." Instead, we have media reports that fan the flames of conflict, and politicians who only want to avoid the issue.

In October, the number of people marching were just a few hundred. By Christmas, they numbered 17,500.

Bernd Lucke, leader of the Alternative for Germany Party and professor of macroeconomics at Hamburg University says, "Many people in Germany have legitimate concerns about the spread of radical Islamic ideology, which promotes violence against non-Muslims, robs women and girls of their natural rights, and seeks to require the application of Sharia law.... Because the rule of law, tolerance and freedom of religion are fundamental Western values, the PEGIDA movement must leave no doubt that it is precisely these values that it seeks to defend."

"Despite efforts by German politicians and the media to portray PEGIDA as neo-Nazi, the group has taken great pains to distance itself from Germany's extreme right," says Soeren Kern in a report in a Gatestone report. "The group says that it is 'apolitical' and that its main objective is to preserve what is left of Germany's Judeo-Christian culture and values." Half the people who identify as left-wing Social Democrats agree with the aims of PEGIDA.

The following are excerpts from Soeren Kern's report (read the whole report here):

Thousands of German citizens have been taking to the streets to protest the growing "Islamization" of their country.

The protests are part of a burgeoning grassroots movement made up of ordinary citizens who are calling for an end to runaway immigration and the spread of Islamic Sharia law in Germany.

There is a mounting public backlash over what many perceive as the government's indifference to the growing influence of Islam in German society. This backlash represents a potentially significant turning point — one that implies that the days of unrestrained German multiculturalism may be coming to an end.

The latest protest took place in the eastern German city of Dresden on December 8, when more than 10,000 people defied freezing temperatures to express their displeasure with Germany's lenient asylum policies.

Germany — which is facing an unprecedented influx of asylum seekers, including many from Muslim countries — is now the second most popular destination in the world for migrants, after the United States.

The Dresden protest was organized by a new citizens initiative, "Patriotic Europeans against the Islamization of the West," better known by its German abbreviation, PEGIDA, short for "Patriotische Europäer gegen die Islamisierung des Abendlandes."

PEGIDA, which has been organizing so-called "evening walks" (Abendspaziergang) through downtown Dresden every Monday evening since October, has seen the number of protesters increase exponentially from week to week.

Similar anti-Islamization protests have been held in the western German cities of Hannover, Kassel and Düsseldorf...

These protests are similar to, but separate from, other mass demonstrations organized in Cologne and other German cities by a group called Hooligans against Salafists, or HoGeSa.

PEGIDA was launched by Lutz Bachmann, a 41-year-old Dresden native with no background in politics, after government officials in the eastern German state of Saxony announced that they would be opening more than a dozen new shelters to house some 2,000 refugees.

Bachmann says that he is not opposed to legitimate asylum seekers, but that he is against so-called economic refugees who are taking advantage of Germany's generous asylum laws in order to benefit from the country's cradle-to-grave social welfare system. According to Bachmann, most of the asylum seekers in Saxony are males who have left their families behind in war-torn Muslim countries.

Despite efforts by German politicians and the media to portray PEGIDA as neo-Nazi, the group has taken great pains to distance itself from Germany's extreme right. PEGIDA's motto is "We are the people!" (Wir sind das Volk!), the same slogan used by East Germans to bring down the Berlin Wall in 1989.

On December 10, PEGIDA published a "Position Paper" outlining what the group is "for" and "against" in 19 bullet points. These include:

  • PEGIDA is FOR amending the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany to include a list of the right and the responsibility for immigrants to integrate.
  • PEGIDA is AGAINST the establishment of parallel societies/parallel legal systems in our midst, such as Sharia Law, Sharia Police, and Sharia Courts, etc.
  • PEGIDA is AGAINST hate preachers, regardless of religious affiliation.

The Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has already come out in support of the PEGIDA protests in Dresden. The AfD — which wants Germany to leave the euro single currency and promotes a tough line on immigration — received 4.7% of the vote in the September 2013 federal election, narrowly failing to reach the 5% threshold needed for representation in Germany's national parliament.

Since then, support for the AfD has surged. The party has extended its gains in regional elections, and also won nine seats in European Parliament elections in May 2014. A poll published in September 2014 found that one in ten German voters now support the AfD. And AfD spokesman Konrad Adam said the party has a "fundamental sympathy for the PEGIDA movement."

AfD leader Bernd Lucke, a professor of macroeconomics at Hamburg University, summed it up this way: "Many people in Germany have legitimate concerns about the spread of radical Islamic ideology, which promotes violence against non-Muslims, robs women and girls of their natural rights, and seeks to require the application of Sharia law. That citizens are expressing these concerns in nonviolent demonstrations is good and right. It is a sign that these people do not feel that their concerns are being taken seriously by politicians. It is an incentive for all politicians to act more decisively at a time when political Islam is challenging and calling into question our rule of law."


Losing Hope


Somebody wrote this comment: "I'm losing hope. Unfortunately, bigots (and as bigots I don't mean us, but those to defend Islam even if they don't know what it is) are winning. They say things like:

  • Genital mutilation — just their culture
  • Killing — just different values
  • etc...

"There is no hope if they are willing to be dhimmies instead to stand up and say: 'This is our country! Respect our rules and if you don't like them, return to your homeland!'"

How I answered:

This is how a free culture evolves. Every worthy, assumption-busting, tradition-breaking cause has to go through the same stages. First people think it's a bad idea and they fight it tooth and nail. Then they're skeptical but listening. Eventually they think it was their idea all along.

Our challenge is how to reach someone whose mind is already made up. The person you're talking to has already gotten a great deal of "education" about Islam from mainstream media. Mainstream news organizations not only present themselves as unbiased, but they all agree with each other on Islam. I don't know if that's because the Islamic PR machine is so effective, or just because somehow the "anti-Islam" position has been associated with conservatives and most people in the mainstream media are liberals, or because they are afraid of Islamic retaliation, but the upshot is that the person you're talking to has heard everyone in authority that he listens to — NPR and PBS and NBC and CBS and ABC and even the last two presidents — all presenting an identical point of view. Namely, that "Islam teaches peace and terrorists are just wackos who have mistakenly attributed their violence and political actions with Islam, but really it has nothing to do with Islam, and besides, most Muslims are peace-loving people, and they are a persecuted minority so not only should we not criticize them, we should bend over backwards to make them feel welcome in this country because that's the kind of people we are."

When someone gets the same message from so many different "authoritative" sources, and only hears people with your point of view in little clips on mainstream news — clips long enough to make the person look like a madman but short enough to give the commentator something to belittle — then they feel completely certain their point of view is right.

That's why they will argue with what you're saying about Islam even though they actually know nothing about Islam.

Can you get better at reaching these people? Yes. But not by doing the same thing in the same way. We need to innovate, study, practice, and share with each other what works. We have several resources to help you with this: Tools To Help You Educate Your Fellow Non-Muslims About Islam.

The most important resource, however, is in your heart. Keep your love of freedom, your love of your fellow citizens, and your fighting spirit. And never never never give up.


A Discussion of Various Methods For Talking to People About Islam


On Dr. Elsa Schieder's blog, she recently asked her readers the following questions:

How best do we reach lots and lots more people with all this information, people currently resistant to it?

I have a slightly different question: What has worked best for you? Maybe especially, do you have any surprise success stories?

I also have a second question: Is there any resource, help, assistance, that you would especially like, in your counter-jihad efforts?

She published 22 of the answers, and some of them are quite good. You can read the answers here: Strategies for Getting Heard.

If you have some answers to these questions you would like to share with your fellow counterjihadists, you can always add them here (and read the answers given so far): Talk About Islam Among Non-Muslims.


Muslim Roulette


The following was written by Babs Barron, a chartered psychologist in independent practice in the UK who writes under a pseudonym because she wishes to keep her work and her professional life entirely separate from her politics.

The allegedly “moderate” nature of Islam in western society is thrust at us at every opportunity, and most often when that moderateness is called into question by violence towards the rest of us by the very people to whom it is so freely applied. The US, Spain and the UK have suffered terrorist outrages at the hands of Muslims resident there, who, outwardly at least, seemed to conform to the mores of their societies at first, but then went on to murder innocent people in the name of Islam.

Whereas there is no definitive explanation for the sudden eruption of hitherto apparently peaceable Muslims into the perpetration of terrorism, the process has been given a name – Sudden Jihad Syndrome – by Daniel Pipes among others. I concur with Pipes that the tendency towards jihad may not be sudden on the part of the perpetrators. The process of indoctrination may have taken years while all the time the jihadi-in-waiting goes about his life, to all intents and purposes appearing to be an upright citizen. No, the suddenness is in the acting out and perception of those towards whom the attacks are directed.

One almost invariably hears these perpetrators described as “family people” and “good neighbours” by the shocked non-Muslim communities in which they lived, so it made sense to me to try to formulate a method by which we might be able to assess, from our ordinary day-to-day conversations with self-styled moderate Muslims, whether their actual beliefs match what they say and their behaviours towards the rest of us.

A friend and I came up with the term “Muslim roulette” to denote the vague unease which we and other mindful people often experience when we hear the “moderate Muslim” mantra from them. Most of us check that feeling when we experience it and may blame ourselves for doubting them in the absence of proof that they actually mean us harm. But how can we know for certain that they do not? The answer is, of course, that we cannot. We cannot read their minds and far too often we are forced into playing “Muslim roulette” until we find out whether they can be trusted.

My friend and I therefore came up with some questions (added to by Citizen Warrior when I ran them by him) which can be sensitively embedded in conversation with Muslims with whom we can talk freely about their beliefs and who insist that they are moderate. I stress “sensitively” – put too bluntly or in an interrogatory manner they would result in defensiveness. The aim here should be to assess from the answers to what, after all, are reasonable questions, and the way in which those answers are delivered, whether there is any dissonance between what the person says and what s/he believes, and also to lessen the odds that you are unwittingly engaged in a game of “Muslim roulette” by trusting this person.

Any reticence or defensiveness or anger or refusal to discuss the matter further would, I believe, be telling, although whether those would denote defensiveness, hurt feelings or anything else is moot. Having said all that, however, would it not be reasonable to assume that a truly moderate Muslim would not be made uncomfortable by the questions?

Here are the questions:

  • Do you believe that all faiths/belief systems are equally valid? (If not, why not?)
  • Do you believe that men and women are equal in intelligence and ability? (If not, why not?)
  • Do you believe that every nation/faith/denomination should have the right to self-determination and to live in safety provided that it is a good neighbour? (A moderate Muslim would have little or no difficulty with, say, Israel's right to exist as a Jewish nation, warts and all).
  • Do you believe that all the commandments in the koran should be followed literally and to the letter? Do you accept that the ahadith and sunna are valid interpretations of how all Muslims should live? (The best answer here would be along the lines of “No, not in this day and age.” A “yes” answer indicates cognitive dissonance between what this person believes and how s/he describes himself to you).
  • Do you believe that everyone should be free to leave the faith/belief system that they are born into without fear of reprisal? (If the answer is “Yes”, you can follow up by asking whether that should apply to Muslims too).
  • Do you follow Mohammad’s example in the way you live your life? (Again, if the answer is “Yes” you need to find out how much your interlocutor actually knows about how Mohammad lived his life. It will be obvious that a “Yes” answer, coming from someone who knows about Mohammad’s sociopathy as evidenced by his behaviour towards the tribes who opposed him, and believes that the koran, ahadith and sunna should be followed to the letter, or believes that men are superior to women, acts as a disqualifier from any claim to moderateness).

You may be able think of other questions and please feel free to add them and share them with the rest of us, but my respectful advice is that you pay careful attention to how you phrase them. The aim here is to enquire and assess whether this really is a moderate Muslim.


It's Official: Muhammad Committed War Crimes


The following was written by Greg Hamilton and originally published on Malsi-Tung. Republished with permission.

The U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria published its findings on the atrocities committed by Islamic State. They have published a paper called "Rule of Terror: Living Under ISIS in Syria" which documents the ISIS tactics of killing, rape, enslavement, and sexual slavery. It defines these as war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Anyone with a reasonable knowledge of Muhammad's life will know the following account:

In March 627 AD, the tribe known as the Banu Qurayzah were besieged and isolated by their Muslim attackers led by Muhammad. They twice offered to leave their stronghold but Muhammad refused their request. He insisted they surrender unconditionally and subject themselves to his judgement. Compelled to surrender, the Qurayzah were led to Medina. A third (and final) appeal for leniency was made to Muhammad by their tribal allies, the Aus. Again Muhammad refused. Instead he orchestrated a sentence of death to be placed on the Banu Qurayzah by appointing a man with a grudge against them to pass judgement.

About 800 men were led to trenches dug in the Market of Medina and there they were beheaded, their decapitated bodies buried in the trenches while Muhammad watched. Male youths who had not reached puberty were spared. Women and children were sold into slavery, some being distributed as gifts among Muhammad’s companions. Muhammad himself took the most beautiful as his sex slave.[1][2][3]

A Chechen jihadist, Abu Muhammad Ar-Rusi, has recently justified the behaviour of IS with reference to this exact same event.

The logic is therefore perfectly clear:
  1. The UN body defines these acts [mass executions, sexual slavery, rape, and enslavement] as war crimes and crimes against humanity;
  2. Muhammad committed exactly these acts;
  3. Therefore Muhammad committed war crimes and crimes against humanity.

[1] The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, A. Guillaume, translator, (Oxford University Press, 1955) pp. 468-469

[2] For an overview of the literature: http://www.hirhome.com/islam/art.htm

[3] The Quran refers obliquely to the massacre: "And those of the People of the Book who aided them — Allah did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts. (So that) some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners" (Quran 33:26). And Muhammad again delivered revelations ascribing victory to Allah alone (Quran 33:9-11)

See Robert Spencer: The Truth about Muhammad pp.130-131


Free Speech Against Political Censorship

In this short interview, Lawfare Project Director Brooke Goldstein discusses what orthodox Muslims are doing to shut down free speech in the West.

The Islamic Campaign to Silence Us

In the first 30 seconds or so, you'll see an ad. And then a short clip about "saying yes to BC." Then the interview starts. The video is 7:36 long.


Why Do Politicians "Lie About Islam?"


Almost every politician in every country asserts, in one form or another, that Islam is a religion of peace. Are they all just lying weasels? Do they really know the truth but try to deceive us? Or are they ignorant? And if they really don't know, why don't they know?

There are many reasons for a politician to say nice things about Islam. First of all, imagine the opposite. Imagine what would happen if a prominent politician, like the president of the United States, were to say, "ISIS is following Islamic doctrine to the letter." What would happen? In the politically-correct climate we live in right now, he would be destroyed by the mainstream media. Op-Eds would criticize his insensitivity and would accuse him of racism and Islamophobia. Organized Muslim groups would also make a big deal out of it, losing any Muslim votes for that politician forever, and probably losing a lot of sympathetic non-Muslim multiculturalist voters as well. Prominent Muslims with doctorates in Islam would authoritatively and publicly convince most of the non-Muslim population that the politician was completely mistaken.

It's also entirely possible that the politician's honesty would set off riots around the world. People might die in these riots, and the politician would be blamed for it. When cartoons of Muhammad were published in a Danish newspaper, 187 people were killed in the ensuing riots, and the editor of the paper has been hunted by devout Muslims ever since. He has already narrowly escaped one assassination attempt.

Contrast all those consequences with simply saying the acceptable thing: "Islam is made up of peaceful, law-abiding citizens and these ISIS barbarians don't understand true Islam." There are almost no negative consequences from this. A few scattered counterjihadists grumble a bit. And that's about it.

I believe most politicians genuinely believe the politically-correct nonsense. And most of the few who have their suspicions about Islam will keep their mouths shut until the political climate changes on that issue.

What will make the political climate change? More citizens who understand what Islamic doctrine really says. When enough of us know the facts, a politician who speaks honestly about Islam will get enough public support to stay in the game.

So if you would like to see politicians tell the truth, the best thing you can do is educate your fellow non-Muslims about Islam.


Freedom of Speech and Islam


We just found a four minute video about what freedom of speech is, what it's for, and how people motivated by Islamic ideals are successfully suppressing our freedom of speech, even in the United States. Check it out and share it widely:

Your Free Speech At Risk


Opposing Islamization


To articulate our goal to someone who asks (and also among ourselves), I suggest we describe it this way: Our goal is to oppose the Islamization of the world.

When talking to someone who is unfamiliar with this, we should then explain what we mean: The prime directive of Islam, as defined in Islamic texts, is to bring the light of Allah's laws to all people on earth. The laws are considered to be created by the Almighty Himself.

To put in another way, Islam's goal is to create a condition wherein all people on earth live under the rule of Islamic law (Sharia).

In other words, the primary goal is to Islamize the world — to politically impose Islamic law when possible, to use fear and intimidation to demand it when necessary, or to patiently and stealthily introduce Islamic law in unnoticeable increments if nothing else is possible.

Our goal in the counterjihad is to prevent this from happening by exposing, marginalizing, and disempowering Islamic orthodoxy. The goal is to keep this mind virus in remission. To keep it suppressed. To keep it weak. We may not be able to eliminate it.

But this goal, which we might use to explain our actions to those who don't understand, is really a negative form of a much more positive goal. Freedom is the antithesis of Islamic law. The real goal is to remain free from tyranny, to retain equality under the law, which Sharia law utterly denies. Our goal is to protect human rights, especially for women, which is forbidden under Islamic law. Freedom of religion and free speech are also non-existent in Islamic law.

We want to defend and protect these freedoms in our own lives and in the world at large. That's the real goal. But when that might not resonate with your listener, you can speak of the more specific goal: To oppose the Islamization of the world.

We'd love to hear what you have to say about this. Please leave a comment.


A Good Analogy to Use in Conversation: The Remote Island


In a long conversation on the Young Turks (which you can watch here), Sam Harris was making the point that Islam is not like other religions in important ways. He said if we put a group of people on a remote island and gave them the Koran and said "this is the way you should live," and we came back in a thousand years and they lived like ISIS, it would not be a surprise.

But if you gave them the Pali Canon (Buddhist doctrine) and came back in a thousand years and they lived like ISIS, it would be a big surprise because there is nothing in the Pali Canon that would lead to you expect to find sex slaves or beheadings or forced conversions or any of the rest of the things ISIS is doing.

But there is quite a bit in the doctrines of Islam that would lead you to expect those things. The doctrine is different. What it says its followers should do is different.

This point is sometimes difficult to get through to people. Using this analogy might help to make it clearer.


There Will Come a Time When Everybody Will Listen


Someone posted the following comment on the Citizen Warrior article, How to Resist Islamic Encroachment and Still Be Happy:

To anyone feeling worn down or frustrated by their efforts to raise awareness of Islamic Jihad today I would counsel them not to give up hope; there are many instances in history where people had to struggle against implacable enemies with great uncertainty. This "war" is different than what's gone before, but ultimately it's the same struggle for liberty that's been ongoing for the last 500 years or so.

I remember a few months ago in my country a leading imam was printed in the newspaper asking for certain Sharia laws to be implemented in school classrooms. I saw this and I was absolutely stunned, "What the hell is this?? Who does he think he is?!" In my country islamification isn't as advanced as in others and up to now I've always thought that overall Islam was relatively benign. It would have been easy to ignore this, but I took it as a grave warning and started researching all about Islam and global jihad. It was like going through the looking glass... it's actually made me realise how much I cherish things like liberty, reason and freedom of conscience. Gaining and retaining these rights was never easy and I realised that I really want to preserve them.

I also realised that I couldn't be a preacher and speak out publicly against Islam, it wouldn't work, but I could do my bit by talking to friends that I thought would listen. So I'd say to people who are frustrated, "choose your battles", pick the right people and the right moment and don't go overboard like the post says. See if people are receptive to what you're saying and if you don't seem to be making any progress, you can just leave it, all you're trying to do is raise awareness after all. If they don't want to listen, that's okay too. It's better in the end to use a softly softly approach. Even if they don't want to hear, it still might plant a seed.

So far I haven't spoken to many people but two of my close friends have listened to me. Showing relevant youtube videos can really make the point too. At the end of talking to one, he asked me: "What we do now? It feels like there's nothing we can do." All I could think of was "try telling people who you think will listen, and then we have to be ready for when the real fight starts."

I believe that too, we have to be ready; the Jihadis are playing a long game so we, the anti-Jihadis, have to think that way too. I figured it would be very difficult to make any big change alone, so I have to try to work in small steps while keeping sight of the big picture. That's what they do. The big cause of Islam is to subjugate all of us. Therefore, our cause is to stop them. Don't lose sight of that.

Right now, the biggest advantage the Jihadists have is the way they have managed to deceive large sections of our societies and that many in authority are ignorant or have underestimated them. So the best thing to do anyway is try to raise awareness sensibly, any way we can.

And remember too, an event could happen that could change the rules of the game in an instant and make everyone sit up (but really, how many events do you need?). The attack on Pearl Harbor changed the whole course of WWII. Forewarned is forearmed and there will come a time when everybody will listen and when knowledge will be crucial. I think that time is coming soon and I think that many are waking up now anyway. With ever increasing terrorism and the rise of the Islamic State, the true followers of Mohammed might have overplayed their hand before they're strong enough. And I'm sure there will be a time when their smears and slurs won't work anymore.

Also CitizenWarrior, great tips for keeping spirits up, like thinking of other things before going to sleep. I always try to do that myself. And your piece on the terrifying brilliance of Islam is excellent, I'm going to pass that on to a few people.


Winston Churchill on Islam


Winston Churchill led Britain in the fight against Nazism, but long before that, he wrote a book entitled, The River War: An Historical Account of the Reconquest of the Soudan (1899). According to Wikipedia, the book was about Churchill's "experiences as a British Army officer, during the Mahdist War (1881–99) in the Sudan.

"The River War is a history of the British imperial involvement in the Sudan, and the Mahdi War between the British forces, led by Lord Kitchener, and the Dervish forces, led by Khalifa Abdallahi ibn Muhammad, 'The Mahdi,' heir to the self-proclaimed Mahdi Muhammad Ahmad who had embarked on a campaign to conquer Egypt, to drive out the non-Muslim infidels." (Source)

In the book, Churchill shares his first-hand and educated understanding of Islam. He wrote:

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property — either as a child, a wife, or a concubine — must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die: but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.


Speaking Up About Islam in Indiana


The following letter was written by Marilyn Dudley (an Act for America Chapter Leader in Terre Haute, Indiana) and published in the Nov. 18, 2014 edition of The Tribune Star:

What’s in Your Child’s Textbook?

For this past year, a number of people across the U.S. were organized to review textbooks up for adoption in Texas. The total number of books reviewed by this group was 32 high school and/or middle school textbooks. Cumulatively TTT (Truth in Texas Textbooks) reviewers compiled 469 pages of factual errors, imbalanced presentation of materials, omission of information, opinions disguised as facts and additionally questions found in the teachers’ editions that are considered “agenda building” or “leading questions” to conclusions not supported by facts. The evaluations have now been posted on a public website — truthintexastextbooks.com.

As part of this effort, I helped grade these textbooks. The blatant lies, disinformation, anti-semitism, and the attacks (some subtle, some not) on America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and core values was prevalent in these books.

Continually throughout these books there was an attempt by the publishers to paint Islam as if it were “peaceful” and just a religion instead of presenting the unvarnished truth about its monstrous ideology; that it is (a) a political system, (b) an ideology that prescribes death to those who opt out, (c) an organization with a religious front that is at war with all free nations, and (d) has been responsible for the deaths of over 270 million human beings.

This group spent time finding factual evidence that backed up the findings, not only regarding the historical and current atrocities committed by Muslims, but also the secular humanists who promote moral relativism, trash our Constitution, blame America, and glorify Utopian re-distribution of wealth ideas.

The textbooks say very little about America’s greatness and its goodness. There is a lack of emphasis on America’s military heroes. The stories of great men and women who fought and died to preserve our nation used to be a standard part of teaching our kids to be responsible, proud and patriotic citizens. In the proposed textbooks that publishers are attempting to foist onto our youth, there is a lack of material that would inspire patriotic allegiance to God and country.

So you might ask why I would take the time to review textbooks that are being adopted in Texas. It is those textbooks that are adopted in Texas that will likely find their way into our own educational system in Indiana. As a citizen of Indiana, it is up to me and you to refuse to surrender this next generation of Americans to the evil change that is under way.

Our government, under the guise of Common Core, is promoting this abomination into our schools. I ask everyone to take the time to see what is in your child’s textbook, go to the website identified above and look at the reviews, and take a stand to restore America as the land of the free and home of the brave.

— Marilyn Dudley, Terre Haute, Indiana

The following was written by Ramachandra B. Abhyankar, and published in the Reader's Forum of the Tribune Star here:

Muslims Must Fight Hard to Reform Islam

The excellent letter by Marilyn Dudley in the Nov. 18 Tribune-Star points out the political nature of Islam as it is today, unreformed and based on the Quran, Hadith and Sira. The current unreformed state of Islam prevents Muslims from coexisting peacefully with people of other cultures and religions.

For example, the Quran instructs Muslims to “not befriend Jews and Christians”( 5:51), “to slay the idolaters” (9:5), to “smite the necks (behead) non-believers” (47:4), etc. It makes no sense to be teaching these hate-filled ideas in mosques and then expecting Muslims to not act on them.

Unreformed Islam causes Muslims to persecute non-Muslims when Muslims are in a majority, and does not allow Muslims to live peacefully with non-Muslims when Muslims are in a minority.

Unreformed Islam has brought disrepute to Muslims globally and has raised suspicions about Muslims in countries where they are in a minority. Unreformed Islam is hurting Muslims everywhere. Instead of bringing about reform in Islam, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is seeking to criminalize the criticism of (unreformed) Islam everywhere. The United States Constitution is the best defense Americans have against “Sharia creep” and the curtailment of Freedom in the United States. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution must trump the efforts of the OIC.

The basis for a reformed Islam can be found in the teachings of Jalaluddin Rumi, the mystic and poet who commands universal respect. In his book, “The Teachings of Rumi,” Andrew Harvey writes: “Rumi combined the intellect of a Plato, the vision and enlightened soul-force of a Buddha or a Christ, and the extravagant literary gifts of a Shakespeare.”

As renowned scholars Ibn Warraq and Walid Phares point out, there is an ongoing “war of ideas.”

A reformed Islam will allow Muslims to join non-Muslims for the common good of all. Muslim intellectuals need to engage in this war of ideas. Non-Muslims are looking up to Muslim intellectuals to bring about reform in Islam. This “war of ideas” must be won, for the benefit of both Muslims and non-Muslims.

— Ramachandra B. Abhyankar


John Quincy Adams on Islam


Son of one of America's most important founding fathers (John Adams), John Quincy Adams was by his father's side during the creation of a new country. He went with his father to France and the Netherlands on important diplomatic missions, and later in his life John Quincy was Secretary to the American Minister to Russia, was the Secretary to his father during peace negotiations that ended the American Revolution in 1783, served as U.S. foreign ambassador, both to the Netherlands and later to Portugal, under George Washington, to Prussia under his father’s presidency, and then to Russia and later to England under President James Madison. He served as a U.S. Senator, Secretary of State under President James Monroe, and then as the nation’s sixth President (1825-1829), and finally as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, where he was a staunch and fervent opponent of slavery.

After his presidency, but before his election to Congress in 1830, John Quincy wrote several essays dealing with one of the many Russo-Turkish Wars. In these essays, we see an educated description of Islam and the threat it poses to freedom in the world. This is what John Quincy Adams wrote (the capitalization is in the original):

In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust, by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE.

Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. That war is yet flagrant; nor can it cease but by the extinction of that imposture, which has been permitted by Providence to prolong the degeneracy of man. While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men. The hand of Ishmael will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him. It is, indeed, amongst the mysterious dealings of God, that this delusion should have been suffered for so many ages, and during so many generations of human kind, to prevail over the doctrines of the meek and peaceful and benevolent Jesus.

Notice that Adams not only documents the violent nature of Islam, he further exposes the mistreatment of women embedded in Islamic doctrine. A few pages later, Adams again spotlights the coercive, violent nature of Islam, as well as the Muslim’s right to lie and deceive to advance Islam:

The precept of the koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.

Sources for the above:
  • The biographical material on Adams above is an edited version of the original, which can be found here: Source 1 
  • The quotes about Islam can be found in these two books: Source 2 Source 3


We're Making Headway


According to an article in NewsObserver.com, "In the early 2000s, just 25 percent of Americans believed that Muslims are prone to violence because of their religion, according to the Pew Research Center. By February of this year, after decade-long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that number had climbed to 38 percent. Since September, though, it’s jumped to 50 percent in the Pew survey, probably because of high-profile beheadings by fighters for the Islamic States of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS."

Along the same lines, the following appears in an article on ISLAMiCommentary (which refers to itself as "a public scholarship forum, managed out of the The Duke Islamic Studies Center that aims to inform public discourse and policy on Islam and Muslim communities"):

In 17 surveys since 9/11 conducted by Pew, the Arab-American Institute, and other organizations, “unfavorable” responses declined from 2001 through 2006, then veered upward. From 21-24 percent “unfavorable” responses in 2006, negative responses spiked as high as 63 percent in recent years...

When Americans are asked about their attitude toward Islam, rather than Muslims, the rates are even more negative. In 24 surveys over the past dozen years, “unfavorable” responses toward Islam averaged 40 percent, as compared with 32 percent toward Muslims and 25 percent toward Muslim-Americans. “Favorable” responses about Islam outnumbered “unfavorable” responses in almost every survey prior to 2006, but the reverse is true in nearly every survey since then.

The point of view of both of these quoted articles is that this negative attitude is an undesirable trend caused by misunderstanding. I see it as just the opposite: It is a healthy trend caused by an increasing understanding that Islamic doctrine is the basis of many of the world's most important problems.

It's a promising trend, but more work is needed. When the number of non-Muslims who understand Islam reaches an overwhelming majority, the Islamization of the non-Islamic world will be vigorously resisted and the tide will turn. The most important thing that needs to happen to reach that point is for each of us to help educate those of our remaining friends and family who still don't get it. We need to not merely "tell them the truth," but to really get through to them skillfully and successfully.

We're making headway. Let's keep increasing our skill and effectiveness and finish the job.


Is Resisting Islamic Expansion Only For Conservatives?


Conservatives are not the only ones who recognize the threat if Islamization, as this recent Pew survey shows. A higher percentage of conservatives recognize Islam's threat than liberals, that's true, but there is a significant percentage of liberals who recognize it, and a sizable percentage of conservatives who do not.

There is a bigger gap by age than by party. The older you get, the more likely you are to understand the threat to your society posed by such an intolerant and violent ideology.

But many liberals think only a conservative would be critical of Islam, and they don't want to associate themselves with something that seems like a conservative cause. We need to reach them. People of all political persuasions should be united in this cause.


A Constructive Argument About Islam


An ex-Muslim atheist and an intellectual atheist argue about the connection between Islam's written ideology and the behaviors of ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Hamas, etc. Are these groups merely following the Islamic texts to the letter? Or are they twisting and distorting Islamic teachings to justify their lust for power or horror?

This is a lively discussion between two people who are at odds with each other for most of the argument, and yet conduct themselves without yelling or name calling. This is a three hour conversation, but worth watching.

Like most people you talk to, the host of this show objects to the idea that Islamic doctrine is any worse than other religions, and he brings up pretty much every objection possible, and argues them vigorously. They are all answered sanely and articulately by Sam Harris.

Harris makes so many good points and uses so many good examples that this interview is worthy of not just watching, but studying. Check it out on InquiryIntoIslam.com here:

Sam Harris and Cenk Uygur Clear the Air on Religious Violence and Islam

This is also a great video to share with your atheist and agnostic friends. They may listen to Sam Harris discussing Islam when they might not listen to a Christian or Jew discussing Islam. They are likely to consider Harris a more credible source of information about religion because he hasn't "picked a side" — he hasn't chosen a favorite religion — so he has no ax to grind in that sense. He's a neutral and impartial evaluator of religions, and he has studied most of them. His educated conclusion is that Islam is a more dangerous ideology than any other mainstream religion.

Share this video and let Sam Harris enlighten your non-religious friends and family.


Embedding a Fact Within Another Story

I was talking with a friend the other day. I've talked to him before about Islam, but he's one of those people who tries to find some way of thinking about it so he doesn't have to think about it anymore. Things like "it is only the extremists, and our security forces will take care of them." Or "most Muslims don't believe that stuff, so we can all just get along. After all, there are extremists in every religion, and there's no good reason to pick on Islam."

I've disabused him of most of these ideas in previous conversations, but he still holds out hope that he can go on about his life without having to think about something as terrifying as, "The core doctrines of Islam are imperialistic, supremacist, and violent toward non-Muslims."

Anyway, I thought of a way to sink a single, solid fact into his brain without him rejecting it. I embedded the fact in a story about something else. It was like putting medicine into a piece of meat and feeding it to your dog. He never knew it happened.

I said, "It's amazing — you can find a book on anything. Last night I was looking for a book on Winston Churchill. I've heard that he read Mein Kampf when it was first published, and as he saw Hitler rising to power, Churchill was trying to tell people, 'I've read his book, and he poses a danger to Britain, and something should be done to stop him,' but people didn't like this message, so they ignored him."

My friend said, "I've heard about that."

I said, "I think they even expelled him from Parliament.

He looked surprised. "Really?"

"Well, I don't know. But I'm about to find out. I found two books on just that period in Winston Churchill's life last night and I ordered one of them. I'll let you know. I thought of trying to find a book on it when I heard about a Dutch politician who was trying to get the Koran banned in the Netherlands. Mein Kampf is already banned in the Netherlands, and has been banned for a long time, because of the Jew hatred in the book, and this Dutch politician said someone had counted it up and discovered that there's more Jew hatred in the Koran than in Mein Kampf!"

That was the single solid fact I wanted to sink into his brain.

I went on, "And of course, everybody freaked out when he said that."

"I'll bet they did," he nodded.

"But I'm interested in what happens when you try to tell someone something they really don't want to believe," I said. "Because eventually, of course, once it became painfully clear to everyone that Hitler was, in fact, a real threat to Britain, they went back to Churchill because he was the one who was right all along."

I was on a roll, so I just kept talking, like I sometimes do. "Did you ever read the book by Elie Wiesel? It's called Night."

"I think I've heard of it," he said, "but I haven't read it."

"It's Elie Wiesel's story. He lived in a remote village in Hungary, and one day the police showed up and said all foreign Jews had to leave. They ushered them onto a train and away they went. One of the men escaped and came back to the village to tell a horrifying tale. All the foreign Jews had been taken across the border into Poland, and then taken out into the woods and shot. This dude had taken months to get back to the village to warn them about what was happening. And nobody listened to him. Not one person in his village believed him."

"Yeah, I think I've heard about this story," he said thoughtfully.

"It's a powerful little book," I said, "but that's only the first part. Wiesel was a young teenager when this happened. His story goes on. The Germans eventually came to take all the Jews, and the whole town was packing up their belongings and very distressed about what was happening when the foreign Jew poked his head in the Wiesel home and shouted angrily, 'I told you!' He warned them in time to get away. If the Wiesels had believed him, they could have gotten out of the country in time. But nobody wanted to believe him."

"Well," said my friend, "it was pretty unbelievable, what happened."

I could only say, "That's true."

We went on to talk about other things, but that one fact about Jew hatred in the Koran sunk in with no resistance. It is an important enough fact— and a fundamental enough fact — that from now on he will probably see world events through a new lens, especially conflicts between Jews and Muslims.

The principle is simple: A fact is usually accepted with little or no resistance when it is embedded within another message. Think about that when you're sharing what you know about Islam. Think about what fact is important. Pick one. Then think of a way you can embed that fact in an interesting story about something else.

Or think about a story you want to tell and then think of a way to work a good fact into the middle of that story somewhere in a way that doesn't stand out. In other words, embed the fact so the fact itself is not the main point, but is an aside, or an incidental point on the way to saying something else that captures attention.

Let's find ways around our listeners' resistance and get better at getting through. The future of the free world might just depend on it.


Similarities Between Islam and the Mafia


Raymond Ibrahim wrote a three-part series on the similarities between Islam and the mafia. The parallels are striking, and I don't think it's a coincidence. The birthplace of the mafia, Sicily, was the first Italian territory to be conquered by Islam (in the year 827), and it was ruled by Islam for 234 years.

The word "mafia" itself is derived from an Arabic word meaning "aggressive boasting."

Perhaps some Sicilians saw firsthand the deadly effectiveness of the Islamic way of doing things, and adapted the methods to their own goals.

However it happened, the similarities are numerous. Below is a synopsis of Ibrahim's list of parallels. At the end you will find links to the three articles in the series. They are very much worth reading. In fact, they ought to be studied and used in your conversations with people in the same way you use talking about Bushido or Scientology to bypass objections when talking about Islam. Here is Ibrahim's list of similarities:

  1. The leader has absolute authority, is inaccessible, and is greatly feared.
  2. The leader's will is dominant. The subordinates' only job is to follow orders.
  3. The leader gets a "cut" of all the action of his subordinates, but there is still some booty for the subordinates.
  4. The group assassinates enemies.
  5. Each member must be willing to die to defend the group and the leader.
  6. Trying to leave the group is seen as a betrayal and is punishable by death.
  7. Members are required to maintain absolutely loyalty to the group and its leader.
  8. Members are not to trust or associate with non-members of the group.
  9. Association with outsiders and deceiving them is permissible to advance the goals of the group.
  10. The leader or the group will "make you an offer you can't refuse."
  11. They fund their operations with "protection money" gathered from non-members.

Raymond Ibrahim's original three-part series has good examples, quotes, and illustrations for each of the above similarities. Here is the series:

Part 1 – Islam: More ‘Like the Mafia’ than Bill Maher Knows
Part 2 – Loyalty and Enmity: Parallels between Islam and the Mafia
Part 3 – Islam and the Mafia: ‘Making An Offer You Can’t Refuse’

Another version of this series is posted on PJ Media, along with video clips from The Godfather to illustrate the principles. Read it here.

You can share the information above with your friends and family by sending them this article on Inquiry Into Islam: Is There a Connection Between Islam and the Mafia?


Does ISIS Follow Islamic Teachings?


He calls himself Brother Rachid. His father is an Imam and Rachid himself has a degree in religious studies. He grew up as a Muslim in Morocco. And in the video below, he responds to the statement, made by President Obama and many others, that ISIS is not Islamic.

Does ISIS Follow Islamic Teachings?

Share it with your friends and family. No objections they come up with will be valid.


Why Are Muslims From All Over the World Still Joining ISIS?


Airstrikes against ISIS continue, and yet more than a thousand Muslims travel to the Middle East every month to join ISIS from other countries. According to the U.N. over 16,000 foreign fighters have joined ISIS so far. The airstrikes have not slowed the flow of foreign jihadis flooding into Iraq. Most non-Muslims would assume that the increased possibility to being vaporized would reduce the number of new recruits, but it hasn't.

Do the people in your life know why?

If not, you can share with them some quotes from Robert Spencer's excellent book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). First tell them that Muhammad was the founder of Islam and that it says 91 times in the Koran that all Muslims should follow his example. Then share the following with them. Spencer wrote:

"...the Prophet of Islam repeatedly emphasized that there was nothing better his followers could do than engage in jihad warfare. When a Muslim asked him to name the "best deed" one could do, besides the act of becoming a Muslim, the Prophet responded, "To participate in Jihad (holy fighting) in Allah's Cause." He explained that "to guard Muslims from infidels in Allah's Cause for one day is better than the world and whatever is on its surface." For "a journey undertaken for jihad in the evening or morning merits a reward better than the world and all that is in it."

Muhammad also warned that Muslims who did not engage in jihad would be punished: "Muhammad was firm about the necessity of jihad not only for himself personally, but for every Muslim. He warned believers that he who does not join the warlike expedition (jihad), or equip, or looks well after a warrior's family when he is away, will be smitten by Allah with a sudden calamity.'"

Those who fought in jihads would enjoy a level of Paradise higher than that enjoyed by others:

It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Sa'id Khudri that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said (to him]: Abu Sa'id, whoever cheerfully accepts Allah as his Lord, Islam as his religion and Muhammad as his Apostle is necessarily entitled to enter Paradise. He (Abu Sa'id) wondered at it and said: Messenger of Allah, repeat it for me. He (the Messenger of Allah) did that and said: There is another act which elevates the position of a man in Paradise to a grade one hundred (higher), and the elevation between one grade and the other is equal to the height of the heaven from the earth. He (Abu Sa'id) said: What is that act? He replied: Jihad in the way of Allah! Jihad in the way of Allah!

On another occasion "a man came to Allah's Apostle and said, 'Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward).' He replied, 'I do not find such a deed.'"

Bring up some recent news about ISIS with people and ask, "I was wondering why Muslims are still traveling to the Middle East to join the fight now that the airstrikes have begun, when I read some passages from the traditions of Muhammad," and share some of the passages above. If you want to share this directly via email or social media, we've posted the above article on Inquiry Into Islam without the coaching. You can find it here.


Producer Wanted

What we need to quickly get through to a lot of people about Islam is a movie like Terminator 3. Imagine a movie set in the future, let's say thirty years from now in Europe, which would, by that time, be like a combination of Syria and Saudi Arabia, except with a lot more kafirs, who are all paying the jizya (or getting beheaded). And because the ostracism and jizya are so onerous, kafirs are converting to Islam out of fear and exhaustion. The movie could be called "Last Crusade."

During the movie, you find out how it all came to this, just like in Terminator 3 when we find out that back before Skynet took over, sensible people made what seemed like perfectly reasonable decisions at the time, but which inevitably led to circumstances that were too far gone by the time anyone realized what was going to happen.

The movie could be inspiring. It could be about an underground rebellion of freedom fighters.

In Terminator 3, we saw that people were afraid to put the decision of nuclear war into the hands of human beings. Humans are too emotional and the whole world's survival was at stake. So they put the decision in the control of a super sophisticated network of computers that, unfortunately, was so sophisticated, it kept learning until it became self-aware and suddenly realized its biggest enemy was the human race. The humans realized their monumental mistake as it was happening and tried to stop it, but it was too late.

You could show in "Last Crusade" how perfectly reasonable decisions were made in Europe out of a live-and-let-live philosophy. Muslim immigrants were allowed to have their own areas and allowed to practice their own religious-political beliefs (which is, of course, already happening with no-go areas in France and Sharia courts in Britain). European policymakers thought this would allow everyone to get along in peace and would show respect for Islamic culture instead of trying to impose European culture on them, which seemed reasonable and courteous at the time, but the Islamic enclaves kept growing and crossing into other territories. And as their numbers grew, Muslims were emboldened and forced their way into new areas with harassment of non-Muslims, vandalism and riots. To save lives and stop the violence, some of these new areas were also ceded to the fast-growing Muslim population.

Some Europeans were alarmed at the way things were going, and other solutions were tried, but "Muslim areas" in European countries kept spreading. Islamic belligerence and confidence increased and governments began applying aspects of Sharia law to everyone. They were small things at first, and each one seemed like a good idea at the time to many people.

Some non-Muslims resisted vigorously, but they were criticized, ostracised  and ultimately defeated by the combined forces of Muslims and well-meaning (or not) "useful idiots."

The movie could show how clever Muslim leaders kept putting Europe into no-win double-binds and like a noose with a one-way knot, it just kept getting worse, no matter what they did. It could show how Muslim activists exploited multiculturalism to gain political concessions, how freedoms were relinquished out of kindness and decency (and sometimes out of expediency or selfishness) but also would show the unforeseen consequences for European women.

The movie could show how the U.S. responded to Europe's progressive Islamification. Some brave American young men went to Europe to fight in the resistance, but the U.S. government was paralyzed by a president and Congress that didn't want another Vietnam, and some politicians and businesspeople were making money from the conflict, so some of them were aiding the Muslim takeover.

Things begin to change all over Europe. In Brussels and the UK women are jailed for not wearing headscarves, even before the Muslim takeover because it is deemed offensive and insensitive of women to leave their heads uncovered in public. In Spain, homosexuality is outlawed, punishable by hanging. One by one, European countries become Islamic. Money floods into the Islamic war machine from the jizya. Russia, China and the U.S. are increasingly troubled by terrorist attacks, which get ever more sophisticated and inventive.

The Sistine Chapel is turned into a mosque. The Vatican City becomes an Islamic center. The Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris becomes the center of the OEIC (Organization of European Islamic Countries). Other important cultural symbols are destroyed or repurposed to serve Islam.

But the freedom fighters, who call themselves "Last Crusaders," find a way to turn the tide, and not only does the Islamic advance roll back from Europe, it rolls back from the countries that Islamic hordes had previously conquered through history, freeing Muslims to leave Islam in North Africa, the Middle East and Indonesia.

Anyway, it's an idea. It would get tremendous media coverage because it would be so intensely controversial. Real people would probably die in the riots that would inevitably ensue. But to avoid making the movie for that reason is already accepting the imposition of Sharia law by force. Far more real people are going to die if we do not stop the advance of the Islamic State.

If the movie was done well, it could have a cultural impact on the scale of Uncle Tom's Cabin or Silent Spring. What do you think? What else should the movie include?


Another Amazing Interview Series Starts Monday, Nov 3


Coming up this week: Interviews with four more amazing fighters for freedom of thought and speech, for truth — about Islam, about political correctness, about the dangers the West is facing. Monday Nov 3 through Thursday Nov 6.

To listen, register here: http://WorldTruthSummit.com

The four people interviewed:

Tom Trento, of the United West, a major online and "real world" media presence. A recent show asks: CAIR and La Cosa Nostra — Birds of a Feather?

Heidi Mund, the brave German woman who shouted out in a major church, when an imam was giving the Muslim call to prayer, which, according to Islamic doctrine, turns the church into a mosque. Her words, heard worldwide through a video that went viral: Only Jesus Christ is Lord here!

Alexandra Belaire, atheist blogger for freedom of thought and speech. Her most recent focus: The many court cases against Connie and Marc Fournier of Free Dominion, the oldest Canadian Conservative discussion forum — now shut down.

Andre Drouin, the Herouxville town councillor who shot onto the world stage with his 2007 Herouxville Code of Life, which includes items such as:

- a man cannot stone a woman to death,
- nor burn her with acid;
- faces are not to be covered except at Halloween,
- and children cannot carry weapons, including Sikh kirpans, to school

The interviews will go online, one per day, Monday to Thursday, and will be available at no charge for two days.

And who is putting all this together? Elsa Schieder, as usual. She calls herself a truth sleuth. She cares about Western freedoms and values, and is very aware of the dangers posed by Islam and political correctness.

Register here (in the right sidebar) and you will be sent invitations to listen as the interviews become available.


Telling It Like It Is: Bosch Fawstin


We've posted an article by Bosch Fawstin, the graphic artist, on our sister site, Inquiry Into Islam. The article is entitled, My Name is Bosch and I’m a Recovered Muslim. It is a great article to share with friends and family. Ex-Muslims have a clarity and an authority that is hard for anyone to deny.

We posted it on Inquiry Into Islam because that website is designed to be shared with people unacquainted with Islamic doctrine and perhaps even resistant to accepting the hard facts about our predicament. The site is a gentle introduction to Islamic doctrine, full of basic facts presented interestingly and without an edge.

We hope you like the article and find someone to share it with. Here's how the article begins:

My name is Bosch and I’m a recovered Muslim.

That is, if Muslims don’t kill me for leaving Islam, which it requires them to do. That’s just one of the reasons I’ve been writing and drawing against Islam and its Jihad for a number of years now. But fortunately for us, Islam hasn’t been able to make every Muslim its slave, just as Nazism wasn’t able to turn every German into a Nazi. So there is Islam and there are Muslims. Muslims who take Islam seriously are at war with us and Muslims who don’t aren’t.

But that doesn’t mean we should consider these reluctant Muslims allies against Jihad. I’ve been around Muslims my entire life and most of them truly don’t care about Islam. The problem I have with many of these essentially non-Muslim Muslims, especially in the middle of this war being waged on us by their more consistent co-religionists, is that they give the enemy cover. They force us to play a game of Muslim Roulette since we can’t tell which Muslim is going to blow himself up until he does. And their indifference about the evil being committed in the name of their religion is a big reason why their reputation is where it is.


The Story of Mohammed


More people need to understand that the Muslims doing bad things in the name of Islam are not distorting Islamic texts, but are following them faithfully. Our fellow non-Muslims need to understand that the problem is not that some crazy people use Islamic texts to justify whatever they want to do. The problem is the ideology itself. Specifically, the problem is the Islamic texts themselves. The teachings are dangerous to non-Muslims.

One of the best ways to help people understand this is to talk about Mohammed. Since it says in the Koran 91 times that Muslims should follow Mohammed's example, understanding Mohammed is a quick and easy way to understand Islam. I'd like to introduce you to a great resource to help you help others learn about Mohammed. It's a book entitled, The Story of Mohammed by Harry Richardson. You can read the book online here for free. You can download a PDF of the book here. And you can buy the book for six dollars here so you can share it with your friends and family.

Why would a non-Muslim want to read the story of Mohammed? On Harry Richardson's blog, he gives this answer:

Mohammed’s story is the most incredible story never told. It is said that truth is stranger than fiction and honestly, NO ONE could have made this up. There are battles, murders, intrigues, rapes, assassinations, torture, intimidation, and much much more. Along the way Mohammed invented Jihad, the most effective system of conquest ever devised.

Mohammed’s life story is also the key which unlocks the complexities and confusion of the Islamic religion itself. By understanding his story we quickly gain a clear insight into Islam and the incredible importance this subject holds for our future.

This amazing book pulls no punches and brings the subject to life in a way which is both fascinating and informative. Rather than looking at Islam through a prism of Western (and by default, Christian) perspective, it examines the Islamic perspective itself.

In doing so it illuminates the contrast between Western and Islamic ethics and beliefs in plain and simple language which makes it a delight to read.

There are no apologies, no excuses and no pretending. This is not Islam as we want it to be, this is Islam as it really is.

You need to read this book now because in today’s world, this information is vital.


Does the Sale of Halal Food Support Jihad?


The following was written by Gary Henderson of the Infidel Defense Alliance:

It is astonishing how little the average American knows about Halal, the Muslim commanded process that demands that animals be slaughtered in accordance with Islamist dictates.

In fact, Halal certification charges to everyone in the food chain are an intended tax on infidels who shop at markets who offer halal foods. Infidels should inquire of their local market whether or not they are paying for Halal certification, and if so, find another place to buy their food. In this way we can force Muslims to finance their caliphate in their own stores.

We are already paying taxes for US Government inspections of our food processing facilities. Such oversight is done totally on our behalf, without any imposition of nefarious religious beliefs, and it is conducted for the express purpose of guaranteeing the purity of the food we consume.

Additional inspection processes are totally unnecessary, and their costs are an imposition on the buying public.

Grocery stores are charged halal certification fees and those charges are a cost of doing business, so those burdensome costs are reflected in price increases to non-Muslim customers.

One halal expert, a Muslim, predicts that worldwide profits realized by imposing these costs will eventually exceed one trillion dollars, most of which goes to supporting the violence-prone policies and jihad manipulations of radical Islam/Sharia.

The irony is that halal certification now extends far beyond food products and covers the sale of an incredible variety of non-food items, including cosmetics, household cleaning products, etc., and the array extends so far from food that it can rightfully be considered a "tax racket."

We should demand that the financing of Islam's horrific "religious" practices be borne by their own captive followers, not those infidels whom their caliphate intends to brutally imprison.

When you do your shopping, ask about Halal Certification. Demand that your store post their policies with regard to halal on the front door, in their meat department and several other conspicuous locations.

Watch this five minute video about halal food certification.


Peaceful Muslims Seize French Territory Peacefully


On our recent article about WikiIslam, "Tranquil" left this interesting comment:

WikiIslam is excellent!

I want to mention a tactic that I believe is very useful in the fight against Islam. Time and time again I come up against the old "but what about the peaceful Muslims?" line.

I have found that one good way to defuse that is to point to France (with its 751 "ZUS zones" — the no-go areas that are very dangerous for non-Muslims).

These zones were set up by the so-called "non-violent" Muslims.

All they had to do was to move into an area in large numbers. Property values then drop (allowing even more of them to move in). The locals moved out and presto — a part of the country is conquered. No guns or bombs needed.

Heck, the French government even has the ZUS zones on its website! This PROVES that these zones — set up by the "non-violent Muslims" — are dangerous.

Two links about these zones:




Useful Resource: WikiIslam


We'd like to direct your attention to an excellent resource, in case you don't know about it already. WikiIslam.net is an online resource about Islam. If you've ever wondered what zakat is, or whether the principle of taqiyya is widespread (or only used by some Islamic sects), if you'd like to see a timeline of the major events in Mohammad's life or wonder what Islamic doctrine says about rape, WikiIslam is a great go-to resource, complete with references for further study and chapter and verse references from Islamic doctrine.

One of their resources is Citizen Warrior's own famous Answers to Objections series, organized nicely for ease of use. Check it out: Answers to Objections When Discussing Islam on WikiIslam.


Can An Open Society Prevent a Persistent and Determined Islamic Encroachment?


The following is an excerpt from a book review of Serge Trifkovic's book, Defeating Jihad. The reviewer is Brian Mitchell. You can read the entire review here.

The excerpt addresses the problem of how an open society can ethically deal with the dilemma created by freedom of religion on the one hand, and laws against sedition on the other. Up until now those two laws have not created a problem. But with the immigration of Muslims into democracies, the dilemma has become obvious.

How will free societies protect themselves from overthrow, and yet remain free? Mitchell writes:

[Trivkovic] insists that Islam itself is “inherently seditious” but recommends action against only “Islamic activism,” defined as the political act of propagating, disseminating or otherwise supporting “Jihad”…, discrimination against Christians, Jews and other “infidels,” discrimination and violence against women and sexual minorities, anti-Jewish bigotry, sanction of slavery, etc.

Trifkovic knows, of course, that the Koran propagates all these things and that there can be no Islam without the Koran. His point seems to be that the Constitution empowers us to ban Islam because of its politics and not because of its religion. “We do not need new legal theories, or a different conception of the First Amendment,” he writes. “[W]e need an educational campaign.”

He might be right about the law. As Justice Jackson pointed out, the Constitution is not a suicide pact, and there is certainly no overestimating the willingness of American jurists, when provided enough political cover, to argue around inconvenient legal obstacles. It seems to me, however, that a paradigm shift sufficient to get us honestly out of our ideological box would require us to admit that the First Amendment’s Anti-Establishment Clause is a large part of the problem. Any schoolboy can see that, if some religions are inherently seditious, a constitution tolerating all religions invites its own overthrow.

Our educational campaign must therefore teach two truths: that Islam is seditious, and that the Founding Fathers were wrong. Teaching the former and not the latter will cause confusion and keep us thinking inside the box.

There is also the danger that the prosecution of “Islamic activism” alone, especially when clouded by the requirement of unrestricted religious freedom, will not protect us from “moderate” Muslims who disavow the seditious aspects of their religion only until they are too strong to oppose. Trifkovic indeed warns that moderates cannot be trusted because Muhammad’s doctrine of taqiyya sanctions dissembling for the sake of Allah. He also warns that nominal Muslims, when demoralized by Western culture, sometimes sincerely rediscover their own true faith — with violent consequences.

What is needed to strengthen this book’s recommendations for a practical response to Islam is a more thorough theoretical treatment of the problem of Popper’s Paradox, which says (in words too plain for Karl Popper himself) that even open societies, if they are to remain open to some, must remain closed to others.

What do you think?


Making the Conversation Public: Sam Harris and Bill Maher Debate Ben Affleck About Orthodox Islam


Check out the ten minute video below. It will probably remind you of many conversations you've had with your friends and family — the frustration, the drama, the intense exasperation felt by both sides — but it's so refreshing to see this discussion take place on mainstream television.

Bill Maher and Sam Harris insist that what they're criticizing are the IDEAS — the ideas in Islamic doctrine, and the people who uphold and express those ideas.

And, of course, Ben Affleck says it's racist. It's like criticizing all black people.

I thought Maher missed an opportunity. He could have said, "Are black people an IDEA? No. Do they all hold the same IDEOLOGY? No. You're talking about people and we're talking about ideas. We're criticizing an ideology, and that is a perfectly legitimate (and even necessary) thing to do in a free society."

We'd love to hear what YOU would say to Affleck. Please leave it as a comment below.

During this conversation when Michael Steele makes the point that there are, in fact, some very brave Muslims opposing the fundamentalists, I wanted to pipe up and say, "You're making my point FOR me! The reason you call them 'very brave' is that they risk their LIVES opposing the fundamentalist Muslims. A Buddhist who criticizes Buddhist fundamentalists does not risk his life in the same way. Why? Because the Islamic IDEOLOGY is dangerous to everyone except an Islamic fundamentalist."

How would YOU respond? Please leave your comment below. Let's help each other respond well in our conversations with friends and family when the same objections come up.

Read what Raymond Ibrahim has to say about this conversation: Ben Affleck: Portrait of Islam’s Clueless Apologetics. He had a great response to Affleck's comment, “We’ve killed more Muslims than they’ve killed us by an awful lot. We’ve invaded more countries than they’ve invaded us by an awful lot.”

Here's Ibrahim's reply:

Aside from essentially suggesting that “two wrongs make a right,” his assertions reflect an appalling acquaintance with true history — thanks of course to the ingrained lies emanating from academia, followed by Hollywood and the media.

Reality records a much different story. From its inception, Islam has been a religion hostile to all others. Jihad was its primary tool of expansion.

Consider: A mere decade after the birth of Islam in the seventh century, the jihad burst out of Arabia. Leaving aside all the thousands of miles of ancient lands and civilizations that were permanently conquered, today casually called the “Islamic world” — including Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and parts of India and China — much of Europe was also, at one time or another, conquered by the sword of Islam.

Among other nations and territories that were attacked and/or came under Muslim domination are (to give them their modern names in no particular order): Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Sicily, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Greece, Russia, Poland, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Lithuania, Romania, Albania, Serbia, Armenia, Georgia, Crete, Cyprus, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Belarus, Malta, Sardinia, Moldova, Slovakia, and Montenegro.

In 846 Rome was sacked and the Vatican defiled by Muslim Arab raiders; some 600 years later, in 1453, Christendom’s other great basilica, Holy Wisdom (or Hagia Sophia) was conquered by Muslim Turks.

The few European regions that escaped direct Islamic occupation due to their northwest remoteness include Great Britain, Scandinavia, and Germany. That, of course, does not mean that they were not attacked by Islam. Indeed, in the furthest northwest of Europe, in Iceland, Christians used to pray that God save them from the “terror of the Turk.” These fears were not unfounded since as late as 1627 Muslim corsairs raided the Christian island seizing four hundred captives, selling them in the slave markets of Algiers.

Nor did America escape. A few years after the formation of the United States, in 1800, American trading ships in the Mediterranean were plundered and their sailors enslaved by Muslim corsairs. The ambassador of Tripoli explained to Thomas Jefferson that it was a Muslim’s right and duty to make war upon non-Muslims wherever they could be found, and to enslave as many as they could take as prisoners.

In short, for roughly one millennium — punctuated by a Crusader-rebuttal that people like Affleck are obsessed with demonizing — Islam daily posed an existential threat to Christian Europe and by extension Western civilization.

Here's an article published in Pakistan: An open letter to Ben Affleck from a woman born and raised in Islam.


Article Spotlight

One of the most unusual articles on CitizenWarrior.com is Pleasantville and Islamic Supremacism.

It illustrates the Islamic Supremacist vision by showing the similarity between what happened in the movie, Pleasantville, and what devout fundamentalist Muslims are trying to create in Islamic states like Syria, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia (and ultimately everywhere in the world).

Click here to read the article.


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

  © Free Blogger Templates Columnus by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP