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


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