Something to Weave Into Your Small Talk With Friends and Co-Workers


I read a story from The Week Magazine yesterday, and when I was at work, I mentioned one little tidbit in conversations with four different co-workers. What I mentioned was that Syed Farook, the male shooter in San Bernardino, hesitated after he and his wife came into the conference room. He seemed to be looking for someone according to some survivors. He might have been looking for a man he had argued with earlier about whether Islam was a religion of peace!

Everybody I told this to burst out laughing. And it made a serious point in a somewhat lighthearted way.

Below are some other interesting excerpts from the article.

At 11 a.m., less than 30 minutes after Farook had left the center, he was back. The couple walked through the doors and took what witnesses described as "a stance." She stood on the right of the door to the conference room; he was on the left as they pointed their long rifles at his astonished co-workers.

Farook appeared to hesitate, perhaps momentarily losing his nerve or maybe to seek out a specific victim, such as Thalasinos, with whom he had argued over whether Islam could call itself a peaceful religion.

Thalasinos was among the dead at the center. Also killed were Michael Wetzel, 37, a father of six, and Bennetta Betbadal, 46, the wife of a police officer and a Christian who fled to America from Iran when she was 18 to escape Islamic extremism.

When Malik (Farook's wife) arrived at Chicago O'Hare airport on July 27 last year after a flight that originated in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, the FBI and U.S. Department of Homeland Security had already carried out extensive background checks on her.

She had submitted her Pakistani passport and been fingerprinted, but no red flags had been raised...

The FBI found evidence that in their final days the couple tried to erase their electronic footprints, destroying devices. Two smashed mobile phones were discovered in a garbage bin near the home; Malik had what appeared to be a "burner phone" — one meant to be used for a short time and discarded — on her body.

When you find small pieces of information that really stand out, remember them and work them into casual conversations. This does two things: It can help gradually change someone's understanding of the problem of Islam, and it creates a mind set that says, "It's okay for us to talk about these things."


Leaders Who Suggest Curbing Muslim Immigration


On the one hand, we know some Muslim women want to move to free countries to get away from Islam, and don't feel they can safely become apostates until they arrive safely in the free country. On the other hand, we have no idea what a Muslim will do when she or he arrives. Will they have ten children and teach them all to be orthodox Muslims? A British study found that second generation Muslims are more likely than their parents to be orthodox, which seems to imply that it doesn't matter if the parents are "radical" or not. It only matters that they consider themselves Muslim.

To be on the safe side, shouldn't we limit Muslim immigration until this kind of thing can be sorted out?

Looking around the world, we can see that the larger the percentage of Muslims in a given country, the more strongly and successfully the politically-active orthodox Muslims among them press for concessions to Islamic norms. Stopping Muslim immigration seems a sensible, obvious, self-preserving measure for a country to take, doesn't it? What do you think? Leave a comment on this article or email me and I'll post it for you.

I'm not the only one to advocate putting a stop to Muslim immigration, of course. Pim Fortuyn led one of the most consequential efforts so far to end Muslim immigration, in his case, to the Netherlands.

In an interview, Mark Steyn was asked, "What should the United States do?"

He said first the U.S. should stop "ideological subversion," meaning we should prevent people like the Saudis from buying their way into places where they have influence, like Middle Eastern studies on college campuses, and building mosques here that teach orthodox Islam, and so on. He said, "If you are not on ideological offense, you're going to get rolled."

Second, he said, "Unless you have real serious cultural confidence, you should not have mass Muslim immigration."

In an article on stealth jihad, this quote is applicable:

"Analyzing the problem is one thing; solving it is another. Robert Spencer’s prescriptions on what to do will rankle some and lead to his further character assassination. He is at his best when calling for the government to impose existing laws — and most gets to the point when he calls for a revival of patriotism, the self-assurance necessary to deny Islamic encroachment, white liberal guilt, and multiculturalist recriminations of the greatest nation in the history of the world. He is at his most questionable in calling on the government to 'End Muslim immigration into the United States.'"

Two Australian politicians, Pauline Hanson and Paul Green, have called for a moratorium on Muslim immigration.

Geert Wilders, Wafa Sultan, Bruce Bawer, and the late Oriana Fallaci have also recommended stopping Muslim immigration.

And this is worth reading, written by Dr. Nicolai Sennels, the Danish psychologist who studied the nature of the Muslim criminal mind: Integration, immigration and Islam-related problems: 23 suggestions for laws.

So what do you think? Should free nations stop or limit Muslim immigration? Why? What about the heterodox Muslims? Should they be taken into consideration? Do you think it is unfair to discriminate like this?


How to Stop Islam's Exploitation of Our Foolish Fellow Countrymen


I was listening to Civilization and Its Enemies last night. I read the book years ago and thought it was so good, I bought the unabridged audio version, which I've listened to four times now. One of the insights from the book that has finally overridden the last residue of my youthful idealism is this: It is a fact of life — a hard, unchangeable fact, like Newton's law of universal gravitation — that if someone is willing to risk their lives to take something of yours, you will have to be willing to risk your life to keep it, or you will probably lose it.

This applies at a personal level and at a national level.

The author, Lee Harris, was describing what happened after World War One. "The Great War" was so horrible, people would try anything to prevent it from happening again. They wanted conflicts between countries to be handled civilly — without bloodshed. But there is a Catch-22 embedded in that thinking: The more civilized people get, the more of an opportunity it presents for someone who is not civilized.

Apparently there is a famous example of civility often recounted in books on etiquette that epitomizes the essence of civility and good manners. The late Shah of Iran was sitting at a table with the Queen of England and many other guests. A bowl of rose water was presented to each guest so they could wash their fingers.

The Shah had apparently never been presented with a "finger bowl" and took it for a bowl of soup, so he picked up the bowl and started to sip it. Without hesitating, the Queen picked up her bowl and started to sip it, and everyone else at the table followed her example. Why?

The principle in civilized company — the prime principle of etiquette — is that you do not ever make someone feel they have done something wrong. You never make someone feel embarrassed or offended. You never let them think that they are not civilized.

But what if they really aren't civilized? The rules of etiquette assume the other person cares as much about courteous relations as you do. But what if they don't?

I want you to try something: Google "sociopath" and read about the strange and frightening phenomenon of sociopaths who live among us, not as serial killers, but as ordinary-appearing people who heartlessly use, manipulate, and take advantage of people without the slightest twinge of remorse or regret — and all the while, fooling their victims by imitating human empathy, deliberately giving the impression they have normal human feelings.

One of the articles has a "comments page" and a huge number of people have written their stories — painful, heartbreaking stories of being married to a sociopath, for example. And after 25 years of a nightmarish existence, they finally found out such a thing as sociopathy exists! They never knew it and tried their best to explain their husband's lying, cheating, remorseless behavior in some other way, like blaming themselves, or trying to help their husband "work through" his childhood issues. And the sociopath, of course, goes along with the process because it means he can keep getting away with his lying, cheating, remorseless manipulations.

But sociopathy isn't the result of a hard upbringing; it isn't the result of an "anger issue" or a lack of opportunity, or anything else. It is the result of being born as a sociopath — a person who has no capacity for human empathy, no guilt, and no feeling of sympathy for others.

And no amount of any kind of therapy will help a sociopath become less sociopathic. As a matter of fact, those who get therapy become even more effectively sociopathic because in therapy they learn how to better manipulate people — they learn what excuses people will buy, and they learn how to convey authentic-looking emotions better. They learn more about people, and it makes them more successful at taking advantage of non-sociopaths.

Now, for a wife who doesn't know such a thing as a sociopath exists, they explain their sociopathic husband's behavior in some way. They don't leave it unexplained. It is almost impossible for a human being to not explain something. So they explain it. They think it's because their husband had a bad childhood, or they themselves are not a good enough wife, or whatever. But they come from the idea that "deep inside, everyone is basically good" and this assumption prevents them from grasping the true nature of their husband's character.

They can't conceive of the real explanation, and because they can't, they become an ongoing victim.

I think the same is true on a global scale dealing with any group or country that is willing to be ruthless.

If you have ten countries and they all agree to be civil to each other and work out their differences in a civilized manner and to forgo using violence to solve their differences, they will all get along great. But they will also have created an ideal environment to exploit for someone who is willing to use violence to get their way. In fact, the more civilized those ten countries become, the more vulnerable they will be to exploitation by an uncivilized enemy. The more the ten countries disarm themselves, the more ripe they will be for the picking.

It is just a fact of life you can't get around.

I've been thinking long and hard about what it is that prevents people from getting simple facts about Islam. And I think I've actually finally struck bedrock. This is it. Just like the sociopath's wife who doesn't understand that sociopaths exist (and that her husband is one), our multicultural friends don't understand that some ideologies are sociopathic. Cultures can be sociopathic. Religious doctrines can be sociopathic. And this ignorance keeps them vulnerable to exploitation and manipulation, and ultimately subjugation.

If you don't personally think it's possible for someone to just be born bad, then you can't conceive of the existence of a born sociopath. And if you can't understand that a person can be born a sociopath, then maybe you can't conceive of the possiblity that a religion could be started by a sociopath and could create an exploitative, violent religious doctrine, creating a global movement of manipulative, dominance-oriented political action.

And the more people do not want to believe such a thing exists, the more easily they are defeated and subjugated by those who are following this creed. The more civilized people get, the more unwilling they are to make others feel wrong, the more easily they are bowled over and manipulated by those who are willing to exploit their ignorance.

Knowledge of sociopathy is the antidote to all our difficulties. Okay, I'm probably overstating my case. But if people understood that sociopaths exist, and if they understood that a sociopath can't be changed or improved, and if they understood that some people are just born that way, then they could understand that not everyone is a good person "deep down" and then they could understand it's possible for a religion to be started by a sociopath, by someone who only wanted to exploit the features of a religion. And if they could get that, they might be able to listen to a description of such a "religion."

And if they could get that, they might actually be willing to defend themselves from it.

Once those spouses of sociopaths finally realize that sociopathy exists, and they finally identify their spouse as a sociopath, they have no problem at all ending the relationship and stopping their own victimization. Their realization and reversal is sudden and complete.

I think if these people to whom we've been trying to get through finally realized sociopaths exist, through this chain of realizations, they could ultimately stop being the foolish, exploited victims of Islam's ruthless aggression.

This is also posted on Inquiry Into Islam here.


Can Any Nice, Normal Muslim Suddenly Turn Into a Jihadist?


The following is an excerpt from an article by Paul Sperry, author of Infiltration and Muslim Mafia:

Unlike other mass murderers, who exhibit antisocial, paranoid, narcissistic or schizoid traits, Farook and Malik do not appear to be natural born killers. Neither had a history of violence nor criminal record, and both generally were described as pleasant people.

In fact, friends invariably called the 28-year-old Farook a “very nice person,” while his landlord even described him as a “very gentle person.” He enjoyed working on old cars and shooting hoops. For her part, the 29-year-old Malik was seen as “a good girl” and a good student who aspired to be a pharmacist. Before dressing in austere Islamic clothing, she was even viewed as a “modern girl.”

Muslims and non-Muslims alike spoke highly of them both. Then suddenly a switch went off, and the couple went medieval.

By all accounts, that switch was piety. They simply got closer to their religion, immersing themselves in Islamic scripture.

Farook and Malik devoted themselves to Islamic study, which culminated in both of them memorizing the Koran, a high honor in Islam. They began wearing traditional Islamic garb — Farook, a white tunic and skullcap, and Malik, a black veil and robe.

We saw the same transformation in the Tsarnaev brothers of Boston, who were considered “nice” and “normal,” even partiers — until their mother made them stick their noses in their holy books and get religion. Within a matter of just a couple of years of becoming more fervent in their Muslim faith, these “typical American boys” were making shrapnel bombs and blowing off limbs of innocent bystanders at the Boston Marathon to “punish” fellow Americans for supporting wars in Muslim lands. And that was after the oldest boy, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, nearly beheaded a couple of Jews he once befriended.

“I told Tamerlan that we are Muslims, and we are not practicing our religion, and how can we call ourselves Muslims,” Mrs. Tsarnaev said. “And that’s how Tamerlan started reading about Islam, and he started praying, and he got more and more and more into his religion.”

The change was dramatic in both boys, who stopped partying and started hating — Jews, Christians, America. Suddenly they were growing out Islamic beards and saying they were “willing to die for Islam.”

A similar change came over the Chattanooga jihadist, Mohammad Abdulazeez, who was described as "very friendly" — until he became intensely observant in his faith and saw it as his religious duty to fatally gun down five soldiers in Tennessee earlier this year.

Moreover, two brothers suspected in last month’s Paris terror attacks were born-again Muslims as well. Reportedly, they really began to change around six months prior to the attacks, when they stopped drinking and started studying and praying.

This phenomenon is well documented in virtually every FBI case of homegrown American terrorism: the more religious, the more radical. The pattern is borne out in hundreds of criminal complaints and court documents since 9/11 that I’ve reviewed for my books on terrorism. Almost to a person, suspects are described by family, friends, neighbors or co-workers as “nice” — that is the universal adjective for these mass murderers — until they get closer to their religion and suddenly seek out infidels to kill.

Case agents have seen the link between Islamic belief and violence firsthand.

“Evidence exists to demonstrate that a greater level of adherence to Islamic law correlates to a greater likelihood of violence,” said FBI veteran John Guandolo, who worked some of the nation’s biggest terrorism cases out of the bureau’s Washington field office after 9/11.

Studies back him up, including one recently published in Europe that found that Islam is the only religion in the world in which people become more violent the stronger they believe.

Danish linguist Tina Magaard and a team of researchers spent three years examining the texts of the 10 largest religions to see if any incite violence. “The texts of Islam are clearly distinct from the other religions’ texts, as they, to a higher degree, call for violence and aggression against followers of other faiths,” she concluded. “There are also direct incitements to terror.”

Read the whole thing here: They're "So Nice," Until They Get Religion and Want to Kill Us.


The Third Jihad


Partly because of a new and indiscriminate tolerance, and partly because of a huge influx of jizya, Orthodox Islam has gained the confidence to begin its "third jihad." The term refers to the murder of non-Muslims around the world (for the crime of being non-Muslims), but includes much more than that. There are many ways to wage jihad, and nearly every Muslim can play a part.

For example, orthodox Muslims have deliberately emigrated into foreign lands in order to fulfill Allah's command to make the whole world submit to Islamic law. In those new countries, they are organizing and building up their political power. Orthodox Muslims are recruiting new Muslims into their ranks every day. Some have gained vast wealth and are using it to build mosques and madrassas all over the world. Orthodox Muslims have infiltrated the political machinery in Western nations, they've successfully manipulated movies and the press and disabled and silenced resistance against them, and of course, they are also killing non-Muslims around the world. This is the third jihad.

Jihad means "struggle," but a particular kind of struggle. Jihad means to struggle to make Islam dominant over all other religions and governments. This is one of the religious duties of all devout Muslims, and according to Mohammad, it is the most important obligation a Muslim must fulfill.

The first jihad started with Mohammad. His armies conquered all of Arabia. In the hundred years after his death, his armies conquered most of the Middle East, North Africa and Spain. The first jihad lasted from 622 AD until 750 AD. Read more about that here.

The second major jihad started in 1071 AD. Islamic armies toppled Constantinople and spread into Europe, India, and further into Africa. The second jihad began to decline when the Muslim army was stopped on September 11th, 1683 at the gates of Vienna, Austria. Read more about the second jihad here.

The Islamic push to dominate — all other cultures, all other religions, and all other governments — has never stopped. But we are referring to large waves of success for the Islamic expansion; periods where vast new territories were brought under the control of Sharia law.

Now we are in the third jihad, the third great wave.

Non-Muslims in the past have fought back, of course (otherwise the whole world would already be ruled by Islam). Some successfully resisted subjugation.

But many countries and cultures took too long to recognize the threat or organized their resistance too slowly, and they were swallowed up by Islam's relentless aggression. So we have 57 countries today who are Islamic enough to be members of the OIC.

Orthodox Muslims are waging jihad in subtler and more clever ways (waging jihad by gaining concessions, for example), in addition to simple violent aggression and intimidation, but non-Muslims around the world are beginning to notice the pattern and are rousing themselves to defend their cultures, their religions, their governments, and their lives.

I hope you join us in stopping the third jihad. We need you to help others recognize the threat. We need your participation in organizing an effective resistance. And we need to move quickly. Here's how to get started.

Citizen Warrior is the author of the book, Getting Through: How to Talk to Non-Muslims About the Disturbing Nature of Islam and also writes for Inquiry Into Islam, History is Fascinating, and Foundation for Coexistence. Subscribe to Citizen Warrior updates here. You can send an email to CW here.


The First Muslim Refugee Resettlement Program Included Muhammad, the Founder of Islam


Whether or not a particular group of refugees has been infiltrated by ISIS, there remains the fact that many refugees subscribe to the same general worldview held by members of the Islamic State. After all, they’ve been steeped in the same cultural-religious milieu that produced the terrorists. Many of them will take it for granted that Islam is the supreme religion, that Muhammad was the perfect man, and that Jews and Christians are unclean. They may be averse to committing violence, but they may find it perfectly understandable if other Muslims resort to violence in order to avenge a real or perceived insult to Islam.

Muhammad and his followers were also once refugees. He and his group of about 100 men, women, and children had long overstayed their welcome in Mecca. According to Muslim chroniclers, they had to flee in order to avoid persecution.

Fortunately for Muhammad, the more “enlightened” citizens of Medina extended an invitation to the Muslims to come and live in their city. It is not recorded whether or not they held up large “welcome refugees” banners as is now the custom at European train stations, but they soon enough experienced the kind of regrets that Europeans are now having.

Muhammad gradually acquired wealth and converts, and within a half-dozen years he was the master of Medina. Those Medinans who were not exiled or slaughtered were thoroughly subjugated.

Muhammad then used Medina as the launching pad for his conquest of all Arabia. Within a century of his death, his followers had conquered nearly half of the civilized world.

The above is an excerpt from the article, Medina — The First Muslim Refugee Resettlement Program.


How Farook and Malik Could Believe They Saved Their Daughter by Getting Killed


The following was written by Christopher W. Holton and published in Terror Trends Bulletin here:

In monitoring the TV news in the wake of the San Bernardino terrorist attack one theme we hear over and over again has to do with the question of how a young, prosperous couple with a baby girl could leave all that behind to launch a murderous attack on innocent civilians.

For the answers we need only look to Islamic doctrine.

First of all, Jihadists have stated repeatedly that they do not regard kafir civilians as “innocent.” Here it is stated in no uncertain terms by the Islamic State in a release from September 2014:

Kill the disbeliever whether he is civilian or military, for they have the same ruling. Both of them are disbelievers. Both of them are considered to be waging war (the civilian by belonging to a state waging war against the Muslims). Both of their blood and wealth is legal for you to destroy, for blood does not become illegal or legal to spill by the clothes being worn.

The greater question, of course is, how could they leave behind a baby girl and family members to perform such an act, even if they believed it was justified?

When Muslims die they don’t believe that they will go straight to paradise. They believe that they must endure the “torments of the grave” until judgment day. The “torments of the grave” is positively gruesome. Muslims believe that they will be able to feel all of the decomposition and associated effects while they are in the grave.

There are exceptions, however.

Those who die while waging Jihad for Allah believe that they will not have to endure the torments of the grave, but will go straight to paradise, with all of its wonderful benefits. Such people are called shahids.

Not only that — and this is the most important point — shahids also win passage for some 70 family members when they die waging Jihad for Allah.

So, Syef Farook and Tashfeen Malik believed that they were doing something great for their baby daughter and their families by waging Jihad and dying in that cause. By what they believe, they all, including the baby, have thus been earned a trip to paradise without having to endure the torments of the grave.

This is Islamic doctrine and it explains the actions of the numerous Muslims who have joined the global Jihadist movement.

This is also posted here on Caring With Fairness.


What Happens When a Muslim Becomes More Islamic?


In the last two years, Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the people who killed non-Muslims in San Bernardino, had become more devout about his faith, more religious, more dedicated to it. In other words, he became more Islamic. He started taking Islamic doctrine more seriously.

Speaking to the Daily News, Farook’s father said his son, “was very religious. He would go to work, come back, go to pray, come back. He’s Muslim.” Farook’s neighbor told the paper that over the past two years, Farook exchanged his Western dress for Islamic gowns and grew a beard. (Source)

Recently, Farook had worshipped at a San Bernardino mosque, Dar-Al-Uloom Al-Islamiyah of America. Farook was “a very nice person, very soft,” said Ali, a mosque regular. He said Farook had memorized the Koran, a rare accomplishment for even devout Muslims. (Source)

Members of two local mosques where Farook worshipped sounded a similar note Thursday, telling NBC News they knew him as a mild-mannered, peaceful and highly devout man. ‘We never saw him raise his voice. We never saw him curse at anyone, disrespect anyone. He was always a very nice guy, always very simple, very straightforward,’ Nazeem Ali, of Dar-al-Uloom, Al-Islamiyah mosque in San Bernardino told the station. (Source)

All of this indicates that Farook was imitating the example of Muhammad. In the Koran it says 91 times that a Muslim should follow Muhammad's example. Muhammad had a beard, was considered mild-mannered, peaceful and highly devout by his fellow Muslims, prayed five times a day, and he also slaughtered non-Muslims.

Farook's wife, Tashfeen Malik, also became more devout over the last few years. Speaking of a Facebook posting she made, an MSN article says, "Officials cautioned that Malik's Facebook posting did not mean that the militant group directed Malik and her husband to carry out the Wednesday attack, and that investigators think it instead suggests that the couple had become self-radicalized." (Source)

That's the first time I've ever seen the term "self-radicalized." In other words, it's possible that nobody talked them into waging jihad, or recruited them or "radicalized" them. They just read the Quran and did what it says.

"Tashfeen was an individual who kept to herself most of the time," said Mohammad Abuershaid (family member). He added that she was a soft-spoken housewife who stayed at home with the baby...On Friday morning, dozens of reporters were let inside the Redlands town house where Malik and Farook lived. The doors and windows were boarded up, and the home was sparsely decorated. The upstairs had a crib, baby toys and children's books. In the middle of the living room, a copy of the Quran rested on a small black table. (Source)

A change came over Tashfeen Malik two or three years ago. She started dressing more conservatively, wearing a scarf that covered nearly all her face, and became more fervent in her Muslim faith, according to some who knew her in Pakistan. (Source)

A maid who worked in the Multan home where Malik lived said that Malik initially wore a scarf that covered her head but not her face. A year before she got married, she began wearing a scarf that covered all but her nose and eyes, the maid said. The maid spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of jeopardizing her employment with the family.

A relative of Malik’s in Pakistan, Hifza Batool, reported hearing similar things from other family members about Malik, her step-niece. “I recently heard it from relatives that she has become a religious person and she often tells people to live according to the teachings of Islam,” said Batool, a teacher who lives in Karor Lal Esan, about 280 miles southwest of the Pakistani capital of Islamabad. (Source)

Originally posted here on Foundation for Coexistence.


Calling it "Terrorism"


The following was written by Christopher Holton, Vice President of Outreach for the Center for Security Policy, originally published on Holton's web site with the title, And the whole “terrorism” debate continues yet again…

In the wake of the San Bernardino attack yesterday morning, we are once again witnessing the pointless debate in law enforcement circles, as well as the news media, as to whether the mass shooting was an act of “terrorism.”

This morning on Fox News, a so-called “expert” was dissecting the Justice Department’s official definition of terrorism to justify the FBI’s hesitation in classifying what is, let’s face it, another act of war.

That same “expert” claimed that this was another example of “self-radicalization” over the internet and thus was very difficult to classify.

Fighting through the nausea induced by the talking heads’ ignorance, I managed to utter the word, “Hogwash.”

We must refrain as a country from once again entering into a debate on what amounts largely to semantics about whether or not this latest massacre was an act of “terrorism.”

We need to get away from focusing on the term “terrorism.” Some folks still don’t consider the 1983 Beirut Barracks bombing by Hezbollah which killed 241 Marines, sailors and soldiers an act of terrorism because, by some widely regarded definitions, attacks on combatants under such circumstances cannot be termed “terrorism.”

The San Bernardino massacre and the 1983 attack on the Marine Barracks, though very different, were both acts of JIHAD.

The Jihadis themselves don’t refer to themselves as “terrorists.” But they most assuredly refer to themselves as “Jihadis.”

I say let them own that title. If one of them goes out on his own and shoots up a ticket counter at LAX, beheads a grandmother with a knife in Moore, Oklahoma, or shoots up a county health facility in California, those are acts of Jihad, just as 9-11 was an act of Jihad.

This was never a war on “terrorism.”

We are at war with the Jihadists. They are waging Jihad against us and that takes many forms:

  • Outright military confict (see Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs)
  • Insurgency (See Iraq, Afghanistan, Algeria, Thailand, Philippines, Pakistan, India, Somalia, Yemen, and others)
  • Terrorism (9-11, Paris, train bombings in Spain, 7/7 bombings in the UK, Mumbai, etc)
  • Individual acts of violent Jihad (DC sniper, LAX shooting, Ft. Hood, Garland, Texas, Moore Oklahoma, Chattanooga, Tennessee, etc.)
  • Financial Jihad (zakat payments to Islamic charities which, by Islamic Shariah law, fund Jihad, Sharia-Compliant Finance)
  • Civilizational Jihad (peaceful methods, such as political influence operations (Muslim Brotherhood fronts such as CAIR, ISNA), mass immigration, lawfare, imposing Islamic customs on the West (insisting we play by their rules)).

All of this is jihad. Jihad is the key. We should not get wrapped up in trying to classify it in our own vernacular. Orient on the enemy's doctrine and learn how he thinks and acts.


This was also posted here on Foundation for Coexistence for sharing purposes.


They Were Such a Nice Couple


In an article in the Washington Post, a senior U.S. law enforcement official was perplexed about why Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik killed 14 people. They weren't regular readers of jihadist websites. Investigators don't know if the couple were "radicalized" or not. "It's very odd," he said. "It appears they were a happy couple of the Muslim faith."

The article asserts: "Relatives, friends, co-workers, police and neighbors agree on one thing: It doesn’t make sense." Which is true — if you know nothing at all about Islam, the shooting in San Bernardino doesn't make any sense.

If you know about Islamic doctrine, however, it makes sense. The fact that they were Muslims means they have identified themselves as believers in the Islamic ideology, and given Allah's final message about non-Muslims, slaughtering them makes sense. In the Koran, Allah even anticipates that anyone with a shred of humanity would hesitate to carry out the horrific actions recommended in Islamic doctrine. It says, basically, "Even if you don't want to do these things, you must." It is a test of a Muslim's faith.

In other words, to really prove to Allah that you trust and believe him, you must set aside your own feelings of empathy and do what he commands.

Farook and Malik did just that. Investigators are scrambling to find connections to a "terror network" or some other official membership in something so they can explain how such a nice couple could suddenly go on a murderous rampage. But no Muslim needs to be affiliated with anything other than Islam to decide to murder non-Muslims. They just have to read Islamic doctrine, available at any nearby bookstore, and do what it says.

And one of the things it says is to go ahead and be nice to non-Muslims if it serves Islam's main goal, but never let them in your heart. In a different Washington Post article, we find a description of that. It says: "Farook’s supervisor, Amanda Adair, who also went to college with him at California State University at San Bernardino, said he 'got along with everybody, but he kept his distance.'"

In many articles you find the same sort of comments. Here's another quote from the same article: "Speaking to the Los Angeles Times, co-workers who knew Farook described him as a quiet, polite man who held no obvious grudges against people in the office."

In still another Washington Post article, you can read comments like these:

"Farook had always been one of the most agreeable, the quietest, and also among the best at his job...

"He got along with everybody..."

"We all thought he was doing great, having a family, but still the same guy — peaceful and quiet..."

"And so many in the San Bernardino County Department of Health were left doubting how much they knew about their co-worker..."

When I talk to people about Islam, one of the most common things people respond with is, "I know a lot of Muslims, and they're nice people," or "I work with a Muslim and she's a very sweet woman," or "I've traveled to Jordan and Egypt and met a lot of Muslims and they are good people."

These things are said as if they refute your statement that the ideology of Islam is dangerous to non-Muslims. How can someone be a nice person and at the same time believe in an ideology that recommends slaughtering people?

It's not as far fetched as it may seem at first glance. The "argument" (if you can call it that) is irrelevant to the issue. The fact that you know a Muslim who is a very nice person doesn't in the slightest imply that Islam's ideology must be peaceful and loving. It would be like stating: "Islam's ideology can't be intolerant or violent because I know this Muslim and he's really nice. The existence of this nice Muslim man is proof that Islam is a peaceful religion." Not much of an argument.

It's a weak argument because first of all, almost every psychopathic serial murderer is described by people who knew him as a quiet, peaceful, nice man. Someone can be "nice" and still enjoy killing people, as strange as that may seem to someone who doesn't know much about sociopathy.

It is, of course, unlikely that a large proportion of Muslims are sociopaths, but there's another way to explain a nice Muslim being willing to kill non-Muslims: The way killing is framed in Islamic doctrine helps to soothe a Muslim's conscience. It goes something like this: "Non-Muslims are going to suffer in hell forever unless we can somehow bring them into the light of Islam. Sometimes people are stubborn and you have to use force to get them to accept the truth. So we have this system, and if you use the system, we will bring a lot more people into the light."

The system, as laid out in Islamic doctrine, is this: Scare people into submitting to Islamic rule. If you have to terrorize people, so be it. The more horrific the atrocities, the more quickly people will submit (from this point of view, horrific atrocities can be seen as compassionate). Once you establish Islamic rule and begin applying Islamic law, everybody but the Christians and Jews have already been killed or converted. So right there, you have potentially saved a lot of souls from eternal damnation (the ones you scared into converting). And when you apply jizya and all the other official forms of discrimination against Jews and Christians, they will feel the heavy burden of their underling status, and over several generations, most of them will convert to Islam, saving even more souls.

Given this way of thinking, murdering innocent non-Muslims can be seen as an act of kindness. So even a "nice" person might be willing to do it.

People who know about Islam know this, and it's one of the main reasons we want to stop Muslim immigration. People who don't know this can't see why we shouldn't accept millions of poor refugees who have been forced from their homes by war.

It's not the people we're worried about. It's the ideology they carry with them.

This article was also posted here at Inquiry Into Islam and at Foundation for Coexistence here for you to share with others.

Read more about the effects of simply becoming more Islamic here: Can Any Nice, Normal Muslim Suddenly Turn Into a Jihadist?


A New Look at "My Neighbor is a Muslim and He's Really Nice"


In our Answers to Objections series, we have one entitled, My Friend is a Muslim and He's Really Nice. Here's something else to add to that discussion:

"ISIS has issued guidance in a little-noticed manual for the so-called 'lone wolves' who have become a major concern of U.S. law-enforcement officials," writes Michael Maloof.

"The 63-page, English-language manual, 'Safety and Security Guidelines for Lone Wolf Mujahideen,' said to have been authored by three former members of the intelligence service of the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein who now work with ISIS in its self-proclaimed caliphate capital of Raqqa, Syria.

"The manual, adapted from an older al-Qaida online Arabic language course, gives lessons to clandestine small-cell and individual jihadist.

"To avoid detection by U.S. law enforcement, the manual calls on individuals and cells to maintain constant vigilance disclosing information on a strictly need-to-know basis and varying daily routines.

"In addition, it covers how to devise a cover story, maintain safe houses, maintain weapons security and safely transport them and other cell operatives. It also tells how to perform surveillance of a target and detect surveillance by law enforcement.

"The manual strongly advises covert cell operatives to blend in with their surroundings and not to draw any attention to themselves.

"It instructs the operatives to recruit mostly family members or individuals with whom they have had lifelong relationships. In addition, covert operatives should not keep weapons or incriminating documents in their homes. They should hide their Muslim identity by wearing a Christian cross, ensure there is no Quran app on their smart phones, don’t exhibit prayer beads, cut off beards and stay away from mosques."

Read the whole report: ISIS equips 'lone wolves' in U.S. with how-to manual.

To those who respond to your criticism of Islam by saying they know a neighbor or a guy at work who is a Muslim and he's a nice person, you can answer that it really doesn't matter. His niceness is not necessarily an indication of what he believes or what he is willing to do. His professed faith, however, IS an indication of what he believes.


Amish Militants Stab 12 People in 12 Separate Attacks


Admit it, that would be a shocking headline if it were true. Why? Because some religions are actually peaceful.

Islam, however, is not.

It isn't Amish militants stabbing people, of course, it is orthodox Muslims. Stabbing is the new trend in killing infidels. Paul Alster reports:

The knife has replaced suicide bombings, car attacks and random shootings as the new tool of choice for waging jihad on Israel, with leaders blatantly calling for Palestinians young and old to take up the kitchen implement and kill.

While cars careening into crowds was the trend in terror last year — with hit songs in Gaza and the West Bank praising "martyrs" behind the wheel — this year Hamas and Palestinian Authority leaders, clerics and newspaper editors are openly encouraging stabbings that have so far killed a dozen and wounded 167 since Oct. 1. Through sermons, social media, online blogs, editorial cartoons and TV and radio reports, the message seems to be that anyone can pick up a knife and advance the cause.

“Restrain the victim while others attack him with axes and butcher knives," influential Sheikh Muhammad Salakh recently preached as he brandished a knife in a sermon that was widely viewed within the territories. "Do not fear what will be said about you. Oh men of the West Bank, next time, attack in a group of three, four, or five. Attack them in groups. Cut them into body parts.”

What kind of religion is this? In case you didn't catch it, let me highlight a few phrases: "hit songs in Gaza and the West Bank praising martyrs... clerics and newspaper editors openly encouraging stabbings... Through sermons, social media, online blogs, editorial cartoons and TV and radio reports, the message seems to be that anyone can pick up a knife and advance the cause." The only religion that would do this is Islam.

Read the whole report here: Blade of jihad: Extremists embrace the knife as tool of terror.


Article Spotlight

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

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

Click here to read the article.


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

  © Free Blogger Templates Columnus by 2008

Back to TOP