The Information Age Will Be The Death Of Islam

Saturday

The following was written by Eric Allen Bell, originally published in Faith Freedom here.

We do not vandalize. We do not engage in hate speech. We have respect for the law. We do not harm our fellow citizens. We are slow to anger and when we finally get angry, we express that anger in a civilized way. UNDER THAT BANNER, I WILL STATE THE FOLLOWING:

Follower of Islam, I do not tolerate you. Your feigned or willful ignorance about Islam is no longer an excuse. I hold you personally accountable.

I am offended by you. I cannot and will not tolerate a person who follows an ideology which teaches the inferiority of women, the killing and hatred of Jews, the execution of homosexuals, the silencing of free speech, forced amputations, the stoning of rape victims, genital mutilation, and the violent overthrow of all non-Islamic governments and civilizations.

Islam is Nazism with a god. And I cannot and will not “coexist” with Nazis. I will not patronize your places of business. I will not hire you. I will not buy your products. I will not support politicians who support you. I will not be your friend. And if I am your neighbor, I will always be suspicious of you and cautious. I want you to feel so uncomfortable in my free country, in my civilized country, that you renounce your allegiance to this savage and fascist ideology or leave.

ISLAM IS THE ENEMY of free speech, of human rights and of Liberty. If you follow Islam, you are my enemy. I encourage you now to leave Islam and take your place among the civilized people of this world. But if you insist on remaining loyal to the brutal savagery of Islam, your enemies will grow faster than can be contained by an Islamic lobbyist group or the media or any government agency. This is a zero sum game and the Civilized World will win.

ISLAM HAS BEEN AT WAR FOR 1,400 YEARS with freedom and all that is good. But my head is no longer hidden in the sand. I am at war with you. All people who value human rights, freedom and Liberty should be at war with you. And they will be soon enough, because the enemy of Islam is information and we are spreading information faster than you can keep up with. There is no way to put this genie back in the bottle now. The information age will be the death of Islam.

Your 1,400 year reign of terror is coming to an end. And you, follower of Islam, are on the wrong side of history.

It is time for all civilized people to find the moral clarity and the courage to GET ANGRY and to BECOME INTOLERANT. You have the ability to do this in a civilized way. We must not become like the savages whom we oppose — otherwise they win. But Islam must be stopped. When you support the followers of Islam, you support an ideology that promotes genocide against the unbeliever — as clearly outlined in the Quran.

THE TIME HAS COME TO BOYCOTT THE FOLLOWERS OF ISLAM. FOLLOWER OF ISLAM, I PERSONALLY HOLD YOU ACCOUNTABLE FOR SUPPORTING THIS FASCIST IDEOLOGY.

Tolerance is overrated. If you follow the Quran, you are the enemy of freedom and you are my enemy.

Read more...

Where Is Islam Vulnerable?

Friday

Here is part of a letter Ali Sina (a former Muslim who runs Faith Freedom, and who has helped hundreds of Muslims successfully leave Islam) wrote in answer to a question. 

Muslims are not afraid of fighting. They are not afraid of killing or dying. They are afraid of ridicule. That is their weak spot. It is right on their weak spot that we must concentrate our attacks.

Only a fool would deny that we are in a war. Muslims have resumed their jihad against humanity. Each side has its weakness. The weakness of non-Muslims, particularly the Westerners, is their guilt. Muslims abuse the non-Muslims in their countries and violate their every human right, but when they come to the West they demand, not just equal, but preferential treatment. Not only do they not abide by our rules, they make us abide by theirs. Most of the meat served in fast food restaurants and schools in Europe is halal. Why? It’s because the non-Muslims don’t care. And because that Muslims win. They win because of our indifference and inaction. The Westerners feel obliged to comply because they are bound by their guilt. Here is where Muslims have their enemies by their collars. They know our weakness and our legal system and they take full advantage of that to strengthen their position. Do we know their weakness?

The vulnerability of Muslims is shame. Having lost their identity, Muslims seek their selfhood and pride in their religion. Criticizing Islam for Muslims is the most devastating experience. For them, who literally worship Muhammad more than God, hearing him questioned and ridiculed is traumatic.

Paradoxically, this is also their salvation. The more Islam is criticized, the less sensitive Muslims become and gradually they stop clinging to it as their source of pride. Eventually Islam will become their source of shame. It’s then that the great exodus from Islam will begin...

The Westerners cannot overcome their weakness. They can't bring themselves to discriminate against Muslims. Their sense of guilt is too strong and too debilitating. This gives Muslims an edge. The only way for the West to overcome this handicap is to take advantage of the weakness of Muslims and this means criticizing Islam and ridiculing its pedophile, rapist founder.

Read more...

Alexis de Tocqueville on Islam

Alexis de Tocqueville (1805 – 1859) was a French political thinker and historian best known for his Democracy in America (appearing in two volumes: 1835 and 1840) and The Old Regime and the Revolution (1856). In both of these works, he analyzed the rising living standards and social conditions of individuals and their relationship to the market and state in Western societies. Democracy in America was published after his travels in the United States, and is today considered an early work of sociology and political science.

Here is Alexis de Tocqueville on Islam:

"I studied the Quran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. As far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion more to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself."

(Source)

Read more...

The Islamic Infiltration of South America

Monday

What was left of the bombed building in Buenos Aires
In 1994, a terrorist attack in Buenos Aires, Argentina, killed 85 people and injured hundreds. Alberto Nisman (an investigator and prosecutor) has been following the trail of evidence for ten years and he uncovered an Islamic infiltration of South America, orchestrated by Iran.

In 2006, according to Wikipedia, "Nisman and Marcelo Martínez Burgos formally accused the government of Iran of directing the bombing, and the Hezbollah militia of carrying it out." The prosecutors said Buenos Aires was targeted when it decided not to transfer nuclear technology to Iran.

Nisman continued his investigations and was about to testify to the Argentina legislature that there was a government cover up of Iran's role in the bombing, but in January of this year he died from a gunshot to the head. The following are excerpts of a report on Nisman's findings by Linette Lopez, writing for Business Insider:

As days go by, the mystery surrounding the death of Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman — who was found shot in the head in his locked apartment two months ago — becomes murkier.

But we’re learning a lot more about the explosive findings of his decade-long investigation.

Testimony from journalists and government officials suggest that in addition to describing Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner’s hand in protecting the perpetrators of a 1994 Buenos Aires terrorist attack, Nisman was also working to blow the lid off the workings of Iran’s terrorist organization in Latin America.

In a written statement on Wednesday, Brazilian investigative journalist Leonardo Coutinho walked members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs through the findings of his years of work looking into Iran’s penetration of Brazil.

In a statement titled “Brazil as an operational hub for Iran and Islamic Terrorism,” Coutinho discusses not only his findings while working for Brazil’s Veja magazine, but also Nisman’s tireless work.

“Official investigations carried out by Argentine, American, and Brazilian authorities have revealed how Brazil figures into the intricate network set up to ‘export Iran’s Islamic Revolution’ to the West, by both establishing legitimacy and regional support while simultaneously organizing and planning terrorist attacks,” Coutinho said (emphasis ours).

“Despite the fact that Brazil has never been the target of one of these terrorist attacks, the country plays the role of a safe haven for Islamic extremist groups, as explained below.”

He went on to note that Nisman’s 502-page dictum on the 1994 Buenos Aires terrorist attack “not only describes the operations of the network responsible for this terrorist attack, it also names those who carried it out. Consequently, the document lists twelve people in Brazil with ties to [Iran’s Lebanese proxy] Hezbollah, who reside or resided in Brazil. Seven of these operatives had either direct or indirect participation in the AMIA bombing.”

To put these astounding assertions into perspective, consider that Iranian military mastermind Qassem Suleimani recently said, “We are witnessing the export of the Islamic Revolution throughout the region."

Tony Badran, a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, explains what Suleimani, head of the foreign arm of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps, meant by this:

“When he talks about exporting the Islamic Revolution, Suleimani is referring to a very specific template.

“It’s the template that the Khomeinist revolutionaries first set up in Lebanon 36 years ago by cloning the various instruments that were burgeoning in Iran as the Islamic revolutionary regime consolidated its power.”

And now, according to reporting from Veja and Nisman, Iran and Hezbollah have been attempting the same in Latin America.

Nisman had been working on Iran’s involvement in Latin America since 2005, when Nestor Kirchner, then Argentina’s president, asked him to investigate a 1994 terrorist attack on a Buenos Aires Jewish Center, AMIA. The attack killed 85 people.

Around the same time, according to reports, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who died in 2013, had allegedly ensured that Iranian and Hezbollah agents were furnished with passports and flights that would allow them to move freely around South America and to Iran.

From there, it was a matter of fund-raising for Iran’s agents — co-opting drug cartels, and sometimes hiding in remote, lawless parts of Brazil, Peru, Venezuela, and other countries that lack the infrastructural, legal, and economic resources to root out Iran’s agents of terror.

“Iran and Hezbollah, two forces hostile to US interests, have made significant inroads in Peru, almost without detection, in part because of our weak institutions, prevalent criminal enterprise, and various stateless areas,” Peru’s former vice interior minister told Wednesday’s House hearing, noting that Peru was not hostile to the US. “These elements are particularly weak in the southern mountainous region of my country.”

Nisman’s findings alleged that Hezbollah and top government officials in Iran orchestrated the AMIA attack.

Read the whole article here: Dead Argentine prosecutor was zeroing in on a terror threat to the entire Western Hemisphere.

Read more...

An Important Difference Between You and Your Friends

Saturday

Sometimes when you talk to people about Islam, you are flabbergasted at the depth of their ignorance. But even after they know something about Islam and accept it, sometimes you are appalled at their seeming apathy about it. Why don't they jump in and want to do something about it? Are they stupid? Are they uncaring? What is wrong with these people!?

I believe we have discovered an important difference between those of us in the counterislamization movement and those who have not joined the fight: We are seeking two different kinds of happiness.

One kind of happiness is temporary and, from our point of view, superficial: Pleasure and comfort. To pursue this kind of happiness, you pay a lot of attention to how you feel, what you want, how nice your clothes are, how tasty your food is, how comfortable your car is to drive (or how it makes you feel to own it), etc. When you overhear conversations among these people, don't you sometimes want to say, "What's the matter with you people? Don't you know there's a war on! Right now innocent people are being beheaded! Who cares about a new restaurant!?"

If you can relate to that unspoken sentiment, you probably care more about the other kind of happiness — a kind of happiness that is long-lasting and profound: Meaning. Most of us in the counterislamization movement gain happiness by working for a cause outside of our own skin. Helping other people. Living a life of meaning and purpose. Doing something that matters. The happiness this gives is a feeling of fulfillment and satisfaction. Not comfort. Not pleasure.

Here's why this distinction is important for our purposes: When you talk to people about Islam — people who are not meaning-oriented — what you are presenting is discomfort. They want to turn away. It does not make them happy. And learning more about it will make them even less happy.

I think that's why I've had so much success educating people in personal conversations about Islam lately: A while back I switched from trying to recruit them into the cause and started focusing on just informing them, but doing it in way that "entertains" them (or at least interests them and preferably surprises and fascinates them). People with a pleasure-comfort orientation don't mind being entertained and interested and fascinated. And the information still sinks in. And when it comes time to vote or choose or decide, they will be more informed and will make saner choices.

I don't think we need to try to recruit people. I think we only need to inform people. And those who are like us — people who care about meaning and purpose, people who want to be profoundly happy and fulfilled by serving a cause — will come forward on their own. They will seek out more information. They will feel called to action.

Think about this as you talk to people. The person you're talking to might derive their happiness primarily from pleasure and comfort. Talking to them angrily about a frightening reality might not get through to them. Trying to wake them up by showing them a video of mass beheadings will make them not ever want to talk to you again.

For these people, and they are the majority, a different approach is needed. With an entertaining or interesting or even fascinating approach, they won't shut you out and solid information has a chance to sink in.

We have tools here to help you change the nature of your conversations. And you can read some of the conversations I've had here to see some of the things I've tried. And if you have stories of your own, I encourage you to share them with all of us at Talk About Islam Among Non-Muslims.

Read more...

Possible Ways to Talk About Islam to Your Friends and Family

Below are transcripts of conversations I've had that went well, written down shortly after the conversation. Most of these are one-on-one conversations. Those are the best. The more people involved in the conversation, the higher your chances that the conversation will be unproductive.

We're publishing this list so those who are new to the counterislamization movement have some ideas about how to approach these sometimes difficult conversations. Even if you've been involved for a while and want to get some different ideas about how a conversation might go, these articles are worth reading:

Modern Revelations About Islamic Revelations

Preemptive Ideological Strike

Have You Heard of Geert Wilders?

Embedding a Fact Within Another Story

How Do You Know You've Gotten Through?

A Good Analogy to Use in Conversation: The Remote Island

Possible Approach: I Just Read the Koran…

Ask This Simple Question

Talk To Your Friends About Mohammad

Inch by Inch, Our Fellow Countrymen are Getting Educated

One Way to Approach a Conversation: Talk About the Movie, "The Kingdom"

A Quick Conversation About Islam and the Ground Zero Mosque

A Discussion of Various Methods For Talking to People About Islam

Join in an ongoing conversation among us non-Muslims about the challenges of talking to other non-Muslims about Islam. Click here to read what others have written or to post a message yourself.

Read more...

A Movie About Muhammad: One of Our Most Important Battle Fronts

Friday

Ali Sina, Frank Burleigh, Eric Allen Bell, and others have said that when a critical mass of non-Muslims know the story of Muhammad, Islam's expansion will come to a screeching halt. Orthodox Islam will shrink back — it will be pushed back by non-Muslims who understand what Islam really is.

My personal experience has borne this out. When I do nothing more than tell stories about Muhammad, it changes the way my listeners feel about Islam, without any arguments or strife — without anyone trying to "defend Islam." There's nothing to defend. I'm just telling a story.

I think this means that as simple as it sounds, this is one of the most important goals we should aim for: To get an epic, high-production movie made about Muhammad's life, perhaps based on Burleigh's book, It's All About Muhammad. Getting this movie finished and into theaters will be difficult to do. It will create an intense amount of resistance. But I believe it will advance our cause as nothing else can.

As it says in The Good Must Associate, there are at least three tried-and-true strategies we should be applying: Gather allies, coordinate efforts, and concentrate force at a decisive point. The creation of an honest movie about Muhammad's life is a decisive point we should concentrate on.

Once people understand what Islam really is, everything else will be relatively easy. We'll just say no. When orthodox Muslims push for concessions, we'll say no. When they want special accommodations, we'll say no. When they want to put Islamic countries on the United Nations Human Rights Council, we'll say hell no, are you kidding? When they ask for handouts (aid from wealthier countries) we'll say no. When they want to immigrate into our countries, we'll say no. When they want to join the military or teach the FBI how to deal with the "Muslim community" we'll say no. When a politician who is in any way conciliatory toward Muslims wants to get elected, we'll say no. When programs on television try to portray Islam as a religion of peace, nobody will watch it and it will be booed off the airwaves. When a Muslim advocacy group tries to put whitewashed lies into our children's school textbooks, we'll say no. When a lawyer tries to get Islamic law applied in any form in our countries' courtrooms, we'll just say no.

In other words, every place Islam tries to expand or advance, it will run into a wall of certainty about its real agenda, and it will find no way forward.

All of this and more can come about when the general population understands what Islamic doctrine really says. And almost none of this can come about as long as the population remains ignorant. This is our battle ground. This is where the fight is being waged, and it is being fought by ordinary citizens. You and me.

In our own private lives, we can increase the number of no-longer-ignorant people. And we can keep our minds on this goal of getting a movie made. If you know of a producer, a friend of a friend in the movie business, a playwright, or if you can in any way aid this effort now or any time in the future, try to advance this goal. Islam needs to be exposed for what it is. And a good movie of Muhammad's life would be the best way to accomplish it.

Someone just left a link in the comments to an interview with the author of Son of Hamas who wants to create a movie about Muhammad. Check it out: Time to Expose Muhammad.

Read more...

Why Christian Massacres Get Too Little News Coverage

Monday

ISIS massacring Christian Yazidis
I don't read or watch mainstream news very often, but I'm always curious about which stories are being covered. So a few days ago I asked a friend of mine (I know he watches CNN) if he'd seen any stories about ISIS throwing gay people off roofs.

"Yes," he said. He'd read about it.

"Have you seen any stories about the massacres of Christians?"

He asked, "What massacres?"

The reason I asked is because of something I heard Raymond Ibrahim say. He was explaining why you don't hear much about the Christian persecution now happening all over the Muslim world. His explanation struck me as insightful. Brilliant really.

He said that the general narrative in mainstream news is that the Palestinians are the besieged underdogs who have been forced out of their homeland, and Israel is the powerful oppressor. And all the bombings and killings committed by the Palestinians are somewhat understandable, so this narrative goes, given that the Palestinians have been so mistreated.

But the reason Palestinians bomb and kill Israelis is that orthodox Muslims hate Jews (because Muhammad hated Jews and believing Muslims follow Muhammad's example).

When Jews are mistreated by Muslims anywhere, it can always be explained by this mainstream news narrative that its source is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

But the burning of churches and the massacres of Christians by Muslims casts this kind of Islamic violence in a whole different light. The Christians are, in reality, a besieged minority in Muslim countries and the Muslims have no political grievance they can use to justify what they're doing. They're killing the Christians because they're Christians.

So far, the news media seems reluctant to change their narrative, so instead they just don't say much about these very "newsworthy" stories. If gays were being massacred, it would be headline news. If neo-Nazis were lining up Muslims on a beach and beheading them on film (as Muslims recently did to Christians in Libya) and burning down their mosques, you can bet everything you own it would be front page news.

In other words, the actions themselves are certainly newsworthy. But because it is Muslims massacring Christians, to cover it would not only discredit the Israeli-is-the-evil-one narrative, but it would also cast all that previous violence into a whole new worldview — a horrifying, frightening view of the world (that the problem might be the ideology considered sacred by 1.6 billion people) — and that is something that most news organizations seem as yet unwilling to confront.

Read more...

The Cube of Mecca and How it Got That Way

Saturday

Click on the image to see it larger.
The following was written by F.W. Burleigh, author of It's All About Muhammad, A Biography of the World's Most Notorious Prophet.

In the beginning of the world, there was the Kabah — at least, if you believe what Muslims are indoctrinated into believing about the draped temple of Mecca that is orbited by masses of people every year during the pilgrimage season.

The story goes it was a jewel sent down to the world by Allah from his throne far above the seventh of the seven heavens. Adam, the first man, built the Kabah as the first temple of worship of Allah, but it was destroyed in the great flood that Allah inflicted on the world for disobedience to his will. It was rebuilt by Abraham and Ishmael, and Ishmael fathered a line of Arabs that led finally to Muhammad. But by Muhammad’s time, the temple had fallen into the wrong hands, into the hands of idolaters who worshiped other gods than Allah.

Muhammad, as hero of this narrative that he crafted about himself, was commissioned by Allah to rescue the temple from idolatry and restore the one-God worship of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, and other heroes of Biblical fame.

Muhammad had a way of inserting himself into other people’s religious narratives, a compulsion derived from his many psychological disorders, not the least of which was grandiosity. He was like Woody Allen in Zelig where he grafts himself into historical footage showing himself on stage with Adolph Hitler — except that Muhammad was notoriously unfunny. In his unfunny way he grafted himself onto the line of Jewish prophets; he put himself on stage with the heroes of Jewish legends and proclaimed himself to be the best of them all, the last and final prophet before the Day of Doom, superior to all the other prophets, even Jesus. Muhammad included Jesus in the prophet lineup, but he had to demote Jesus to being merely a man, for if he acknowledged Jesus as divine, he, Muhammad, would have had less importance.

The truth about the Meccan temple is yawningly prosaic. It was a moon temple built by the early nomadic Arabs of the valley of Mecca, descendants of Yemeni emigrants who worshiped the moon, the sun, and other celestial objects. A couple of hundred years before Muhammad, the temple was an enclosure whose walls of stacked rocks were so low that goats could jump over them. In one corner, atop a pillar of rocks, was the Black Stone meteorite the desert Arabs had discovered and believed to be a gift of the moon god.

Kabah is a nickname. It means cube in Arabic, and the temple of Mecca did not acquire its cubic shape until the year A.D. 605 when Muhammad was 35 years old. Until then, it had remained a stone enclosure without a roof, though its walls had been built up higher than in previous centuries — above a man’s height and having a door. The statue of the moon god Hubal was on a pedestal in the interior. Polytheists from all over Arabia made a visit to the moon shrine during their pilgrimage.

It is in the Muslim records that Muhammad was part of the construction crew that used salvaged wood from a shipwreck to rebuild the temple and give it a roof. The temple had been damaged in a flash flood and needed to be replaced. It was Muhammad’s job to carry rocks from nearby hills on his shoulder. The evidence of the literature is that during the construction he suffered an epileptic fit. This came about after his uncles and others pestered him to remove his clothes like everyone else did, and use them as a cushion to protect his shoulder while carrying rocks, but when he removed his garments he fell to the ground in a seizure. Epilepsy is central to the Muhammad story because the neurological explosions of his malformed temporal lobe gave him ecstatic experiences that eventually convinced him he was in communion with God and that God had selected him as a prophet.

Once the temple attained its final form, then and only then did it become known as “The Cube.” It sported a semicircular stone platform on one side that served as a meeting site for the town notables and as a stage for orators when crowds gathered on important occasions.

When Muhammad conquered Mecca, he took over the Cube and made it central to the worship of his peculiar God concept, an idea that reflected his own psyche, particularly his stunning capacity for hatred and thirst for vengeance. His followers no longer orbited the moon shrine in imitation of celestial objects, but in worship of Muhammad’s God concept.

It is the practice that Muslims — Submitters to Muhammad’s God concept — blindly continue today.

F.W. Burleigh is the author of It's All About Muhammad, A Biography of the World's Most Notorious Prophet. He blogs at www.itsallaboutmuhammad.com.

The article above was also posted here on Inquiry Into Islam for sharing.

Read more...

What This Cause Needs Most

Friday

Since the first step toward influencing national legislation is a large percentage of our population clued into the problem of Islam, what we need most is to educate more of our fellow citizens more effectively.

We have plenty of good writers and speakers. What the anti-Islamization movement needs most is animators volunteering their time for the cause. For example, look at the animation in this little video:

The True Story of True

The video is completely unrelated to the counterjihad, but it's a good example of animation bringing ideas to life. What would otherwise be a dry, academic subject (the history of the word "true") becomes interesting to watch because of the animation.

The use of animation can take a video of someone talking, which might get shared a little, and turn it into a viral video that is shared a lot, just because the animation makes it so much more appealing to watch.

We need animators and graphic artists, and it might be the most important thing the movement needs. Ali Sina and Frank Burleigh say what we really need is a good, full length, high-production movie about Muhammad. It would be the modern equivalent of Common Sense or Uncle Tom's Cabin or Silent Spring — something that changes the world. And I agree with them. But in the meantime, YouTube videos can also reach a wide audience and would be easier to do (with fewer hoops to jump through).

We found out that YouTube videos have far more reach than articles. About five years ago a group from Sweden calling themselves The White Roses made a YouTube video based on three Citizen Warrior articles. Read more about it here. The video has been viewed two million, seven hundred and forty-seven thousand times so far, and is still being shared. It has been translated into German and Spanish. It had far more reach than the articles it was based on.

Here's a good example of what we need animators to do: The video below is about what we could do to the global jihad movement if we stripped oil of its strategic status:

How to Achieve Oil Independence

The simple animations in the video not only make the message more entertaining, they make the message clearer. Here's another one — this one is about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

The Middle East Problem

Again, the animations make the "lecture" far less boring, but they also help illustrate the message and make it clearer. The animations make the video far more watchable and shareable.

Imagine it: An animator could take Sam Harris's monologue on Charlie Hebdo or Eric Allen Bell's The Drain or Pat Condell's videos and turn them into viral powerhouses that reach millions. Animators have done this with old recordings of lectures by the late Alan Watts (like this one, illustrated by the creators of South Park) and given his message new life and a viral contagion. Animators could do the same thing with Bill Warner's and Geert Wilders' speeches. And given what the creators of South Park have been through, they might be among those willing to volunteer.

We also need illustrators. We need graphic artists to create viral memes for Facebook. We've learned that images with a little writing on them are shared far more often — have much more reach — than plain text or articles or even videos. A simple meme is less of a time commitment. People are sometimes motivated to read something by its sheer brevity, and if the image is interesting or intriguing, even more so. And, for the same reasons, people are more motivated to share it.

The difference in reach is important. Look at a comparison. Here's an image created by the iphone conservative (click on it to see it larger):


That is a good one. It contains a powerful message. But when I posted it on Facebook, it was only shared 53 times and reached 2,965 people. I thought I might make it more contagious, so I took the same information (edited slightly) and created this:


That was shared 4,208 times and reached 242,816 people. My tweaked version made the message simpler, clearer, easier to read, and has an image that makes you want to look. And I'm not an artist. Imagine what a graphic illustrator could do with it.

We could turn the tide of public opinion in our favor much more quickly with an army of animators and graphic artists on our side. We could reach far more people far more effectively.

If you know any animators or graphic artists, take particular interest in enlisting them in our cause. And connect them with writers so the writers and artists can collaborate on the creation of videos and memes that can penetrate our culture on a massive scale. And if you've ever been interested in drawing, this is a call to fulfill your heart's longing and serve this great cause with what we need most.

Read more...

Defamation of Religion: The Daily Muslim Prayer Defames Both Judaism and Christianity

Tuesday

Robert Spencer is "blogging the Qur'an" on PJ Media starting with Sura 1, entitled, "The Opening." Below are some excerpts:

The Fatiha (Opening) is the first sura (chapter) of the Qur’an, and most common prayer of Islam. If you’re a pious Muslim who prays the five requisite daily prayers of Islam, you will recite the Fatiha seventeen times in the course of those prayers.

The final two verses of the Fatiha ask Allah:

Guide us to the straight path, the path of those upon whom You have bestowed favor, not of those who have evoked [Your] anger or of those who are astray.

The traditional Islamic understanding of this is that the “straight path” is Islam — cf. Islamic apologist John Esposito’s book Islam: The Straight Path — while the path “of those who have evoked Allah’s anger” are the Jews, and those who have gone “astray” are the Christians.

The classic Qur’anic commentator Ibn Kathir explains that “the two paths He described here are both misguided,” and that those “two paths are the paths of the Christians and Jews, a fact that the believer should beware of so that he avoids them. The path of the believers is knowledge of the truth and abiding by it. In comparison, the Jews abandoned practicing the religion, while the Christians lost the true knowledge. This is why ‘anger’ descended upon the Jews, while being described as ‘led astray’ is more appropriate of the Christians.”

Ibn Kathir’s understanding of this passage is not a lone “extremist” interpretation. In fact, most Muslim commentators believe that the Jews are those who have earned Allah’s wrath and the Christians are those who have gone astray.

Read the whole article here: Robert Spencer’s Blogging the Qur’an: Sura 1, ‘The Opening’.

The excerpts above are also posted on Inquiry Into Islam here.

Read more...

What Does Niceness Tell You About Someone's Goals or Plans?

Monday

Nice guy, Dexter Morgan
One of the employees at the company where I work is a man named Muhammad. He is originally from Ghana but he speaks excellent English. He's a really nice man. He works in a different department, but we have brief interactions once in awhile. He is helpful. Kind. Always quick to say hello and smile. I've talked to him briefly a few times, but earlier today we were alone in the break room and we got to talking about a wine tasting taking place nearby. I thought this would be a good opportunity to learn more about him (he doesn't know I know anything about Islam), so I asked him, "Do you drink?"

"No, never," he said.

"Have you ever tried it?"

"No, never in my life. I'm Muslim and we don't drink." He thought for a second and then he said, "Well, some of my friends drink, but they're not supposed to. When they do, I don't do it with them."

His answer seemed to indicate that perhaps all his friends were Muslims. So, being the curious type, I asked him, "Do you have any non-Muslim friends?"

Without any seeming embarrassment or hesitation, he said, "No."

So far, this was a perfectly pleasant conversation, with no defensiveness on his part or aggression on my part. Just two people chatting.

I had to get up and go do something. When I came back, another man was talking to Muhammad, and I overheard Muhammad say, "I will do it for one of my children."

I asked him, "How many kids do you have?"

He said, "Thirteen."

I wasn't sure I heard him right, so I said, "Thirteen?!"

He looked very proud and nodded yes. He is 39 years old. It has been a very long time since I've met someone with thirteen children. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever met anyone with that many children.

Of course, all this got me to thinking. He must be somewhat devout (orthodox) if he doesn't drink and has no non-Muslim friends. Those are two clear Muslim rules (written in Islamic doctrine). I was wondering what he might be like if Muslims became the majority here in America (I was thinking of Raymond Ibrahim's Rule of Numbers). Would Muhammad stop being nice? Would he be willing to threaten me with death if I didn't convert to Islam? I don't know for certain.

Even a genuinely nice person who grew up as a Muslim might impose the choice of conversion or death (or dhimmitude), even if he and I had a cordial and pleasant relationship up to that point, because after all, if he is truly devout, he already feels quite sure I'm doomed to eternal torture in hell. But if he could force me to convert, or scare me into converting, he might think he gave me a chance to make it to paradise (which would, from his point of view, be a nice thing for him to do for me, and plus, of course, it is also a clear Muslim rule, written in Islamic doctrine that when Muslims hold the power, they should offer this choice to non-Muslims).

One of the objections in our Answers to Objections series is, "My friend is a Muslim and he's really nice." People have said this to me and I've heard from many people over the years who have heard this objection from their friends and family. The statement is usually spoken like it invalidates the facts about Islamic doctrine.

And I could say it myself: Most of the Muslims I've ever gotten to know have been very nice people. But it has also become clear to me over the years that "niceness" doesn't really mean anything. Salespeople can be very nice. Politicians are often nice. Sociopaths can be nice. A lot of people who knew Ted Bundy thought he was nice. The same was true of Adolf Hitler.

Niceness doesn't reveal anything about ideology or intent. Niceness tells us nothing about a person's goals or plans. When we are talking about the problem of Islam, niceness is literally irrelevant to the issue. Islamic doctrine says what it says, and Muslims are committed to applying that doctrine in their lives or they aren't. Some of those who are committed to applying the doctrine are nice and some are not. Niceness doesn't tell us anything of real importance.

Let's point this out to everyone who brings it up in our presence. And let's remove this barrier to seeing clearly. Once it is removed, the person you're talking to may discover that she or he really knows nothing else about Islam. And that is a great place to begin a real conversation about the problem of Islam.

This was posted on Inquiry Into Islam for your sharing pleasure here.

Read more...

Why Proposed 'Blasphemy Laws' Would Ban Islam

Sunday

The following was written by Associate Director of the Middle East Forum (and former Reference Assistant at the Near East Section of the Library of Congress) Raymond Ibrahim and originally published on American Thinker

Soon after Muslim gunmen killed 12 people at Charlie Hebdo offices, which published satirical caricatures of Muslim prophet Muhammad, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) — the “collective voice of the Muslim world” and second largest intergovernmental organization after the United Nations — is again renewing calls for the United Nations to criminalize “blasphemy” against Islam, or what it more ecumenically calls, the “defamation of religions.”

Yet the OIC seems to miss one grand irony: if international laws would ban cartoons, books, and films on the basis that they defame Islam, they would also, by logical extension, have to ban the entire religion of Islam itself — the only religion whose core texts actively and unequivocally defame other religions, including by name.

To understand this, consider what “defamation” means. Typical dictionary definitions include “to blacken another’s reputation” and “false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel.” In Muslim usage, defamation simply means anything that insults or offends Islamic sensibilities.

However, to gain traction among the international community, the OIC cynically maintains that such laws should protect all religions from defamation, not just Islam (even as Muslim governments ban churches, destroy crucifixes, and burn Bibles). Disingenuous or not, the OIC’s wording suggests that any expression that “slanders” the religious sentiments of others should be banned.

What, then, do we do with Islam’s core religious texts — beginning with the Koran itself — which slanders, denigrates, and blackens the reputation of other religions? Consider Christianity alone: Koran 5:73 declares that “Infidels are they who say God is one of three,” a reference to the Christian Trinity; Koran 5:72 says “Infidels are they who say God is the Christ, [Jesus] son of Mary”; and Koran 9:30 complains that “the Christians say the Christ is the son of God… may God’s curse be upon them!”

Considering that the word “infidel” (kafir) is one of Islam’s most derogatory terms, what if a Christian book or Western cartoon appeared declaring that “Infidels are they who say Muhammad is the prophet of God — may God’s curse be upon them”? If Muslims would consider that a great defamation against Islam — and they would, with the attendant rioting, murders, etc. — then by the same standard it must be admitted that the Koran defames Christians and Christianity.

Indeed, it is precisely because of this that some Russian districts are banning key Islamic scriptures — including Sahih Bukhari, which is seen as second in authority after the Koran itself. According to Apastovsk district RT prosecutors, Sahih Bukhari has been targeted because it promotes “exclusivity of one of the world’s religions,” namely Islam, or, in the words of Ruslan Galliev, senior assistant to the prosecutor of Tatarstan, it promotes “a militant Islam” which “arouses ethnic, religious enmity.”

Similarly, consider how the Christian Cross, venerated among millions, is depicted — is defamed — in Islam: according to canonical hadiths, when he returns, Jesus (“Prophet Isa”) will destroy all crosses; and Muhammad, who never allowed the cross in his presence, once ordered someone wearing a cross to “throw away this piece of idol from yourself.” Unsurprisingly, the cross is banned and often destroyed whenever visible in many Muslim countries.

What if Christian books or Western movies declared that the sacred things of Islam — say the Black Stone in Mecca’s Ka’ba — are “idolatry” and that Muhammad himself will return and destroy them? If Muslims would consider that defamation against Islam — and they would, with all the attendant rioting, murders, etc. — then by the same standard it must be admitted that Islamic teaching defames the Christian Cross.

Here is a particularly odious form of defamation against Christian sentiment, especially to the millions of Catholic and Orthodox Christians: According to Islam’s most authoritative Koranic exegetes, including the revered Ibn Kathir, Muhammad is in paradise married to and copulating with the Virgin Mary.

What if a Christian book or Western movie portrayed, say, Muhammad’s “favorite” wife, Aisha — the “Mother of Believers” — as being married to and having sex with a false prophet in heaven? If Muslims would consider that a great defamation against Islam — and they would, with all the attendant rioting, murders, etc. — then by the same standard it must be admitted that Islam’s most authoritative Koranic exegetes defame the Virgin Mary.

Nor is such defamation of Christianity limited to Islam’s core scriptures; modern-day Muslim scholars and sheikhs agree that it is permissible to defame and mock Christianity. “Islam Web,” which is owned by the government of Qatar, even issued a fatwa that legitimizes insulting Christianity. (The Qatari website also issued a fatwa in 2006 permitting burning people alive — only to take it down after the Islamic State used the fatwa’s same arguments to legitimize burning a Jordanian captive pilot.)

The grandest irony of all is that the “defamation” that Muslims complain about — and that prompts great violence and bloodshed around the world — revolves around things like cartoons and movies, which are made by individuals who represent only themselves; on the other hand, Islam itself, through its holiest and most authoritative texts, denigrates and condemns — in a word, defames — all other religions, not to mention calls for violence against them (e.g., Koran 9:29).

It is this issue, Islam’s perceived “divine” right to defame and destroy, that the international community should be addressing — not silly cartoons and films.

Raymond Ibrahim is the Associate Director of the Middle East Forum (and former Reference Assistant at the Near East Section of the Library of Congress). To follow him on Twitter or via email, go to the sidebar of his website here.

Editor's note: I would like to add the following to Ibrahim's excellent article above: Islamic doctrine also defames Jews specifically, and defames every other non-Muslim generally, which would include Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, Jains, Sikhs, etc.

Read more...

The Supremacist Nature of Islamic Prayer

Saturday

The following was written by British author, Babs Barron, a chartered psychologist in independent practice in the UK. Published here with her permission:


Together with the revelations about the identity of "Jihadi John"/Mohammed Emwazy, and notwithstanding the fawning media coverage of the CAGE spokesman's excuses for his behaviour, I believe that the UK is reaching a critical point in the unmasking of Islam's true agenda there. The revealing of Emwazy's true identity and the fact that he attended a university which had a history of radicalisation, so close to the General Election has brewed up the potential for a perfect storm for the political parties unless they can show that they will take Islam in hand.

However, they will fail utterly unless they educate themselves fully about how Islam perceives other belief systems and their social and cultural mores.

According to the latest census data, there were 33.2 million Christians, 263,346 Jews, and 2,660,116 Muslims in the UK in 2012. One may assume that those who define themselves in terms of their religious beliefs practice those beliefs although to varying degrees. We are told also that the Muslim population is the fastest growing in the UK, which should be a cause for concern, given the supremacist nature of Islam and its declared intention to subsume every other belief system to it.

There is also much discussion about whether Islam can be moderate given the hate-filled verses in the Qu'ran which instruct Muslims how to behave towards and regard non-Muslims. This has led me to examine the texts of the central prayers in each of the three Abrahamic religions as to whether they can be indicators of the intentions of each towards the others and to the wider society.

The Shema

Orthodox Jews recite the Shema in Hebrew. The Shema is an affirmation of Judaism and a declaration of faith in one God. The obligation to recite the Shema is separate from the obligation to pray and a Jew is obligated to say Shema in the morning and at night (Deut. 6:7). There follows a translation of it, from an Orthodox Jewish site. Jews are forbidden to write the name of God in full, hence the dashes in the words below:

"Hear, O Israel, the L-rd is our G-d, the L-rd is One.

(Recite the following verse in an undertone: )

Blessed be the name of the glory of His kingdom forever and ever.

You shall love the L-rd your G-d with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might. And these words which I command you today shall be upon your heart. You shall teach them thoroughly to your children, and you shall speak of them when you sit in your house and when you walk on the road, when you lie down and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign upon your hand, and they shall be for a reminder between your eyes. And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house and upon your gates.

And it will be, if you will diligently obey My commandments which I enjoin upon you this day, to love the L-rd your G-d and to serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul, I will give rain for your land at the proper time, the early rain and the late rain, and you will gather in your grain, your wine and your oil. And I will give grass in your fields for your cattle, and you will eat and be sated. Take care lest your heart be lured away, and you turn astray and worship alien gods and bow down to them. For then the L-rd's wrath will flare up against you, and He will close the heavens so that there will be no rain and the earth will not yield its produce, and you will swiftly perish from the good land which the L-rd gives you. Therefore, place these words of Mine upon your heart and upon your soul, and bind them for a sign on your hand, and they shall be for a reminder between your eyes. You shall teach them to your children, to speak of them when you sit in your house and when you walk on the road, when you lie down and when you rise. And you shall inscribe them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates — so that your days and the days of your children may be prolonged on the land which the L-rd swore to your fathers to give to them for as long as the heavens are above the earth.

The L-rd spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the children of Israel and tell them to make for themselves fringes on the corners of their garments throughout their generations, and to attach a thread of blue on the fringe of each corner. They shall be to you as tzizit, and you shall look upon them and remember all the commandments of the L-rd and fulfill them, and you will not follow after your heart and after your eyes by which you go astray — so that you may remember and fulfill all My commandments and be holy to your G-d. I am the L-rd your G-d who brought you out of the land of Egypt to be your G-d; I, the L-rd, am your G-d. True.

Note the conditional nature of the second and third paragraphs, taken from Deuteronomy, and how the prayer reminds the one who prays it what will happen if s/he fails to love God and follow His commandments. For all that, however, there is no threat of hellfire for those who stray — the worst the Jewish God threatens is famine.

Turning now to the nearest Christian equivalent, the Lord's Prayer, taken from Matthew 6:9-13 and Luke 11:2-4.

"Our Father, which art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy Name.
Thy Kingdom come.
Thy will be done on earth,
As it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
As we forgive them that trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
But deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory,

For ever and ever. Amen."

There are commonalities in the Lord's Prayer and the Shema, notably in the declaration that there is one God. One notable difference, however, is the lack of what Carl Rogers would call "conditions of worth" in the latter — there is no threat of famine or anything else if Christians stray from their path. Even so, both the Shema and the Lord's Prayer are essentially loving — the former exhorting belief, the latter assuming it.

If we compare the essential prayers of the first two Abrahamic religions — Judaism and Christianity — with Islam, however, we see fundamental differences. Muslims are commanded to say the salat five times a day as part of their prayer ritual. I have reproduced part of it below, with what I believe to be the most important part in both Arabic and English. The recitation of it is very strictly circumscribed and Muslims are commanded to perform specific actions throughout it.

"Oh Allah, we ask you for help and seek your forgiveness, and we believe in you and have trust in you, and we praise you in the best way and we thank you and we are not ungrateful to you, and we forsake and turn away from the one who disobeys you. O Allah, we worship you only and pray to you and prostrate ourselves before you, and we run towards you and serve you, and we hope to receive your mercy, and we fear your punishment. Surely, the disbelievers will receive your punishment.

And then:

"اللهم إنا نستعينك , ونؤمن بك , ونتوكل عليك , ونثى عليك الخير , ولا نكفرك اللهم إياك نعبد ولك نصلى ونسجد , وإليك نسعى ونحفد , نرجو رحمتك , ونخشى عذابك , إن عذابك الجد بالكفار ملحق , اللهم عذب كفرة أهل الكتاب الذين يصدون عن سبيلك

"Translation: O Allah, verily we seek your help, we believe in you, we put our trust in you and we praise you and we are not ungrateful to you. O Allah, you alone we worship and to you we pray and prostrate, for your sake we strive. We hope for your mercy and fear your punishment, for your punishment will certainly reach the disbelievers. O Allah, punish the infidels of the People of the Book who are preventing others from following your way (emphasis added).

Note the obsequious nature of the relationship with Allah, to fend off his wrath, and which is very much at the submissive polarity of the authoritarian personality spectrum. There is also "..we forsake and turn away from one who disobeys you..." The commandment not to befriend the infidel can be found in the Qu'ran.

Note also "Surely the disbelievers will receive your punishment" which has no counterpart in the Shema or the Lord's Prayer and smacks of the spitefulness of pernicious envy to say the least, and particularly, "O Allah, punish the infidels of the People of the Book who are preventing others from following your way," which underlines the supremacy of Islam in Muslim beliefs and the bitterness that Jews and Christians not only refuse to recognise that but discourage others from recognising it. This has no equivalent in the Jewish and Christian prayers, and it sets the tone for Islam's oppositional — and as we are now seeing, violent — relationship with Judaism and Christianity.

The salat is explicit that no true and mutualistic relationship should exist between Muslim and non-Muslim.

Do even moderate Muslims who attend mosque regularly say these prayers? If they are at all aware of what they are saying, do they believe that what they are saying dictates how they should behave? If not, why are they saying the salat? Even if the Muslim is not aware of its meaning, the supremacist attitude it represents has very probably been inculcated into him/her since childhood and is all of a piece with the hatred of Jews, Christians and all other faiths than Islam, which is absorbed from early years in a Muslim environment.

In the light of all this, how, without hypocrisy, can a Muslim who says salat five times a day, or even only occasionally, engage honestly in interfaith meetings on equal, mutualistic terms with Christians and Jews and other faiths?

The answer is, of course, that he cannot. As the British Islamist preacher Haitham Al-Haddad has noted, not only is the role of Interfaith a deception, it is a deception that is crucial:

"Of course, as Muslims, we believe that this co-existence cannot take place unless they are living under the umbrella of al-Islam ... these visions and strategies are meant to be for a short run, means within fifty years, something like this.

"The far ultimate aim for Muslims is to have Islam governing the whole world, Islamisation of the whole globe. This is the ultimate aim of any Muslim and of all communities, Muslim communities.

"But we are not talking about that at the moment. We are talking about the immediate goals. So, in terms of immediate goals we need this peaceful co-existence, and they claim that they are promoting it and we need to take it from there."

This has also been posted on Inquiry Into Islam here for sharing.

Read more...

Have You Heard of Geert Wilders?

Friday

I was working with two guys yesterday and when we work together we often talk about random things. I said, "Have you guys heard of Geert Wilders?" They both said no.

"He's a member of Parliament in the Netherlands," I said, "and the head of one of their political parties there. He's famous for saying things that nobody else has the courage to say. For example, in the Netherlands, Mein Kampf is banned because of its Jew hatred."

They both nodded like that was understandable. I said, "Geert Wilders said if they want to be consistent, they should also ban the Koran, since it contains more Jew hatred than Mein Kampf. And of course, people freaked out when he said that. But it's true when you count up the amount of text in each book devoted to Jew hatred."

While I was on the subject, I added this: "He now has to live with armed guards who go everywhere with him, and he has to sleep in safe houses because, of course, he's gotten lots of death threats. And many times he's made the point that he could have said whatever he wanted about Christianity or Hinduism or Buddhism without ever having to get bodyguards. Only Islam would kill you for speaking honestly about it."

They both had a look on their faces that said, "That's probably true, now that you mention it." I then asked something about the work we were doing, and our conversation drifted into other topics.

Two really simple but powerful pieces of information sunk into their minds with no resistance whatsoever. As far as they were concerned, all that happened was that they heard an interesting story. They probably didn't even realize that their understanding of the most pressing issue of our times just improved a little.

These conversations are taking place all over the world. And when a critical mass of people get a critical mass of clarity about the problem of Islam, a tremendous collective change will happen, and Islam's expansion will turn into Islam's contraction because non-Muslims will stop being fooled by the nonsense spoken by political leaders, mainstream media, and orthodox Muslims.

Reaching that critical mass will be the beginning of the end of the third jihad.

Read more...

Islamic Hatred for the Jews And How it Got That Way

Sunday

The following was written by F. W. Burleigh, author of It's All About Muhammad.

On Tuesday, March 3, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will address a joint session of the United States Congress at the invitation of the Speaker of the House John Boehner. This will take place despite strong opposition from the White House, whose approval for this event was not sought.

Netanyahu will address the danger that an Iran with nuclear weapons would represent not only for Israel, but also for the United States and the entire world. More pointedly he will seek to persuade Congress not to support a deal that the Obama administration appears to be working out with Iran that will guarantee that Iran will soon have such weapons. Allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons would be catastrophic, Netanyahu will say.

His concerns are well founded. Iran’s leaders hate Israel for merely existing, and they have a history of threatening to annihilate the Jewish state. Nuclear weapons would give them a means to do so in one strike. One of Iran’s former presidents, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a man considered a moderate by Iranian standards, said that “it is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.”

It will be interesting to hear what Netanyahu has to say about “such an eventuality.” It is likely to be a momentous speech, but due to the time allotted, he will have to leave out much of what needs to be explained — chiefly, why these theocratic Iranian leaders hate Israel so much that they would love to incinerate it out of existence.

The short explanation: It has to do with an ancient hatred so thick you would need a chainsaw to cut through it.

Since it is unlikely the Israeli prime minister will address this phenomenon of hatred, I have written a speech for him that says what needs to be said about this very important subject. Perhaps he will see fit to insert this into his speech. The theme of this is Iran’s hatred for Jews and how it got that way:

“Distinguished members of Congress, I want to emphasize that this hatred did not come about as a result of creation of the State of Israel in 1948, nor from any of the conflicts, major and minor, between Israelis and Arabs that have occurred since then. The cause of the hatred goes back 1,400 years to the founder of Islam. Muslims hate Jews because Muhammad hated Jews. Muhammad hated Jews because they refused to accept his claim that he was their prophet.

This hatred is the story of Muhammad and his claim that God talked to him through an angel and dictated the contents of the Koran to him. It is the history of the rejection Muhammad first got from his compatriots in Mecca who thought he was devil possessed. Muhammad proclaimed to them that he was of the line of the Jewish prophets, and was commissioned by God to restore true faith in the one God of Abraham. They should listen to him and obey him if they wanted to achieve paradise and avoid hellfire. The Meccans put up with him for ten years before deciding they had to kill him to preserve their way of life. He fled to Yathrib, now called Medina, two hundred miles north of Mecca.

This is where the Jewish part of the story begins. Half of the population of the sprawling valley was Jewish, divided among three major tribes. The other half of the population consisted of Arabs who practiced the same polytheism as the Meccans. Muhammad built a mosque in the center of the valley and turned it into his al-qaeda, his base of operations for a war he declared against the Meccans. This consisted first of attacks on their caravans and ended in pitched battles. Within 18 months, he began to purge the Jewish population from Yathrib.

When Muhammad first arrived in their valley, the Jews listened politely to him, but when they analyzed the prophet verses he had come up with in Mecca, they realized they were not based on the Torah. They were versions of the derivative Jewish legends about the prophets, but even then there were significant variations, yet Muhammad claimed his versions were the correct ones because he got everything from God. When he insisted they accept him as their prophet, the Jews laughed in his face and began mocking him.

While in Mecca, Muhammad had developed curse prayers — hate prayers — that he and his followers recited against the Meccans. He now turned his curses on the Jews. He branded them as apes and pigs and stirred up hatred against them in diatribes from the pulpit at his mosque. “They are mischief makers. They are fools. The Jews deny the truth,” he screamed on one occasion. (Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, p. 248)

He composed numerous Koran verses that seethed with the hatred he felt for the Jews for rejecting him. In verse after verse he warned them that hellfire awaited them for not believing in him. “Sufficient for the Jew is the Flaming Fire!” he said in Koran 4:55. In another he said, “There is a grievous punishment awaiting them. Satan tells them not to believe so they will end up in Hell.” (Koran 59:14)

He made life for them a hell on earth. His hatred turned deadly after a battle near the caravan stop of Badr in which his small band of 300 men defeated a Meccan army three times larger. This battle took place about 18 months after his flight from Mecca. When he returned victorious to Yathrib, he began assassinating Jewish poets who had mocked him in their poems. Within a month of his victory over the Meccans, he forced one of the Jewish tribes to leave and confiscated all of their property. He wanted to behead all of them, but was dissuaded by one of their pagan allies.

From the battle of Badr on, the Muhammad story is largely the account of atrocities he committed, particularly against the Jews. A year after purging Yathrib of the first Jewish tribe, he forced another to leave under penalty of death if they did not, and he distributed their fortresses, date plantations, and farms to the elite of his Meccan followers. This had been Jewish land for nearly a thousand years. The remaining Jewish tribe, the Qurayzas, suffered a worse fate after they took sides against him during a Meccan assault that ended in failure because of a defensive ditch Muhammad dug around Yathrib. He beheaded as many as 900 men and boys. His attacks against the Jews continued with the conquest of Khaybar, a wealthy Jewish oasis known as the date farm of Western Arabia, and other ancient Jewish centers in western Arabia.

On his deathbed he ordered his followers not to allow any religion but his to exist on the Arabian Peninsula — or anywhere else for that matter.

Hatred is as transmissible as electricity. Because Muslims believe Muhammad’s Koran came from God and that everything he did was in accordance with the will of God, the Muslims of his day absorbed his hatreds. His hatred of the Jews became their hatred of the Jews. This hatred has been passed down generation after generation, and today we see it with the Iranians. It is because of the hatred that has been transmitted through 14 centuries that the Iranians seek to destroy Israel.”

Perhaps Netanyahu can be persuaded to include these remarks in his speech. It is the story behind the story, and it is the story that people need to hear.

Frank Burleigh is the author of It's All About Muhammad, A Biography of the World's Most Notorious Prophet. He blogs at www.itsallaboutmuhammad.com.

The article above is also posted on Inquiry Into Islam here for sharing with your friends.

Read more...

The Dilemma of Islamic Terrorism

The following article, originally published here, was written by Ali Sina, former Muslim, author of Understanding Muhammad, and founder of Faith Freedom, an organization created by ex-Muslims to help Muslims leave Islam. The solutions he presents here for us non-Muslim counterjihadists are potent and attainable:

The recent massacres in Paris of the staff of Charlie Hebdo and the Jews in a kosher supermarket, and the increasing incidences of butchering young people coming out of pubs have made more people concerned about the rise of terrorism. Tens of thousands have come out to demonstrate.

Since the 9/11 attack on New York and the Pentagon in 2001, there have been over 25,000 terrorist attacks worldwide, all of which were perpetrated in the name of Islam. That is about 5 terrorist attacks every day. So far two million people have been killed and a similar number are maimed and injured. These attacks are becoming more frequent. Yet something is not changing.

  • Immediately after the attack, the president or the prime minister of the country in which the attack has taken place goes on TV and declares that this attack had nothing to do with Islam.
  • Right after that the chief of police announces that he has taken all the measures to protect Muslims from any imaginary backlash and nonexistent reprisal.
  • In the evening of the same day the mainstream media interviews an imam or a Muslim spokesperson who emphasizes that Islam does not condone violence.
  • We are then told that extremists exist in all religions and reminded that some thirty years ago a few Christians killed a few abortionist murderers of unborn babies.
  • Then the pundits are called to pontificate that the root cause of Islamic terrorism is not in what the terrorist themselves say, and nothing to do with the Quran (that in hundreds of verses calls on the believers to kill the unbelievers), but in the injustice done to Muslims in other parts of the world, such as in Abu Ghraib prison and particularly in Palestine where half a century ago Israelis defeated the Arab invaders who had vowed to drown them in the sea.
  • A few days after that the police and the politicians of the victim country hold meetings with the leaders of the Muslim community where they conclude that more money should be given to the “moderate Muslims” to persuade the “radicals” to not take their religion seriously.
  • The experts also conclude that emblems like Christmas and Christmas trees hurt the religious sentiment of Muslims and they should be removed from public institutions, shopping malls and schools, while at the same time Muslims should be given some concessions, like not requiring them to wash their hands before performing operation on patients, designating a room and Islamic toilets for them in public institutions, and allow them to apply for a driving license without requiring them to show their face.
  • Also, in the spirit of integration and community cohesion, everyone should be forced to eat halal meat (which involves extra cruelty to the animals) without their knowledge, whether they want it or not.

This tune is replayed every time there is a terrorist attack. The narrative never changes, despite the unequivocal assertion of the terrorists themselves who make it clear they are motivated by the teachings and examples of their prophet and his promise of virgins. Methinks, the record of history is broken. How else can we explain that after a repetition of 25,000 times one would not question the validity of this narrative?

While politicians in western countries and the mainstream media are stuck in the above narrative, the truth is not hidden from the Muslims. Al Sisi, the president of Egypt, in his 2015 New Year’s speech in Al Azhar University, addressing top Sunni clerics said, “it is not possible that 1.6 billion people [reference to the world’s Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants — that is 7 billion — so that they themselves may live.” Sisi did not blame Abu Ghraib, Israel, nor made other silly excuses for Islamic terrorism. He blamed the “ideology” of it. But the ideology — which says, kill the unbelievers so you go to paradise — comes straight from the Quran.

Sisi cannot go further than that. What he said is already too much and if he did not have the military behind him, he would have been thrown into jail. However, if a non-Muslim raises the same concerns raised by Sisi, they will be called racist and denounced as an Islamophobe.

We are told, “You can’t paint an entire group of people with the same wide brush.” But there is a war going on. People are being killed. We have to know our enemy. Who is the enemy?

Of course not everyone is the same. Although each individual is unique, we can classify Muslims in three broad categories. In practice, an individual often belongs to more than one category. The proportion of the overlap varies, and just as 18 decillion colors are created by the combination of just three colors and their intensity, the degree to which Muslims belong to each category gives rise to infinite diversity among them. No Muslim exists out of these three categories.

The first category is that of good Muslims. By good I mean true believers — those who follow the teachings of their prophet, the Quran and the Sunnah to the letter, who try to emulate him in every way and are strict and pious Muslims. Since the teachings and the examples of Muhammad are full of violence and terror, the more one follows and emulates him the more radical one becomes. Muhammad raided and butchered people merely because they were not his followers. The good Muslims do the same. All the bombings and terrorism perpetrated by Muslims are replicas of Muhammad’s raids, or ghazwa, as he called them. Taking women as sex slaves, which the Islamic State and Boko Haram practice, was also practiced by Muhammad and he sanctioned it in the Quran (33:50; 23: 1-6; 70:30; 4:24; 66:1-2). He ordered the assassination of his critics, the stoning of adulterers, chopping the hands of thieves, and killing apostates. So, the terrorists are actually good Muslims.

The second category is of bad Muslims. They are those who don’t practice their religion and are often ignorant of it. They may pray or chant the Quran, but have no clue of its content. They read it for thawab (reward) without understanding it. These Muslims are ordinary people we all know. Like everybody else, some are good and some are not so good. Some of them are friendly, but they see themselves as superior, by virtue of their faith, and of “higher morals.”

Morality in Islam has nothing to do with what others understand this word to mean. Morality for women is to cover their hair lest it arouse sexual feelings in men. For men, it is not to shake hands with Muslim women lest it arouse them sexually, or not to masturbate, etc. Morality in Islam is primarily about genitals and their use. For example, while having sex out of marriage is considered immoral, stoning people caught in such an act is not immoral. While looking at the bare arms and legs of Muslim women is considered immoral, raping non-Muslim women is not immoral. Homosexuality is immoral, but pedophilia is not.

These Muslims migrate to the west to better their lives, but they segregate themselves, form isolated communities and warn their children to not learn the ways of unbelievers or take them as friends unless they intend to convert them to Islam. They give huge amounts of money to charity. But Islamic charity has nothing to do with charity. All that money goes to build mosques, print Islamic materials and promote Islam. If any of that is spent for the needy, it is to enlist them for jihad or support the families of suicide bombers. The bad Muslims are the lifeline of Islam and the breeding ground for good Muslims. All Muslim terrorists, unless they are converts, are born in and emerge from this group. Without the moral and financial support of the bad Muslims Islam would cease to exist.

Then we have the ugly Muslims. As we learned, the good Muslims are not good at all, and the bad ones are not really bad people, the ugly Muslims actually look beautiful. Islam is a world down the rabbit hole. Nothing is what it is because everything is what it is not. The ugly Muslims are clean-shaven, handsome or attractive, eloquent, articulate, and highly intelligent, just the kind of people you want to hang around with. They are journalists, professors, regular guests and contributors to mainstream media. They know what to say to gain your approval and your applause. They are charming. Their words are reassuring and their faces are familiar. You like them and trust them. So why do I call them ugly? Because they lie! Their job is to deceive you and to make you believe that the “real Islam” poses no threat to you. These wolves in sheeps' clothing are the most dangerous group. Deception is deadlier than terror. Do you fear more a ferocious animal that you can see or a deadly virus that you can’t? The enemy within is a lot more dangerous.

Unlike the bad Muslims, the ugly ones are not ignorant of their religion. They know of Muhammad’s raids, rapes, assassinations, genocides, tortures, beheadings, but they deny them, twist the facts and defend him. They accuse the good Muslims of having hijacked their religion of peace when they know they lie. They claim to be reformers when they know that Islam cannot be reformed. Islam is what it is. To reform Islam one has to change the Quran. Over 70% of it must be scrapped, and the other 30% is just sheer nonsense.

These self-styled reformers don’t want to change the Quran. They just want Muslims to practice it less. In theory it works. Even the deadliest poison in small doses is not lethal. But how can they convince all Muslims to not take their holy book seriously? This project is doomed from the start. This is either naiveté and wishful thinking, or a ruse to deceive the non-Muslims, to give them false hope so they can buy more time for Islam to take over the world, which is the goal of every Muslim, the good, the bad and the ugly.

Every Muslim falls within these three categories. Just as virtually all colors are combinations of the three primary colors, elements of the three categories of Muslims exist in all of them.

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but a substantial percentage of them are, and a greater percentage condone terrorism. But does it really matter who is and who is not? If I give you 1,000 cups of good wine and tell you only one of them contains cyanide, will you drink any of them? The terrorists are born, raised and protected by the “moderates.” They are indistinguishable from each other. It is delusional to think that the non-terrorist Muslims have nothing to do with terrorism. Where do the terrorists come from if not from the so-called moderate Muslims?

All Muslims support the ideology that wants to kill us. There are also good people (bad Muslims) among them, like al Sisi, who want to change this. They can’t, because the ideology against which they speak is Islam itself. They will likely be assassinated before they succeed. The belief that Islam can be reformed from within is wishful thinking. Other religions allow change and adapt with times. Islam is like a fossil. What is written in the Quran cannot be changed and the problem with Islam is the Quran.

Islam cannot be reformed, but it can be eradicated. It cannot be molded, but it can be smashed and pulverized. This cannot be done from within. Growth happens from within. But if you want to demolish a building you have to get out of it. You can’t cut a branch while sitting on it.

The question is how to stop Islam. There are three ways. One is good, one is bad, and the other is ugly.

The good way to stop Islam is to spread the truth about it. Like darkness that cannot stand the light, lies cannot stand the truth. If we tell the truth about Muhammad and reveal his crimes, Islam will fall in no time. We can actually destroy Islam in less than two decades. All we need to do is tell the truth. Yes, truth will set us free. It really does! I myself have left Islam and have helped thousands to leave it with nothing but truth.

There are countless books and websites that tell the truth. The problem is that Muslims don’t read. Also many non-Muslims don’t read. The majority of people get their facts from the media. The ugly Muslims’ jihad is to muddy the waters so no one can learn the truth about their religion. When we quote passages from the Quran to show how vile and evil they are, they say we quote them out of context. But they never tell us in what context the hundreds of verses that call for killing the unbelievers can mean something else. The fact is that they are the ones who quote their book out of context to make it look tolerant. For example, the Sura 109 that says, “To you your religion and to me mine,” or the verse 2:256 that says, “There is no compulsion in religion,” or the verse 5:32 that says, “Whoever kills one person is as if he has killed all mankind,” are taken out of context. They have nothing to do with tolerance.

But there is a way to overcome this hurdle and that is to make a biopic of Muhammad, something beautiful that everyone wants to see for its artistic value, but something factual and truthful. Most people have never read the Bible, but they know about Jesus and Moses through movies. We need to do the same for Muhammad. This is our best option and my preferred choice.

The second option is bad. It is to deport all Muslims back to their country of origin. It does not matter if they are second or third generation immigrants. Muslims do not see themselves as citizens of any non-Muslim country and their allegiance is not and cannot be to a country that is not controlled by them. If they tell you otherwise they would be going against the Quran 9:23 that says Muslims should not accept the guardianship, i.e. the rule of the unbelievers. Muslims believe the Quran is the word of God and the Quran says, “We made you an exalted nation, that you may be guardians over the people” (2:143). The only status that is acceptable to Muslims is that they should rule over others while others are reduced into dhimmis, second class citizens who would labor and support their Muslim masters.

The third option is really ugly. It consists in doing to Muslims what they do to others, and give them a taste from their own holy book, i.e., “to cast terror in their hearts” (Q. 8:12; 3:151). Treat Muslims the way they treat non-Muslims. Make life unbearable for them, just as they make it unbearable for non-Muslims wherever they are in power. Muslims are still a minority in the west. Once they see their lives are in danger, they will leave on their own accord, just as millions of Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Bahais and Hindus have left their ancestral homelands because Muslims made life unbearable for them. When kept at bay in their own countries, Muslims pose no threat to the world. They will fight among each other and self-destruct. They are a problem only when they migrate to non-Muslims countries and strive to conquer them as their religion requires.

As you see, the last two options are really bad and really ugly. But there is one that is even worse. It is to do nothing. If we do nothing, in just a generation, Muslims will become powerful enough to do to us what they do to non-Muslims wherever they are powerful. If we do nothing, our grandchildren will suffer the same fate that non-Muslims suffer in Islamic countries, with the difference that there will be nowhere left in the world as safe haven to accept them as refugees.

I am not in favor of mass deportation, and less in favor of casting terror into the hearts of Muslims. I hope to set them free with truth so they can be our friends, instead of our enemy. But the last thing I want is for the entire world to become an Islamic State. I would rather see Muslims expelled from Europe, America and Australia, even by force and coercion, than billions butchered by them a generation from now. I witnessed the Shah’s cowardice when he failed to gun down a few hundred protesters in the Islamic uprising of 1979, and as the result, over a million Iranians were killed by the Islamic regime and the country has become a giant prison. So I know a thing or two about pragmatism. If Islam is allowed to win, it means the end of human civilization. If Islam wins, humanity will enter a dark age from which it can never emerge.

Let us hope we come to our senses and do the right thing. Let us hope we rescue Muslims from their faith of hate and bring them back to the fold of humanity. But if all fails, let us pay attention to one of the most profound passages ever written:

There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens: a time to be born and a time to die, a time to plant and a time to uproot, a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build, a time to weep and a time to laugh, a time to mourn and a time to dance, a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them, a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing, a time to search and a time to give up, a time to keep and a time to throw away, a time to tear and a time to mend, a time to be silent and a time to speak, a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace” (Ecclesiastes 3).

We've also posted this article on Inquiry Into Islam here for your sharing pleasure.

Read more...

Copyright

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

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.


Citizen Warrior Heroes

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Visit the blog: Citizen Warrior Heroes.

No More Concessions to Islam

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Visit the blog: Concessions to Islam.

  © Free Blogger Templates Columnus by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP