Using Ambiguity to Reduce Ignorance

Saturday

Have you seen the MEMRI video, posted by Honor Diaries, of a Saudi sheik talking about the virgins of paradise? I posted it on my personal Facebook page with the comment, "Don't you enjoy learning about other cultures?"

I have used ambiguous statements like this before and found them very effective. Some of my friends and family don't quite know how I mean it when I say things like that. Several of my Facebook friends have told me they sometimes can't figure out what side of an issue I'm on. But with people who are very resistant to basic information about Islam, this kind of ambiguity is very effective.

Lots of my Facebook friends watched the video because they were curious. Even my mom watched it. I mix in all kinds of stuff in my Facebook posts. And then I throw something Islam-related in there once in awhile, and even people who might normally avoid looking at that sort of thing read it or watch it because I am not in their face, self-righteously shoving this horrible reality down their throats. They don't see me as an alien, out-of-touch crazy man spouting hate speech.

Several of the people I work with are friends of mine on Facebook, and today at work, I said to one of them, "Did you see that post on my Facebook page today? The sheik talking about paradise?"

"Yeah, I did," he said, shaking his head.

"Crazy, right?" I said this to join him in his world. In the past he's been reluctant to consider the possibility that basic, mainstream Islamic teachings are violent and intolerant. But he has slowly come around to a better understanding of the painful and disturbing facts about Islamic doctrine. Then I said, "I recognized some of what he said from the Koran, but the rest of it must be in the Hadith, which I haven't read." He already knew I've read the Koran. I said this because I wanted to make sure he understood that these were not merely the mad ravings of a sheik, but the tenets of basic Islamic doctrine, faithfully expressed.

Then I said, "It's amazing that this stuff is televised." He nodded. "That was a video by MEMRI," I said. "which stands for 'Middle East Media Research Institute.' That's all they do: They take programs that air on TV in the Muslim world and translate them into English. You see the most amazing stuff on there."

Another guy had walked in on this conversation, and he asked, "Like what other kind of stuff?"

I said, "Like a video I saw today showing a Palestinian cleric giving a Friday 'sermon' while waving a knife around, and telling the listeners in the mosque (and on TV!) how to stab Israelis." (See that video here).

I talk about many things at work, but every once in a while, when a good opportunity presents itself, I try to inject a little solid information about Islam. I want people to understand that there is a well-established written doctrine, and it is aggressive, intolerant, and violent, and when they see Muslims acting this way, they are not seeing insane "extremists," taking Islam's peaceful teachings out of context; they are seeing faithful believers following of the true teachings of Islam.

But to get this message across with any degree of success, I have learned from bitter experience that it has to be done with some ingenuity and flexibility. And one of the methods that really helps is to use ambiguity. The question I added to the MEMRI video on my Facebook page is a good example: "Don't you enjoy learning about other cultures?"

That can be taken at least two ways: I might mean it as sarcasm. Or I might mean it sincerely. It is certainly interesting to learn about other cultures.

As we've written before, one good reason (among many) to learn more about Islam — a reason that a multiculturalist would surely subscribe to — is that it is enlightening to learn about other cultures and to avoid being ill-educated, unworldly, or one-sided about your own culture. So my comment especially motivated those kinds of people, and those are the very people who are not being reached with this information, and who are most in need of a new understanding of Islam.

Using ambiguity this way is a no-lose situation. Those who are already acquainted with Islam will not change their minds, and if it makes the rest of them curious enough to watch the video, they will be closer to waking up to the problem of Islam.

In this way, ambiguity can help you get past peoples' defenses.

In the conversation above, after I said I had read some of that stuff in the Koran, I said, "The Koran seemed so blatant in its lavish descriptions of Paradise and its scary descriptions of hell. It was so obviously self-serving, I'm surprised anyone bought it. L. Ron Hubbard had a better shtick!"

Let me explain why I added that last comment. First of all, L. Ron Hubbard is the creator of Scientology, and I have already talked to my workmate several times about Scientology, and he and I are in agreement that Scientology is a religion with dangerous policies and bizarre beliefs. But as we've advocated here many times, you can use Scientology to make it clear that criticizing religions is a perfectly fine thing to do. Whenever you criticize Scientology, you will never get any flak, unless the person you're talking to is a Scientologist. Nobody ever argues with you or tries to defend Scientology. So by adding this comment, I changed the feel of our conversation from an Islam-bashing session to a civilized discussion of the merits of different religious creeds.

Hopefully we're all getting better at having these conversations about Islam. I encourage you to share what works here: Talk About Islam Among Non-Muslims. Let's help each other improve our success rate.

Read more...

Popular Buddhist Monk Accuses Muslims of Deceiving the World

Friday

Sayadaw Ashin Wirathu
The CBS show, 60 Minutes, aired a segment last week entitled "The New Burma" (you can watch it online here). The segment was mostly about Aung San Suu Kyi, but starting at 6:55 they mentioned the conflict between the majority Buddhist population and the minority Muslim population, including an interview with the most outspoken leader against the Muslims, a Buddhist monk named Sayadaw Ashin Wirathu.

The 60 Minutes position on this conflict is typical for mainstream news: The Buddhist majority are bullying the poor, oppressed Muslim minority. But I enjoyed the following exchange between Wirathu and the 60 Minutes correspondent, Bill Whitaker (you can read a transcript of the whole segment here).

Whitaker tells viewers, "Wirathu's rhetoric is extreme, but his mantra — that Burma is for Buddhists — is widely held, even by other holy men. He's a provocateur, who enflames passions with fiery speeches. He's attracted a large and growing following." Then comes the following exchange:

Bill Whitaker: Do Muslims have a place here in Burma?

We can't repeat his actual response, it's R-rated. But essentially he said Muslims were defecating on Burma; threatening its very existence.

Ashin Wirathu: I don't accept them.

Bill Whitaker: Why?

Ashin Wirathu: Because they're deceiving the world; they want to take over the whole country. But even then they will not be satisfied. They will only be satisfied when the whole world converts to Islam.

Whitaker and the rest of the 60 Minutes staff apparently don't realize Wirathu's comment applies to them. They are being deceived, and along with the rest of the world, their point of view is skewed toward sympathy for the Muslims. The 60 Minutes staff doesn't realize that Muslims who follow Islamic doctrine do, in fact, want to take over Burma and the whole world. It is Islam's prime directive. And they're gaining traction all over the world because they have perfected the "persecuted underdog" ruse to disarm their victims, much the same way sociopaths do.

What can stop Islam from achieving its prime directive? Only one thing: A non-Muslim population that cannot be fooled. In other words, a non-Muslim population that knows Islam for what it is: An intolerant, deceitfulaggressive, violent ideology whose goal is world domination.

This article was originally posted on Inquiry Into Islam here.

Read more...

The Most Misleading Passage Ever Quoted From the Koran

Thursday

“…if anyone killed a person, it would be as if he killed the whole of mankind; and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole of mankind…”

Have you heard this quote? It is from the Koran (5:32). It seems like a straightforward quote, and Muslim apologists use it all the time to illustrate that the Muslims beheading people or blowing up non-Muslims are going against the teachings of Islam. This is misleading. And anyone who knows the Koran and Islam knows it is misleading.

Given that Muslims often respond to violent quotes from the Koran by saying they are quoted out of context, it is ironic that one of their mainstay "positive" Koranic quotes is itself taken out of context.

When Muslims (and news organizations) use this quote, they're trying to convey the idea that in Islam, murder is wrong and saving lives is good. But that's not the meaning of the passage. In fact, it's really the opposite of what the verse conveys.

This is the whole verse (5:32): "On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person — unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land — it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land."

In other words, this was a commandment to the "Children of Israel" (Jews). This is not a commandment to all people. It is definitely not a commandment to Muslims, so using it as a quote from the Koran showing how peaceful Islam is definitely qualifies as misleading.

And even if this were a commandment to Muslims, it has the qualification, "unless it be for murder or spreading mischief in the land." So according to this verse, someone "spreading mischief" can be killed.

That's bad enough. But the very next verse of the Koran (5:33) goes even further. It says: "The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter."

This explains that the correct punishment for mischief is execution, crucifixion, etc. This is a command given to Muslims from the Almighty Himself.

As you can see, this adds up to a much different message than the one so often misleadingly quoted. The fact that Muslims must take a passage out of context in order to get a semi-nice quote out of the Koran tells you something about the Koran. I've read the Koran twice, and I can tell you from personal experience that there is no "kindness toward all people" in the entire book.

I believe that simply sharing the information above wherever that quote is used — this, all by itself — would go a long way to opening peoples' eyes to not only the true nature of Islam, but to the effort being made to deceive us about Islam.

For more information about this passage, check out the excellent site, Answering Muslims.

Also, Robert Spencer has some good information about this passage: Blogging the Qur’an: Sura 5.

The article above is also posted on Inquiry Into Islam here.

Watch a video about this: David Wood on the Qur’an and the Siege of Paris.

Read more...

Lies, Lies, Beautiful Lies

Tuesday

Steve Amundson, president of CJC
We received the article below from Chris at the Counter Jihad Coalition (CJC), a group that mans an information booth every Saturday night to expose Islam for what it is to passersby (read more about it here). 

When Chris sent us the article, he added, "We had an interesting encounter on the 3rd Street Promenade in Santa Monica Saturday night. A pro-Islam group set up a table right between the Counter Jihad Coalition table and a table set up by a Christian street evangelist, Louis Lionheart. The people behind the table were not bearded or wearing thobes, as the Islamic dawa folks usually are. Their message was 'coexist,' but there was also an anti-Zionist spin to their materials as well. In an 'open mic' session I read several passages from Reliance of the Traveller to demonstrate that there is no equality in Islam. The moderator, 'Mecca Mona,' claimed that she had never heard of Reliance of the Traveller. End of conversation." 

Here is the article by Chris:

After bombing Pearl Harbor in 1941, Japan created “Tokyo Rose” to undermine American soldiers’ morale by giving them false information about the war effort. Now, after the Islamic terror attack on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001, local Muslims have created their own charming “Mecca Mona” to provide shoppers on Santa Monica’s Third Street Promenade false information about Islam.

Charming “Mecca Mona” set up her information table, complete with a handsome, muscular bodyguard wearing an Abercrombie and Fitch T-shirt and a bearded wali (guardian) stage-managing the whole operation from a safe distance right between the Counter Jihad Coalition table and the table set up by the Christian street evangelist, Louis Lionheart.

The problem is that most of her “information” was false or misleading, beginning with the headline. Islam wants Americans to be tolerant of Muslims, but Islam is the most intolerant religion in the world. In 1991, the Muslim Brotherhood developed a 10-Year Plan of action called “An Explanatory Memorandum On the General Strategic Goal for the [Muslim Brotherhood] Group In North America” which stated that their mission for America was “a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions.” In 1996, Omar Ahmad the founder of CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations said, "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

“Mecca Mona’s” poster makes a number of false statements about Islam, seven of which are listed below. We will take each statement from her poster (in bold below) and then show how those statements are contradicted usually by the Quran itself.

1. All are treated equally in Islam.

  • Men are superior to women – Surah 4:34 and Surah 2:228
  • Males inherit twice what women inherit – Surah 4:11
  • A male’s testimony is twice that of a woman – Surah 2:282
  • Unbelievers are the basest of creatures – Surah 8:56

2. Islam teaches acceptance and not intolerance.

  • “He that chooses a religion other than Islam, it will not be accepted from him and in the world to come he will be one of the lost.” - Surah 3:85
  • Followers of Muhammad are described as “ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another” – Surah 48:29
  • The full quote of the Arabic text of Surah 109 on “Mecca Mona’s” poster “lakom deenakom wlya deen” is “I don’t worship what you worship, nor do you worship what I worship. I shall never worship what you worship, nor will you worship what I worship. You have your own religion, and I have mine.”

The context of the quotation above is important for understanding Islam’s intolerance:

According to Muslim chronicler Baihaki in “Proof of Prophecy,” Muhammad has been insulting the Gods of the Ancient Arabs in Mecca for years. His disciple, Amru ibn al-Aas, testified about the Quraysh leaders’ discussion about Muhammad one day: “Never have we had to tolerate from anyone what we have had to tolerate from this man. He slanders our fathers, criticizes our religions and divides our people, and blasphemes our gods. Such grievous things have we tolerated from this man…” The Prophet who was nearby and hearing this conversation, he responded, “Men of Quraysh! I will surely repay you for this with interest.” Finally, the elders of the Qurash decided to talk with him. In trying to prevent Muhammad’s insults, the Quraysh sat with him in their sacred shrine of Ka’ba in 615 and requested him to desist from reviling and speaking evilly of their Gods. They offered to worship his God for one year, if Muhammad would reciprocate by worshipping theirs for the same period. Can you imagine something more tolerant than this offer? And what did Muhammad answer? In rejection, he responded with Surah 109, quoted above. And he went on slandering the gods worshipped by other people until one day the Quraysh got sick of this and decided to arrest and judge him. When he learned about this, he fled from Mecca to Medina.

3. Islam is an Abrahamic religion, same as Judaism and Christianity.

  • Muslims are commanded not to take Jews or Christians as friends – Surah 5:51
  • The Koran claims that Jews are descendants of apes and swine -- Surah 2:65 and 5:60
  • The Koran denies the three principal tenants of Christianity – that Jesus was the son of God (Surah 19:35), that Jesus was Crucified (Surah 4:157), that Jesus was resurrected (Surah 4:158).
  • The one aspect of Abraham that Islam rejects was his forgiving his father for not being a Muslim. -- Surah 60:4

4. One’s belief in Islam is incomplete without the Torah, Bible, and Quran.

  • Possessing a Bible is forbidden in the following countries according to Gideon’s International: Afghanistan, Algeria, China (People's Republic), Comoros, Djibouti, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Yemen. All but two countries on the list are Muslim majority countries. Saudi Arabia has imposed the death penalty on anyone importing Bibles.

5. Islam upholds the utmost respect for women.

  • Muslim men are commanded to beat their wives – Surah 4:34
  • Muslim men may marry up to four wives – Surah 4:3
  • Muslim men may marry prepubescent girls – implied by Surah 65:4
  • “Women are your fields: go, then, into your fields whence you please.” – Surah 2:223

6. Some of the world’s most significant scientists and doctors that molded our understanding of matters till this day were Muslims.

  • The Koran says the sun sets in a pool of black mud – Surah 18:84
  • The Koran implies that babies are formed from a clot of blood – Surahs 23:12 and 75:38
  • The Muslim lunar calendar is 11 days short of an actual year, and using a solar calendar is a “grossly impious practice in which the unbelievers are misguided.” -- Surah 9:37
  • Eight hundred Nobel Prizes have been awarded to individuals since 1895. Muslims, who represent 23 percent of the world’s population, have been awarded only 1.4 percent of the awards.

7. Muhammad was ranked in 1992 by Michael Hart as the most influential person in history.

  • The ranking said nothing about Muhammad’s character, as other high-ranking historical figures were Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin
  • In 2013, Time Magazine ranked Jesus as the most significant figure in history. Other web surveys with Jesus ranked #1 include Listabuzz, thetoptens, and ranker.

A handout offered by “Mecca Mona” claims that the Islamic faith has been unfairly stigmatized by the extremely polarized media. “[T]he actions of certain extremist individuals taken out of context do not reflect upon the beliefs and ethical views of a nation.” Apparently, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic State don’t represent Islam in her view. She urges people to refer to original primary sources. A handy source for the Quran is: https://puneymir.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/pdf147.pdf

We also urge people to read the Quran for themselves and confirm that “Mecca Mona’s” entire presentation is made up of lies, lies, beautiful lies.

Read more...

Why Do We See Such a Lack of Decisive Action?

Tonight on Facebook, I saw an article by Daniel Greenfield about Muslim refugees being allowed to bring their pregnant child brides with them to Europe (read the article here).

Someone asked a question: "Why are child sex abuse and exploitation laws being ignored?"

Good question. We are witnessing Western civilization twisting itself into ever tighter knots because of a profound inner conflict. Two principles that almost all of us strongly believe in are clashing with intensity: We believe everyone should be able to live as they wish, believe what they want to believe, and practice their own religion and customs. On the other hand, we believe nobody should ever be allowed to abuse children.

And you can see what this kind of inner conflict does: It paralyzes action.

A similar conflict is happening with many different issues wherever Islam is coming into contact with the free world. Followers of Islamic doctrine have been historically very good at putting the free world into double binds, and this is another good example.

The inner conflict is preventing decisions from being made. When decisions stop, nothing happens to resolve the problem.

But notice something: Those who are educated about Islam do not have this conflict and are not paralyzed. If you would like to see less paralysis and more decisive action, the solution is obvious: We need more of us to see Islam for what it is. We need to get serious about skillfully getting this information into the minds of our fellow non-Muslims.

Politicians are failing to accomplish this. The media is too. It's up to us.

Read more...

Going Clear and the Truth About Islam

Saturday

We just watched the movie, Going Clear, a documentary on Scientology, and we were again struck by some of the similarities between Scientology and Islam. For example, if someone leaves Scientology, they are considered an enemy of the religion and in Scientology's written doctrine, they are labeled "fair game," which means they can be "deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued, lied to, or destroyed." Read more about it here.

Certainly this is a far cry from burning apostates alive or beheading them, but it is still an unusually aggressive response against apostates.

Another similarity is that Scientology, like Islam, tends to paint itself as the underdog, an effective way to simultaneously unite believers together and disarm unbelievers. Scientology and Islam both attack those who criticize their religion and try to suppress negative information, and they do it in similar ways. Scientology tried to smear the filmmakers, for example, in an effort to discredit the film (read more about that here). And they tried to prevent the film from being shown (read about it here).

The documentary is based on a book by Pulitzer Prize Winner Lawrence Wright, who also wrote an exposé on Al-Qaeda entitled, The Looming Tower. Going Clear is driven largely by interviews with people who were in Scientology for a long time and sometimes held high rankings within the organization, but who have left the religion. It was very well done and interesting throughout. Wouldn't it be great to have a similar documentary about Islam, just as well done and just as straightforward?

A point we've made repeatedly is that a useful strategy (when talking to others about Islam) is to switch to talking about Scientology when you meet resistance. People have no problem listening to criticisms of Scientology. You can then follow up with similar comments about Islam, and you can often avoid resistance because why shouldn't you be able to criticize any religion as freely as you can criticize Scientology?

Recently I've talked to people about Going Clear, and then as an aside, when I mentioned something about Scientology's policy toward apostates, for example, I point out that it is a similar but milder version of Islam's policy. It is an easy way to slip some solid information into someone's mind without much resistance. Whenever you criticize Scientology, you never hear any objections like, "But isn't that just a small minority of extremists?" or, "What you're saying is racist," or, "Are you a Scientolophobe?" People are completely at ease with even harsh criticism of Scientology. We can use that to our advantage. Learn more about this approach here: Scientology and Islam.

In the last scene of the film, one of the interviewees was asked why she was speaking up about Scientology (and potentially exposing herself to harassment and danger). She said simply, "I just want the truth to be known." That's how we feel about exposing Islam for what it is.

Read more...

The Trial of Marine Le Pen in France

Friday

Marine Le Pen is the president of the National Front, the largest political party in France. She was ranked the 71st most influential person in the 2011 Time 100, and again in the top 100 in 2015. She is now in court, charged with inciting religious hatred. Read the following, which was edited and excerpted from an article in the New York Times, and see what you think about her "religious hatred:"

OCT. 20, 2015 — With pugnacity and self-assurance, the French far-right leader Marine Le Pen defended herself in a courtroom on Tuesday against charges of inciting religious hatred against Muslims, provoking cheers of “France for the French” from supporters in the courthouse halls afterward.

Drawing on French anxiety over the migrant surge in the east, an electoral campaign in which Ms. Le Pen’s National Front is seen as having momentum, and her own charisma, she turned what was meant as an accusatory stage into a full-throated platform for her views.

The context was unusual, but the hard line taken by the populist leader was not: France’s Muslim immigrants are an alien force threatening French values.

Far from being a provocation, at Tuesday’s hearing she described a notorious speech she made five years ago comparing Muslim street prayers to the Nazi occupation as an “exhortation to respect the law” on behalf of “those who have been abandoned, the forgotten ones.”

“There are people with police-style armbands at these prayers,” Ms. Le Pen continued. “I’m scandalized. This is an abandonment by the state.”

She was in court under France’s tough hate-speech laws for the speech she made to supporters in this city five years ago, which touched on two of the most tender nerves in the French collective psyche: the Nazi occupation and the country’s relationship with its Muslims.

Nobody had yet so publicly compared the Muslim presence to the Nazis, and the speech provoked an uproar, a slow-moving investigation by judicial authorities, and prodding by rights groups.

Locked in 2010 in a fierce battle for control of her party, she delighted activists by launching into the subject of mass Muslim prayers in the street...

“If you want to talk about the occupation, let’s talk about that, by the way, because here we are talking about the occupation of our space,” she said in 2010. “It’s an occupation of entire stretches of territory, of neighborhoods where religious law is applied. This is an occupation. Sure, there are no armored vehicles, no soldiers, but it’s still an occupation, and it weighs on the inhabitants.”

Anti-racism and Muslim rights groups filed a complaint and demanded an investigation. But it took the lifting of her parliamentary immunity by the European Parliament in 2013 for the case to move forward, spurred on by the human rights groups.

The case finally came to trial on Tuesday. A final judgment is expected on Dec. 15, and Ms. Le Pen could face a fine of over $50,000 and up to a year in prison.

Read the whole New York Times article here: Marine Le Pen, French National Front Leader, Speaks at Her Hate-Speech Trial.

Media and politicians don't really know how to deal with criticism of Islam. They don't know if it's wrong or not. What will ultimately change public opinion (and therefore the kind of politicians we have in office) is a greater number of voters who understand the problem of Islam. How is this going to happen? It's up to those of us who already understand it to share what we know with others as skillfully as we can. If you get objections you have difficulty answering, find an effective response here: Answers to Objections.

Read more...

Multiculturalism is Good

Sunday

Someone left the following comment on the article, What Part of Our Culture is Worth Preserving? and I thought it was worth sharing to a broader audience. The commenter wrote:

Instead of rejecting multiculturalism, we need to tell the multiculturalists: "You're right! Multiculturalism is good! That's why Islam is a problem. It intends to establish a monoculture over the longer run!"

If we hate on multiculturalism, we make enemies of people who could be our allies against Islam. If we attack multiculturalism, we make people who could be allies reject us because they think, understandably, that WE want a monoculture instead. No. What we want is freedom and pluralism and, yes, multiculturalism. And that is precisely why Islam must be stopped, because IT will establish a monoculture.

As we've said here before, it's not multiculturalism that causes problems, but blind multiculturalism — multiculturalism without distinction.

For more coaching on talking to people about Islam, go here: Tools.

Read more...

The Meaning of Jihad

Saturday

The following is excerpted from an article by Bassam Tawil, a scholar based in the Middle East. It was originally published at the Gatestone Institute here: The Real Threat to Europe.

The late Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, predicted that Islam would conquer Europe without even firing a shot. To understand and explain the fate awaiting Europe, it is necessary to listen seriously to what the upper echelons of Islam say to each about their own intentions — in Arabic. These messages are quite different from those on Western television. What they say to one another is that the mission of Islam is to lead the whole world and eradicate all other religions, as they have been made irrelevant by the Qur'an.

Their doctrine appears openly and without reservation in books and on websites. It is spread in local languages in mosques by the imams in their communities throughout Europe. These communities operate according to an ancient Islamic code: They command immigration; then the forming of enclaves in the host country, then the eventual violent takeover of the host.

Once this process is complete, all the Islamic communities will unite to form the Islamic Caliphate. It will have no borders and no other identity. Then there will be Peace. This, they say, was the state of affairs under Muhammad and this will be the state of affairs in the future.

It is markedly apparent to us, however, that the world refuses to listen to what the Islamists are saying. Anyone who dares to issue a warning is called, among other names, an alarmist or a racist.

On the rare occasion when an expert does warn of the coming danger, the global media turn him into an object of scorn and derision. There seems to be less than no wish even to look at Islamist ideology. Al Jazeera, run by the Emir of Qatar to promote radical Islam, has instructed its American division not to use the words "terrorist," "militant," "extremist," "jihad" and "Islamist." Does anyone seriously think they are doing that to promote transparency?

Throughout history, society has disregarded — and often even persecuted — any messenger who says things it does not like, such as Giordano Bruno, burned at the stake in 1600 for wounding the world's narcissism by proposing that stars were other suns that could have other planets. Recently, global terrorism expert Steven Emerson, who made the 1994 documentary "Terrorists Amongst Us: Jihad in America," about the dangers the U.S. would face from radical Islam, has been vilified and ridiculed for an exaggerated comment about Birmingham. His apology may have reflected an error about the facts, but his central message was right. It did not negate his warning about the future danger these Muslim enclaves will present to Europe. Paris is not the only city with areas off-limits to police. Every tourist who goes to Marseilles, Köln, Berlin and Frankfurt is warned by local inhabitants about places to be bypassed.

The same is true of Stephen Coughlin, who was a Major in a Military Intelligence unit of the U.S. Army. Asked, as a lawyer, to prepare a report on Islamic sharia law, he delivered, in July 2007, the most meticulous, painstaking, thoroughly-documented report: "To Our Great Detriment": Ignoring What Extremists Say about Jihad." He was promptly fired. He had apparently come up with the "wrong" answer. The U.S. Army, it seems, had expected to hear that sharia law was not much different from the Magna Carta.

Commentators in Europe all had opinions about the terrorist attacks at the Charlie Hebdo office and the kosher supermarket in Paris. They reverentially discussed the motivation of the terrorists, the anti-Muslim atmosphere in Europe and concern over additional global jihad attacks, but showed distressingly little understanding of the meaning of jihad.

Read the rest of the article here: The Real Threat to Europe.

Read more...

Mein Kampf and Islamic Doctrine

In his introduction to an American translation of Mein Kampf, Konrad Heiden wrote: "For years Mein Kampf stood as proof of the blindness and complacency of the world. For in its pages Hitler announced — long before he came to power — a program of blood and terror in a self-revelation of such overwhelming frankness that few among its readers had the courage to believe it ... That such a man could go so far toward realizing his ambitions, and — above all — could find millions of willing tools and helpers; that is a phenomenon the world will ponder for centuries to come."

And yet, who is pondering the phenomenon of Islam? Its program of blood and terror and cultural annihilation was written 1400 years ago, has resulted in the deaths of far more people, and even now, so long after his death, Muhammad still finds millions of willing tools and helpers.

Let us ponder this together, and do something about it.

Read more...

Death Does Not Solve the Problem in the Long Run

Friday

On our web site and our Facebook page, we've often seen this comment, or something like it: "There really is only one answer for jihad and that is death to the jihadis."

The only problem with that answer is that the ideology from which a jihadi is made would still exist, even if every last one of them were killed. So it's like trying to destroy a particular plastic toy rather than destroying the factory that makes them.

And really, you can't destroy this factory. There will always be Korans in this world. What you can do, however, is expose the game while non-Muslims are still a majority. The non-Muslims of the world could realistically expose, contain, and marginalize Islam. But to do that, they would have to understand what Islamic doctrine says. As long as they stay in the dark about that, they are vulnerable to being "scammed." They'll go along with things like public calls to prayer, Muslims having their own no-go zones, or whatever special consideration is being demanded.

But once the general public is aware of the true and disturbing nature of core Islamic teachings, they will be willing to do what needs to be done: To stop all concessions to Islam, period. Islam will wilt on the vine. It will have no air to breath, no sunshine to grow.

Don't get me wrong: Orthodox Muslims committing violence need to be stopped — jailed or killed. But that will not solve the problem of Islam. Only the education of non-Muslims can do that.

Non-Muslims who don't know what Islam really is are vulnerable to being bamboozled. Those who know can see right through taqiyya and will not be moved by it. Consider the latest scam that cons money out of U.S. taxpayers. Almost 300,000 people in the last two years have been called by someone claiming to be an IRS agent. The taxpayer is told they owe taxes and must pay right now or face dire consequences. Believe it or not, some people pay right on the spot. So far these scam calls have conned taxpayers out of 14 million dollars.

A person who doesn't know about this scam is vulnerable. But if you know the IRS always contacts people by mail if they owe money, it would be impossible to fool you with such a call.

People who see what ISIS and Boko Haram are doing get upset. It's completely understandable. And a feeling of anger makes people want to lash out. Also understandable. The education of our fellow non-Muslims may seem too mild a remedy for such horror in the world, but in the long run it can push back Islam better than anything else.

And it's not such a mild remedy. If you think talking to your fellow non-Muslims about Islam is easy, you haven't tried it yet.

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