Have You Been Arguing About Refugees?

Monday

In the following article from the Center for Security Policy, you will find something that can help you in those arguments. It's worth reading. And worth sharing. And it has plenty of linked references for any skeptic you may be discussing this issue with. Here's the article:

Who the ‘Syrian Refugees’ Are — Not All of Them Are Syrian

And here's a sample from the article:
Europe, which is dealing with the brunt of the Syrian-refugee crisis, is contending with massive amounts of fraud committed by its refugee population. Many aren’t even “refugees.” Rather, they are “migrants” as defined by international law. A recent United Nations report indicates that only about half of the people entering Europe in this flood are from Syria. Europeans officials have raised concerns that about one-third of these self-identified refugees are lying about being Syrian in order to win residency.
Syrian passports are highly sought after by people hoping to enter Europe. For as little as $250 and a few days of waiting, you can buy a fake Syrian passport. Syrian passports are effectively worthless as identification, because of the thriving black market and a lack of records from the Syrian government.
Read the rest here: Who the ‘Syrian Refugees’ Are — Not All of Them Are Syrian. And share it.

Read more...

Islam Owns Any Land It Ever Occupied, Including Israel, Spain, Large Parts of Russia, a Third of China, and All of India, According to Islamic Doctrine

Sunday

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (the Supreme Leader of Iran) has published a new 416-page book called "Palestine." So far, the only place the book is available is in Iran. Khamenei's position is, of course, that Israel has no right to exist.

"Khamenei claims that his strategy for the destruction of Israel is not based on anti-Semitism," writes Amir Taheri in the New York Post, "which he describes as a European phenomenon. His position is instead based on 'well-established Islamic principles.'

"One such principle is that a land that falls under Muslim rule, even briefly, can never again be ceded to non-Muslims. What matters in Islam is ownership of a land’s government, even if the majority of inhabitants are non-Muslims."

Khamenei is well-versed in Islamic doctrine, including advanced levels of Muslim education, and he was an Islamic teacher and cleric before he started his political career.

"Dozens of maps circulate in the Muslim world showing the extent of Muslim territories lost to the Infidel that must be recovered," writes Taheri. "These include large parts of Russia and Europe, almost a third of China, the whole of India and parts of the Philippines and Thailand."

Read the rest of the article in the New York Post: Iran publishes book on how to outwit US and destroy Israel.

This was also posted on Inquiry Into Islam here.

Read more...

A Twinge That Could Stop a Catastrophe

Saturday

In Gavin de Becker's book, The Gift of Fear, he points out that many times a victim of rape intuitively knows something isn't right — and sometimes knows it in time to do something about it — but the rapist often plays on her kindness, so she ignores her intuition, writes off her own twinge of fear as ridiculous because after all, he's such a nice man.

One of the examples de Becker uses is a woman who was carrying groceries up the stairs to her apartment when a friendly man offered to help her. She had an immediate twinge of fear (what de Becker calls a "survival signal") and she said, "No thank you." But he insisted and when she hesitated because she didn't want to hurt his feelings, he added a little "typecasting" to set the hook. Typecasting is one method manipulators use to influence people. It's a slight insult designed to cause the victim to prove that the insult doesn't apply to her, and in so doing, she makes herself more vulnerable. Read more about it here.

So she overrode her survival signal and accepted his help. She was raped in her apartment, and if it weren't for the fact that she listened to her second twinge of fear, she would have been murdered that night.

There are orthodox Muslims who are using the same manipulative techniques with non-Muslim countries: Appealing to their kindness and typecasting them by implying that if they prevent Muslim immigration, they're racist Islamophobes. Their goal is to get more Muslims into our non-Muslim countries. And as they gain a greater percentage of the population within our countries, they push for more and more concessions — getting the host culture to yield to Islamic standards one small increment at a time. This is what Raymond Ibrahim calls Islam's rule of numbers.

As their numbers grow, their political power grows. Then politicians can no longer ignore this voting block and the push for concessions grows more insistent and demanding. The country is gradually converted to Islamic law.

Almost every non-Muslim country is on this track, yet still in a position to save itself, and some people within each country — more all the time — are listening to our survival signals.

Our twinges of intuition are correct: Islam swallows up cultures. In the end, nothing is left but Islam. That's just what it does. Our twinge is a gift. A warning. Here's the message, clarified into English: "Don't let them in."

Read more...

Typecasting: A Manipulation Tool Used by Orthodox Muslims

In Gavin de Becker's book, The Gift of Fear, he describes several indicators that a predator is trying to gain control of a woman (to rape, rob, or murder her). One of these indicators is "typecasting." Here's how de Becker describes it:

A man labels a woman in some slightly critical way, hoping she'll feel compelled to prove that his opinion is not accurate. "You're probably too snobbish to talk to the likes of me," a man might say, and the woman will cast off the mantle of "snob" by talking to him. A man tells a woman, "You don't look like someone who reads the newspaper," and she sets out to prove that she is intelligent and well-informed. When Kelly (an example de Becker was using) refused her attacker's assistance, he said, "There's such a thing as being too proud, you know," and she resisted the label by accepting his help.

Typecasting always involves a slight insult, and usually one that is easy to refute (in our case, the insults include Islamophobic or racist). But since it is the response itself that the typecaster seeks, the defense is silence, acting as if the words weren't even spoken. If you engage, you can win the point, but you might lose something greater. Not that it matters what some stranger thinks of you anyway, but the typecaster doesn't even believe what he says is true. He just believes that it will work.

The Gift of Fear is an excellent book with many useful insights into our resistance against the manipulative attempt to Islamize our countries.

Read full lists of manipulation methods from the book:

Read more...

Geert Wilders Speaks in Dutch Court

Friday

Geert Wilders is a Member of Parliament in The Netherlands, leader of the Party for Freedom, and in my opinion, the Winston Churchill of our times

He is facing trial in 2016, for “inciting discrimination and hatred” against Moroccans living in the Netherlands. He asked his party supporters whether they want more or less Moroccans in the city and Netherlands, to which his audience replied with the chant “less, less, less!” For that, he must defend himself in court.

Geert Wilders delivered the following declaration before the Dutch court on November 25, 2015:

Mr. President, members of the Chamber,

I have the right to a fair trial. That is why I am here. Not to ask you a favor. But to ask you what I am entitled to. A fair trial. And the right to defend myself in the best possible way. If you do not give me that chance then this trial will be a farce.

During the first meeting, the investigative judge told to me, "You should have a fair chance; the law will be interpreted broadly." But the opposite has happened. All my 39 requests, all the requests from the defendant have been rejected. Apparently, I am not allowed an adequate defense.

The investigative judge is uncritically following the Public Prosecutor. The Chamber agreed with the Public Prosecutor to reject the first twelve requests. Hopefully, that will not be the case for the 27 rejections that you must decide on now. Because if all reasonable requests are rejected, then I cannot defend myself, and I apparently have to be sentenced at all costs.

I am taken to court for what I have said. But I have said nothing wrong.

Fewer Moroccans, fewer Syrians, fewer Mexicans, fewer Russians, I do not see why stating that is punishable. However, when Turkish members of the Dutch parliament call me a tumor that must be fought and when they compare me to Hitler, then there is no consternation, no massive complaints on pre-printed forms, no prime minister who speaks shame of it and no Public Prosecutor to come into action.

What kind of country are we living in?!

I speak for millions of Dutch. And I will continue to do so. That is my duty as a representative of the people. And that is my right. It is a travesty that I have to stand here before you today.

I have done nothing wrong. At least, I want to be allowed to defend myself in court. I want to hear witnesses and experts so that I can defend myself.

The investigative judge promised me a fair chance, but he did not give me such a chance. I now turn to you: Give me the chance to defend myself. Give me the chance to a fair trial.

Read more about Geert Wilders:
Dutch Researcher Says Geert Wilders is Right
Geert Wilders Shows Muhammad Cartoons on Dutch Television

Read more...

US Citizens: Three Ways to Tell Your Legislator “NO REFUGEES”

Wednesday

This is a timely message from ACT! for America:

Our 300,000 grassroots advocates have been very vocal in opposing the resettlement of Syrian refugees to the U.S. We are being heard, but we must do more. President Obama has been clear that he still intends to bring hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees to our towns and communities — irrespective of the roar of disapproval from American citizens, the strong public disapproval of over half of U.S Governors, the passage of legislation by the U.S. Congress, and — of course — even after the Paris attack, where we now know that at least one of the terrorists arrived in Europe as a Syrian refugee.

This is unacceptable and ACT for America is taking action, but we need your help.

We have three important and time-sensitive ACTION ALERTS currently underway. Please be sure to take action on each of them, and to forward this e-mail to everyone you know. This is a critical time, both in our nation and worldwide, and we need all hands on deck.

IMPORTANT ACTION ALERTS

1. We are gathering tens of thousands of signatures on an Open Letter to the leadership in the House and Senate voicing strong opposition to the Obama Administration’s plans to bring Syrian refugees to the U.S. The letter will be hand-delivered to the U.S. Congress by our Director of Government Relations. If you haven’t yet added your name, pleaseclick HERE to do so.

2. We are actively supporting H.R. 3314, the Resettlement Accountability National Security Act of 2015 introduced by Rep Brian Babin (R-TX). The bill would immediately suspend the U.N.-run refugee program to provide Congress time to fully assess the national security risks and investigate its financial burden on federal, state and local taxpayers.

As of this writing, the bill has 78 cosponsors. Is your House Representative one of them? Click HERE to find out. If not, please send your House Representative an e-mail asking for cosponsorship, by clicking HERE. If your Representative HAS cosponsored the bill, please send a quick note to say thank you. It goes a long way.

(Several weeks ago, before the Paris attack, Representative Babin spoke on the Floor of the U.S. House of Representatives about the grave threat associated with the U.N.-run refugee program. Click HERE to watch it.)

3. We are actively registering our opposition to any federal funding for U.S. Refugee resettlement actions to be included in the U.S. Congress’s end of year spending bill. This is our most time-sensitive activity right now! Please click HERE to e-mail or call your federal legislators TODAY to express your opposition to any federal funding going to refugee resettlement.

[NOTE: When calling your legislator’s office, it’s fine to merge Actions 2 and 3 together. Express your support for Rep. Babin’s bill and ask for cosponsorship; and express your opposition for any refugee resettlement funding in the fiscal year 2016 budget bill.]

The Paris attack is but a foreshadowing of what can and will take place in our nation soon. We cannot allow unvetted refugees from Syria (or elsewhere) to be settled in our towns and communities. This is a high priority national security matter. Please take action today and pass this e-mail on to everyone you know. Remember, if each of us does just a little, together we can accomplish a lot.

Thank you for all that you do.

ACT for America accepts no funding from any governmental agency, any foreign influence peddlers, or political institutions. Your support of ACT for America is critical in winning a battle we cannot afford to lose. All donations are tax-deductible. Click here to donate. ACT for America education is a recognized 501(c)3 organization.

Read more...

Rapport, Connection and Thanksgiving

Sunday

In the United States, (and for some in the UK) almost everyone is anticipating a Thanksgiving feast later this week. Most people will spend the day with their family. For many of us, our families have been the most difficult people to educate about Islam, and it is a painful fact that in many ways some of our own family members are "aiding and abetting" the enemy (without knowing it, of course).

Family get-togethers on Thanksgiving (or any holiday) may seem like a good opportunity to make your case, but I caution you against it. First of all, talking politics in those circumstances can easily ruin the event for everyone. And an argument certainly will. Second, persuading someone in a group situation is much more difficult than one-on-one (unless most of the people there are on your side of the argument). And third, many of your fellow infidels may be drinking alcohol, and that doesn't help with good listening or clear thinking.

The family gathering can, however, help our cause. You can use the occasion to observe and gain rapport. I suggest you focus this Thanksgiving on one person. Who is the most likely to be open to understanding Islam who will be attending the feast? Who is the most undecided? Pick one person.

During your family occasion, try to discover which representational system the person favors (click here if you don't know what that means).

And second, use your body to gain and maintain rapport throughout the day with everyone there, especially the person you picked (click here to find out how to do that). I suggest you do this at family gatherings of any kind.

These things will set you up beautifully for future one-on-one conversations with the person — conversations where you'll have a good chance of bringing them to a new understanding of Islam. In many ways, your task is half done when you are in strong rapport. Sometimes taking your focus off convincing and persuading can make you more convincing and persuasive. Sometimes not approaching something directly improves your ability.

I have seen a demonstration that perfectly illustrates this principle. In fact, I've done the demonstration myself several times after seeing it in a seminar. Here's how it goes: I toss something to someone, and they miss it. And they say something like, "I'm terrible at catching." So I tell them I'm going to test something. "I'm going to toss you this ball," I say, "but this time don't try to catch it. Instead, I want you to tell me which way the ball is spinning." Then I toss the ball, and to their great surprise, they catch it easily.

How does this work? They take their attention off trying to catch the ball, and instead pay close attention to the ball itself, and their body responds naturally and easily and catches it.

In the same way, if you take your attention off making people believe you, and instead pay close attention to their favored representational system and pay close attention to their body posture and match it, you have a good chance of making them believe you — easily and naturally — without even trying.

These two tasks are not time-consuming, difficult, upsetting, or conflict-creating. You can do them both and still fully enjoy the day too. Have a happy Thanksgiving.

Read more...

The Facts of Islam Alone Can Open Someone's Eyes

Saturday

Damon Whitsell, the creator of The Religion of Conquest, published an interesting article about his own experiences trying to convince a friend's son that Islam is not a religion of peace. Whitsell admits he didn't do a very good persuasion job, and when you read their exchange, you have to agree with him. He's hard on the kid and too self-righteous, among other things.

However, he gets in some good points, gets a few facts to penetrate, and after the kid stopped talking to Whitsell for eight months, he came back after he looked into Islam on his own, and had to admit Whitsell was right. It's a triumph of the facts.

And it illustrates the point that you don't really have to convince someone Islam is a dangerous ideology. You only have to convince someone to look into it. The true nature of Islamic doctrine speaks for itself without any emphasis or embellishment on your part. This is good news. It means your mission is easier than you thought.

Read the blow-by-blow transcript of Whitsell's interaction with his friend's son here: With Facts I Helped Open Someone's Eyes to the Dangers of Islam (You Can Too).

Read more...

Inflammatory Rhetoric

Friday

I was talking to a friend of mine about Islam. The latest attack in Paris (on Friday 13th, 2015) was fresh on everyone's mind, and we were talking about it. He doesn't like it when I say negative things about Islam, although he doesn't really argue with me too much.

I told him to think about it this way: Jehovah's Witnesses go door to door to promote their religion. I know not all of them do this, but they are supposed to. It's part of their religious practice.

He said, "Yeah, I know."

"Well," I said, "jihad is part of Islam. Not all of them do it, but they are all supposed to. It's part of their religious practice."

He just looked at me with a face that said, "I can't listen to you say such things!"

"I don't like it when Jehovah's Witnesses come to my door," I said, "but I don't hate people who are Jehovah's Witnesses. In high school, one of my good friends was a Jehovah's Witness. So you can dislike a religious practice or dislike an ideology, and not have any hatred of any particular person who is a member of that religion or ideology."

"I know you're not a hateful person," he admitted, while still holding a facial expression that said, "I still don't like any of this."

"Schindler was a Nazi," I said.

He blurted out, "I know, I know, but I guess I'm just afraid of inflammatory rhetoric, not from you, but from other people who are on the same track, talking about the same topic."

Finally, we were getting somewhere. "But don't you see," I said, following my own advice, "that's exactly why we need to be talking about this now — before a Muslim sets off a nuclear bomb in the middle of New York City. Can you imagine the inflammatory rhetoric you'd get then? When most people are still ignorant of the real situation? People need to talk about this now, while everyone is relatively calm."

Then I had a thought. I said, "I've been learning about this topic for a long time, and I have rarely come across inflammatory rhetoric. Every once in awhile someone will say something hateful or crazy on a comment on a Facebook page or blog, but that's about it. But contrast that with the truly inflammatory rhetoric that is on Middle East television every day. Are you concerned about that? They have people on their national TV urging Muslims to stab Israelis to death!"

He said, "I read about that..."

"And they're doing it!" I said a little too loudly. "But that's just one example. They talk about destroying Israel and the United States. They talk about how we are the most evil people on earth and need to be annihilated. This is far beyond inflammatory rhetoric. Some of their people carry it out. And many of the rest support it. That is a very big difference from a comment on Facebook. Their comments are televised and broadcast and their message carries authority just by virtue of being broadcast."

It looked like this point sunk in, and I felt I should kind of wind it down, so I said, "I am also afraid of inflammatory rhetoric on our side. But you can err on the other side — not speaking about it enough. This is a very serious topic that affects all of us and we should all be talking about it and learning about it. Sensibly. Rationally, for sure. But we should talk about it. And see if something can be humanely done about our predicament."

I never try to get anyone to admit they were wrong. That would be foolish. It's enough to make a good point and move on, waiting for the next opportunity, and preparing in the meanwhile, gaining knowledge and skills. I feel he will come around. But I'm taking it slow. I could tell he really didn't like this whole thing. I made a good point using his own words, his own concern, and he couldn't rationally deny that if he's worried about the inflammatory rhetoric of counterjihadists, it would be logically inconsistent to be unconcerned about the inflammatory rhetoric of those who want to destroy us.

He said, "I just don't want..." and he hesitated, trying to find the right words.

But before he could finish his sentence, I finished it for him: "You don't want it to be true."

To which he immediately replied, nodding his head, "Yes, I really don't want it to be true."

"I know, man," I said sympathetically. "I don't either." And we left it at that. I'm going to give him a little time to let it all settle in his mind before I pull him further into this subject. It's a big, bitter pill to swallow, and when you really understand it, your life will never be the same. I think on some level, people recognize this, and that's one of the reasons they resist. They will throw every argument at you they can because, at the bottom of it all, they just don't want it to be true, and I can't blame them.

Read more...

Islam is Forcing Us to Resolve an Important Ethical Conflict

I saw a video (which you can see here) where a man and a woman were walking together in a public park, and he slaps her face. Bystanders immediately stopped him.

Then she dresses in a hijab and they do the same thing: They walk along talking, this time in Arabic, and then he stops and slaps her. You could see that other people in the park were disturbed by it, but only one man eventually intervened. Everyone else looked on, didn't like it, but didn't do anything or even say anything.

The creators of the video implied that this meant the non-Muslims didn't care as much about Muslim women as they do about non-Muslim women. But I think that conclusion is off-base.

The video illustrates a deep conflict in our culture. And our increasing contact with Muslims is bringing this conflict more and more to the forefront. We will have to resolve it. We have rarely had to confront this conflict in the past, but Islam is exceedingly good at putting non-Muslims in double binds.

This ability to put us in double binds is, I believe, one of their most effective strategic ploys, and they are exploiting it wherever they can.

In case you didn't know exactly what a double bind was, I looked up a good definition to add the link above, but I also found this telling statement in the explanation: "Double binds are often utilized as a form of control without open coercion — the use of confusion makes them both difficult to respond to as well as to resist."

Islam is not strong enough and Muslims in most non-Muslim countries are not numerous enough to control non-Muslims through open coercion as they would in a Muslim country. So they use double binds to exert control.

What is the conflict illustrated in the video? One the one hand we want to be open, tolerant people. We don't want to be bigoted or narrow-minded. We don't want to be arrogant and insulting toward another's culture just because it's different. This is basic etiquette and manners, and for most of us, it is an important part of who we are.

On the other hand, what if the other culture is actually morally wrong? What if the other culture harms people? What if it interferes with others' freedoms?

Most cultural differences are very easy for us to accept. If someone wants to put a mark on their forehead or wear a cross or dress in a traditional dress from the old country or eat salted mackerel or pray in some way you are unfamiliar with, most of us don't think, "Look at those freaky foreigners. They are strange and therefore wrong and bad." We think, "That's their culture, and they have every right to live the way they want to."

The co-creator of the movie, Borat, (Dan Mazer) said he found most Americans "incredibly polite," even when the Borat character pushed them far beyond the limits of tolerance. We are the great melting pot. And one of the main reasons that people of all ethnic and religious backgrounds interact and work together with very little friction is that for the most part, we accept each other's differences. Some even embrace and celebrate those differences.

But the cultural-difference-acceptance ethic described above is being challenged more than Borat ever dreamed of. Islam puts our desire to accept cultural differences in direct conflict with our own humanity. In the video I mentioned above, the woman was slapped by a man. But when she dressed and talked like a Muslim, this created a conflict for onlookers. She was clearly a Muslim and a husband hitting a wife is a fairly common practice in Muslim culture (because the practice is encouraged in these Islamic doctrines).

For the onlookers, which ethical principle overrides which? It's wrong for a man to hit a woman. And it's wrong to condemn the practices of a different culture. We don't normally have to choose between them. But Islam is forcing us to choose, and doing their best to convince us to choose cultural acceptance.

What about FGM? Some girls have had this done to them in America. Should we accept this cultural difference, or impose our own morals on people with different cultural beliefs? What about segregation of men and women? What about nurses washing their hands? What about wearing a burka for a drivers licence photo? What about polygamy?

Orthodox Muslims keep putting us to the test. And they aren't doing it passively or accidentally. One of the core principles of Islamic doctrine is that Islam is a better political system and a better religion than any other, and that Muslims are better people than any other, and that ultimately the Islamic system of rules and law should override and supersede all others on earth. It is a pushy, domineering, assertive religion. It keeps pushing us into our double binds and most people don't know what to do about it. And to make matters worse, orthodox Muslims keep trying to prevent non-Muslims from even talking about Islam, so we're having a difficult time working it out and resolving it among ourselves. The issue is getting more and more tense and uncomfortable.

We will have to decide. When the principle of cultural inclusion and acceptance comes into conflict with the principles of women's rights, human rights, safety, freedom of speech, etc., which do we choose?

Read more...

What Does ISIS Hope to Achieve With Random Violence?

Thursday

What is ISIS trying to accomplish with their seemingly random murders of non-Muslims like the recent attack in Paris? This has been puzzling me for a while. I know terrorism is supposed to scare people, but for what ultimate purpose? People will be scared for a while, and then normal life will resume. ISIS is not going to conquer France by killing 129 people. What are they doing? They're obviously investing time and money to plan and carry out these attacks. Why?

The bigger goal, the central Islamic goal is, of course, to bring non-Muslims under the rule of Islamic law. That goal is laid out clearly and unmistakably in standard Islamic doctrine. But why does ISIS think that randomly blowing up and shooting infidels will achieve this?

The strategy ISIS and other orthodox Muslims are now following was laid out by by the late Sheikh Abu-Bakr Naji. His big insight was this: It is impossible now to achieve Islam's prime directive the traditional way, which was to invade countries and establish Islamic law by force. This method may have worked fine when non-Muslim countries were unconcerned with things happening in other parts of the world. Back in those days, using the traditional method, Islam successfully established most of the now-existing 56 Muslim countries. But these days non-Muslim countries are too powerful militarily and would stop it. Naji thought the Taliban did a great job setting up a true Islamic state, faithful to Islamic law, but look what happened: The "crusader nations" destroyed it.

Osama bin Laden thought he would make the cowardly infidels succumb to fear with a few very big violent attacks, such as 9/11. But that strategy failed. It only strengthened non-Muslim resolve and triggered a massive retaliation.

So in 2005, Naji proposed a new strategy: He said the way to ultimately accomplish the prime directive is to fight the entire non-Muslim world everywhere at once, and to create an increasing occurrence of ever-more-violent events so non-Muslims everywhere would feel insecure and would eventually live in constant fear of violent death. They would lose trust in their government's ability to protect them. They would become exhausted from insecurity and fear, and would then be willing to embrace Islamic rule just to make the violence stop and to be able to live in some sort of peace.

I just read an article about the Friday 13th attack in Paris, in which the New York Times quoted a 42 year-old French accountant: "I feel sickened, angry," he said. Coming so soon after the attacks in January, he said, "It is starting to be too much." This struck me as an expression of exactly the state of mind Naji was talking about.

In order to accomplish frequent attacks, Naji said Muslims must create bases of operations inside the non-Muslim nations. That means Muslim immigration is necessary, coupled with the Muslims' refusal to integrate into the non-Muslim society, leaving areas of Muslim-only populations (what many have called no-go zones) within non-Muslim countries. This way, terrorism operations could be organized and carried out more effectively.

ISIS and other Islamic groups have embraced this strategy worldwide.

Muslim immigration into non-Muslim countries has increased, especially with the new influx of refugees (created by ISIS). And no-go zones are being created in most non-Muslim countries. The number of violent events is accelerating. We in the West usually only hear about the very large events, but constant random killing of non-Muslims is happening all over the world now, as chronicled by thereligionofpeace.com. A general feeling of insecurity is increasing.

But ultimately, I believe this strategy can only fail. The people in Western nations are not as weak or as easily cowed as we may appear. They are mistaking a reluctance to fight with an unwillingness to defend ourselves — a mistake they will pay dearly for. We are nice people, for the most part, and we bend over backwards to give people the benefit of the doubt, but when we understand what is really happening, we suddenly and completely change our tune. Look what France's response has been to its latest jihad attacks: They immediately bombed the hell out of ISIS strongholds, closed their borders, arrested 104 suspected jihadis, and are shutting down the orthodox mosques in France.

People in the West are like the old man being harassed and taunted by the punks in this video. He just wanted them to go away so he could go on about his day, but when he realized they were not going to leave him alone, he knocked them out.

That's why all over Europe (and Canada and Australia) there are protests against the influx of regugees — partly out of a new understanding of the facts surrounding Muslim immigration — it produces more rapes, more criminal activity, and in the process of trying to create Muslim-only areas, non-Muslims are forced out by constant harassment. The trend is toward a growing resistance to Muslim immigration.

We can look at Flight 93 on 9/11 for a good illustration of how people in the West change their stance from relatively passive to ready to fight. The jihadis on board all the planes that day told their passengers to stay calm, and everything was going to be all right. But the people aboard Flight 93 found out about the other planes. And once they understood what was really going on, they attacked and stopped the plane from reaching its destination.

Like the people on Flight 93, our fellow non-Muslims may only need accurate information. We need to share with our fellow non-Muslims what ISIS plans on doing. It will create a resolve to defeat them.

The above explanation of Naji's strategy is summarized from an article by Amir Taheri. Read his article here: The Jihadis' Master Plan to Break Us.

Read a book by Naji: The Management of Savagery.

Read more...

Why France?

Sunday

The following are excerpts from Andrew C. McCarthy's Islam and Free Speech:

France’s population of 66 million is now approximately 10 percent Islamic.

As night follows day, when Muslim populations surge, so does support for jihadism and the sharia supremacist ideology that catalyzes it. The reason is plain to see, even if Western elites remain willfully blind to it: For a not insignificant percentage of the growing Muslim millions in Europe, infiltration – by both mass immigration and the establishment of swelling Islamic enclaves – is a purposeful strategy of conquest, sometimes referred to as “voluntary apartheid.”

One of its leading advocates is Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi...He is a copiously published scholar graduated from Cairo’s al-Azhar University, the seat of Sunni Islamic learning for over a millennium, and thus oversees both the International Union of Muslim Scholars and the European Council for Fatwa and Research. Thanks to his pioneering of the highly trafficked IslamOnline website and, especially, to his hugely popular al-Jazeera television program, Sharia and Life, he has become the world’s most influential sharia jurist.

Qaradawi is the sharia backbone of the violent jihad to exterminate Israel – a tiny country surrounded by hundreds of millions of hostile Muslims. The sheikh also vows that Islam will “conquer” both Europe and America, but acknowledges that this conquest will require a strategy more suited to a determined minority that knows it cannot win by force of arms. The key, he asserts, is dawa, the Muslim equivalent of proselytism. In radical Islam, it is hyper-aggressive, pushing on every cultural cylinder, pressuring every institution, and exploiting the atmosphere of intimidation created by jihadist terror to blur the lines between legal advocacy and extortion.

In France, dawa presses against laïcité, the credo of secularism through the strict separation of religion and the state. Qaradawi is quite clear that “secularism can never enjoy a general acceptance in an Islamic society.” He is equally adamant that Muslims, who are bound to live in accordance with the strictures of sharia, must reject a secular framework because “acceptance of secularism means abandonment of sharia, a denial of the divine guidance and a rejection of Allah’s injunctions.” Thus, he elaborates, “The call for secularism among Muslims is atheism and a rejection of Islam. Its acceptance as a basis for rule in place of sharia is downright apostasy.”

This nexus between free speech and Western democracy is worth pausing over. Notice that, in focusing on the incompatibility between Islamic law and democracy’s secular, pluralist underpinnings, Qaradawi draws the inevitable conclusion that democracy equals apostasy. The term apostasy is not invoked idly in radical Islam. As explained in Reliance of the Traveller, a classic sharia manual endorsed by al-Azhar scholars, the renunciation of Islam is a death penalty offense.

Free speech does not exist in a vacuum. It is the plinth of freedom’s fortress. It is the ineliminable imperative if there is to be the robust exchange of knowledge and ideas, the rule of reason, freedom of conscience, equality before the law, property rights, and equality of opportunity. That is why it must be extinguished if there is to be what Qaradawi calls a “place of religion” – meaning his religion. For all its arrogance and triumphalist claims, radical Islam must suppress speech because it cannot compete in a free market of conscience.

To sustain their movement, therefore, Islamist leaders must separate Muslims from secular society. In the West, this means forming Islamic enclaves in which sharia gradually takes root as the de facto and, eventually, the de jure law – enabling Muslims to resist the challenge of critical thinking under the guise avoiding the near occasion of apostasy. Over time, dominion is established over swaths of not only physical territory but legal privilege. Qaradawi puts the matter succinctly:

Were we to convince Western leaders and decision-makers of our right to live according to our faith — ideologically, legislatively, and ethically — without imposing our views or inflicting harm upon them, we would have traversed an immense barrier in our quest for an Islamic state.

The key to the conquest strategy is to coerce the West into accepting a Muslim right to resist assimilation, to regard sharia as superseding Western law and custom when the two conflict. For precisely this reason, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation – a bloc of 56 Muslim countries (plus the Palestinian Authority) – has decreed that “Muslims should not be marginalized or attempted to be assimilated, but should be accommodated.” Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Islamist president of Turkey who has systematically dismantled that country’s secular, pro-Western system, similarly pronounces that pressuring Muslims to assimilate in the West “is a crime against humanity.”

Free expression is the gateway to assimilation. Consequently, radical Islam cannot tolerate it.

As a result, France is now rife with Zones Urbaines Sensibiles – “sensitive urban areas.” The government officially lists some 751 of them: Islamic enclaves in the banlieues, often referred to as “no go zones” because the indigenous populations discourage the presence of non-Muslims who do not conform to Islamic standards of dress and social interaction, and of public officials – police, fire-fighters, emergency medical teams, and building inspectors – who are seen as symbols of the state’s effort to exercise sovereignty in areas Muslims seek to possess adversely.

Some of these zones inevitably evolve into hotbeds of jihadist activity. As the Gatestone Institute’s Soeren Kern notes, there has been no shortage of Internet traffic suggesting, for example, “the killing of France’s ambassadors, just as the manly Libyan fighters killed the U.S. ambassador in Benghazi.” In a low-intensity jihadist thrum stretching back several years, the torching of automobiles has become a commonplace – as many as 40,000 cars burned annually. Perhaps most alarmingly, over a thousand French Muslims, more than from any other Western country, are estimated to have traveled to Syria to fight for ISIS – meaning many will return to the country as trained, battle-hardened jihadists. Beyond the direct ISIS participants, moreover, the Washington Post has reported that a recent poll found 16 percent of French citizens expressing some degree of support for ISIS – an organization whose rule over the vast territory it has seized is best known for decapitations, rapine, the execution of homosexuals, mass graves, and the enslavement of non-Muslim communities.

Once one grasps the voluntary apartheid strategy, it becomes obvious why radical Islam’s inroads in France, and elsewhere in Europe, seamlessly translate into demands for the enforcement of sharia’s curbs on speech and artistic expression. What is not so obvious is just how profound a challenge to the West this constitutes.

- The above is from Andrew C. McCarthy's 38-page broadside, Islam and Free Speech.

Read more...

Islamic Doctrine in Action

Friday

As we are seeing in Paris, and as we have seen again and again, as perplexing as it may be to non-Muslims, jihad is a form of worship.

Allah discouraged Muslims from passive expressions of faith. To prove one's faith, Allah demands action. Specifically and most importantly, jihad — fighting in the way of Allah. Fighting to establish the legal domination of Islam. It is Islam's prime directive.

You and I may think it is wrong, but to a Muslim, it is right. It is commanded by Allah. What could be more right than that to someone who believes it?

The world must awaken to the existence of such a creed and stop blinding itself with wishful thinking. This is not going to go away.

Read more...

Using the Sex Drive to Create Violence

We received the following email a few days ago, and it contains a good point worth sharing:

I just finished reading, for probably the 20th time, CW's invaluable article, The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex. Today's re-read sparked a thought of a possible addition to entry number 7. In fact, I think an entire separate article could be written on this premise. (If CW has already written such an article, I have missed it and my apologies.)

Entry number 7 concerns the Koran's allowing Muslims to have up to four wives and encouraging Muslims to marry widows, and my thought is this: These two provisions not only help guarantee a steady supply of offspring, they also ensure a steady supply of young men without wives. IMO a significant source of Islam's power amongst young men of fighting age is that by denying them normal sexual relations, their powerful sex drive is then available to be channeled/sublimated into aggression — aggression in which success is rewarded with sex. If they die they get into heaven for sex with virgins, and if they don't die there is a good possibility of obtaining sex by raping captive women.

It also helps that the position of women in Islam nearly eliminates the other (i.e. non-sexual) natural moderating influences of women on male aggression.

CW, both your site and your book have greatly assisted me in encouraging non-Muslims to learn more about Islam, and your site is always the first one I recommend to those who want to read further. Your work is vital and much appreciated!

Regards,

L. Evans

P.S. Your article, How to Resist Islamic Encroachment and Still Be Happy made me realize that I'm not the only one who gets overwhelmed by what is happening in the world and who needs to take a break from the news. Thank you.

Read more...

John Oliver Leaves Fans in the Dark About Islam

Thursday

I posted a video of John Oliver's show Last Week Tonight on my personal Facebook page. The episode was about TV evangelists, and it was really great. Watch it here. He exposes many of them for the frauds they are when they prey on old or sick people and con them of out their money.

Oliver was thorough. He participated in one of the evangelical's program for seven months and sent money quite a few times to find out the extent of the con. His team contacted the IRS, and found out what the requirements are to avoid having to pay taxes on the money, and then he created his own church, hired a tax lawyer, and solicited money on TV, and it was all perfectly legal.

The whole thing was very funny and yet also compellingly discredited the evangelicals in question. After I posted it on Facebook, I got some comments about how great Oliver's show is, but something about these positive comments hit a nerve with me because yes, his show is very honest and hard-hitting...except about Islam. So after everyone made their positive comments, I said, "I wish he would do a show as good as this one, but about Islamic doctrine." But after I wrote that, I realized how stupid it was. So I added, "Of course, if he did, he would live with a death sentence for the rest of his life, like Salmon Rushdie, Geert Wilders, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, etc."

I got a few comments after that, of course, but I thought this might be a pretty good way to make a point. I didn't post the video originally in order to make any point. I just thought it was worth sharing. But now that I've done it and added my Islam comment, I think this might have been an accidental discovery of a way to get people thinking about Islam, or curious enough to look into it.

One of the comments I got back on my Islam comment was, "I don't think that could be funny." But I answered, "A good comedian can make anything funny." In fact, Oliver's evangelical show was really about how con men have successfully become filthy rich by fleecing old and sick people, including a photo of one woman who was tragically drained of her money, and even with that, the show is not only a hard-hitting expose, at times it is hilarious. I said, "Imagine what he could do with Muhammad's crazy life!" Anyone reading that probably knows very little about Muhammad, but the comment might make them curious enough to look into it. And if they look into it, they will discover things that explain some of the craziness in the world today.

The reason I originally made my Islam comment and spoiled everyone's fun was that all the praise for John Oliver suddenly pissed me off. John Oliver's show has mentioned Islam before, but only to make fun of "Islamophobes." So he's not only failing in his apparent mission in life to expose the deceits and cons in the world, with Islam he appears to be doing more than just ignoring it. If anything, it looks like he's sucking up to Muslims to keep himself safe and secure (while inadvertently helping Muslims advance their prime directive by convincing non-Muslims that Islam is nothing to worry about).

So he is being praised for his effectiveness at exposing evil in the world while gutlessly avoiding (and even helping) Islam, arguably the biggest evil in the world today. I just couldn't let it slide.

Read more...

It's Okay to Have (and Express) a Political Opinion. Duh.

Friday

When you say something negative about Islamic doctrine, many people assume you hate Muslims and then you are dismissed as a "hater." If this ever comes up in a conversation, try turning it around. Say something like, "I don't hate Muslim people. I dislike a political ideology. Isn't there a political ideology you dislike?"

Stay with that question until they give you the name of a political ideology they don't like (there must be at least one). Then ask them, "Okay, do you hate everybody who subscribes to that ideology? Do you hate everyone who lives in a country ruled by that political doctrine?" Of course not. That would be ridiculous.

Make this distinction clear in their minds. You can have an opinion about a political doctrine without hating members who believe in that doctrine or are subject to it. It's not a problem. Those two are quite distinct.

Now, if the person you're talking to doesn't realize Islam is a political doctrine, share this little fact:

Sixty-one percent of the Koran is about non-Muslims. Writings about what Muslims should do is religious. Writings about what non-Muslims should do or how Muslims should deal with non-Muslims is political. Therefore, based on the written content of Islam's most holy book, Islam is more political (61%) than religious (39%).

Read more about that fact here: Statistics and the Meaning of Islam.

We should all be freely talking about Islam. It's okay to have a political opinion. Liberals freely and harshly criticize conservative doctrine. And conservatives freely and harshly criticize liberal doctrine. Sharing a political opinion is a freedom we all rightfully enjoy in a free society. Non-Muslims should feel just as free to criticize Islamic doctrine.

Read more...

Islam Must Be Spread By Force

Monday

In his book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), Robert Spencer wrote: "Some of the modern-day Islamic thinkers who are most revered today by jihad terrorists taught (in no uncertain terms) that Islam must impose itself by force upon non-Muslims — not as a religion, for that would violate the Qur'an's dictum that 'there is no compulsion in religion' (Qur'an 2:256) — but as a system of laws and societal norms. They taught that Muslims must fight to impose Islamic law on non-Muslim states, relegating its citizens to dhimmi status or worse."

This is Islam's prime directive. It is the Big Goal. Not to convert the world, but to subjugate the world, to bring everyone under Islamic rule.

Remember this distinction, and use it in your conversations.

Generally speaking, people don't willingly submit to subjugation. They resist. This means that for Islam to spread, it must be spread by force.

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