On Sale Now: A Handbook For The Counterjihad

Monday

Our handbook for citizen warriors entitled, Getting Through: How to Talk to Non-Muslims About the Disturbing Nature of Islam has been released in a Kindle version, and for the next few days it's on sale for 99 cents.

The book has a section on different ways to approach conversations about Islam, and another section on how to educate people in other ways besides arguing. The book includes Answers to Objections and The Terrifying Brilliance of Islam in their entirety.

Our mission is to make it universally understood that Islam is not a religion of peace, and that Islamic doctrine outlines a clear political goal: The global application of Sharia law.

This mission is much harder than many of us expected. Our new manual should make our task easier and more enjoyable for everyone. Click here to get the book on Amazon.

Read more...

Militant Scientologists Gun Down 15 People in Shooting Spree

Tuesday

Last week, at a private event in New Jersey where ex-Scientologists gathered to air their grievances about the Church of Scientology, three masked gunmen burst into the room and opened fire, killing everyone present. Most newspapers have criticized the ex-Scientologists for holding the meeting. They should have kept their grievances to themselves, said MSNBC. CNN and the NY Times said the ex-Scientologists knew how offensive any kind of criticism is to the Church, so they were asking for trouble.

The headline and the above paragraph are fiction. This was a way to illustrate how ridiculous it is for any non-Muslim to criticize anyone for holding a Muhammad cartoon contest.

In Islam, it is not okay to draw Muhammad or satirize Islam. Fine. Muslims shouldn't do it. But should that rule be applied to everyone, whether they are Muslim or not?

In the same way, if it is a sin for a Scientologist to criticize Scientology (and it is) a non-Scientologist can do it if they want to. We all know this. A person who is not a member of the religion can criticize it all they want. None of us are bound by the rules of a religion of which we're not a member. Obviously. Right? It should be obvious.

It used to be a Catholic rule that Catholics were not supposed to eat meat on Friday. In some places in the world, this rule is still in effect. Fine. Non-Catholics don't care, and don't worry about whether they eat meat or not on Fridays. But what if Catholics became offended when anyone ate meat on Fridays? What if they started killing non-Catholics who were found eating meat on Fridays? Would the pundits say the meat-eaters had it coming? Would they say that by having a hamburger barbeque in their backyard, they were obviously provoking the Catholics and got what they deserved? That would be ridiculous. Right?

What if they weren't just innocently and quite-by-accident having a hamburger barbeque, but knew Catholics didn't like it, and to prove they had the right to eat what they want, they went ahead and ate the burgers anyway? And then Catholics killed them for it? Now did they get what they deserved? Should they be criticized for provoking the Catholics? No. The Catholics are the ones to be criticized, and the rule that non-Catholics should follow Catholic rules — that is what should be criticized. Obviously.

What ought to be criticized is the Islamic rule that non-Muslims must follow Islamic rules.

This commentary is also posted on Inquiry Into Islam here for your sharing convenience.

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 Vienna? This puzzled me for a long time. 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 Europe by killing a few 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 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.

In an article about the Friday 13th attack in Paris (in 2015), the New York Times quoted a 42 year-old French accountant: "I feel sickened, angry," he said. Coming so soon after the attacks the previous 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 was to its 2015 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 little 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 have been protests against the influx of refugees — 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 the hijackers' real intentions were, 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 thwart 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 more about Naji's strategy: The Management of Savagery.

Read more...

Oops! Not on Sale Yet

Wednesday

Yesterday we posted the great news that the Kindle version of Getting Through is available and on sale. Several people wrote to us saying the links didn't work, and the Kindle version is not on sale. 

Turns out, Amazon rescheduled the sale to November 24th! It's apparently against the rules to put it on sale until 30 days after the original release of a Kindle book. 

We're sorry to tease you like that! We will post something about it when it is ACTUALLY on sale. 

Read more...

No One Would Listen

Tuesday

If you haven't read the powerful book, Night, by Elie Wiesel, you really should. It is his account of what happened to him during WWII. He was a young teen living in a small village in Hungary when, in 1942, the Hungarian police arrived to announce that all foreign Jews had to leave. The police loaded them all into trains and took them away.

The people in the town were disturbed, of course. It was a sad day. But after a few months, the memory began to fade, and life eventually returned to normal. They felt they were far enough removed from the war that it would end before it ever came to their remote village.

Then one day, one of those foreign Jews found his way back to the village. His name was Moishe. He was an old man, but the young Elie Wiesel had known him fairly well. Moishe had an extraordinary story to tell. He said when the trainload of Jews crossed the border into Polish territory, the Gestapo loaded them into trucks and took all the Jews into a forest where they were forced to dig huge trenches, and then they were all shot! Moishe himself was shot in the leg and left for dead. But he escaped and had been struggling to get back to the little village so he could warn people of what happened. He was urging everyone to flee; to get away before the Germans came.

He went "from one Jewish house to the next," wrote Elie Wiesel, "telling his story..." And he repeatedly and urgently told his story at the synagogue.

But nobody believed him.

They thought he must have lost his mind. Why would the Germans just kill Jews like that? Germany was a modern, industrialized, enlightened country. They wouldn't simply murder people so heartlessly and for no reason. Moishe must have lost his mind.

Moishe was insistent. He begged people to listen to him. He cried. He pleaded. But not one person believed him. They didn't want to believe him, and that's a formidable barrier to communication.

Our message — that what is written in Islamic texts is dangerous to non-Muslims — is also something many people do not want to believe. The implications are too heavy. The people of Elie's village didn't want to contemplate what it would mean if Moishe's story was true. It would mean tragedy and heartache and a loss of faith in humanity. It would mean a drastically different future for everyone. If they believed Moishe, the wise course of action would be to immediately pack up or sell everything they own and move somewhere they'd never been before. They'd have to start over. The journey would be fraught with uncertainty and danger. Most of them had lived their whole lives in that little village.

But they had another option, didn't they? They could explain away Moishe's terrifying story. They could decide there must be some other explanation.

That's what we run into also, isn't it? People are desperately trying to explain it away. If it's true that the doctrines of Islam are dangerous to non-Muslims, we should all drop what we're doing and address it. What's the point of going on about our lives, as they did in Elie's village, if it will all go terribly wrong in a few years? No, there would be no return to normal. If someone truly and fully grasps the real situation, they're in a whole new world, and the "important goals" they were busy trying to accomplish up until now would be abruptly abandoned in order to handle this new (and far more pressing) reality.

But they have another option, don't they? They can decide there must be some other explanation. You must not understand it correctly. You must be taking the Koranic passages out of context. Muslims who believe in Islamic doctrines must be a very small minority. There must be some other explanation.

I invite you to read Night and think about this: What would you have done if you were in Moishe's situation? Do you think you could have gotten someone to believe you? How would you get through to people? Or would you have given up, as Moishe did, and leave them all to their fate?

In 1944, the German Army arrived at Elie's village and immediately initiated new policies to limit freedoms for Jews. The noose closed in tighter and tighter, one policy at a time, until one day all the Jews of the village were imprisoned in a ghetto and ordered to board the transport trains. People were terrified. What did this mean? They were busy in Elie's house frantically packing up food for the trip when Moishe came up to the front door and shouted, "I warned you!" Then he turned and left without waiting for anyone to respond.

It was too late to do anything about it. They were transported to Auschwitz, and all of them suffered terrible, unbelievable physical and psychological torment. Most of them ended up dead.

If Moishe had been able to make people believe him, everyone in the village would have had plenty of time to flee.

Let's not repeat the same mistake. Let's get through. Not with force. Not with crying or pleading or intensity. Let's find out what allows our message to penetrate, and let's use it with ever-growing skill. If you need help, it is available here: Tools.

Read more...

The Importance of Blasphemy

Monday

The following was written by Daniel Greenfield, creator of the Sultan Knish blog. He makes a vital point: We need to allow blasphemy. The only religion threatening violence against blasphemers is Islam, and so if we wish to keep the freedom of expression which is so vital to all the other freedoms we cherish, blaspheming against Islam is not just a good idea, but necessary. 

As a deeply religious person, I have no fondness for blasphemy. My religion and its holy books are sacred to me. And I understand perfectly well why a Muslim would not relish a cartoon of a naked Mohammed.

But the debates over freedom of speech and the sensitivity of religious feelings also miss the point.

Blasphemy is the price we pay for not having a theocracy. Muslims are not only outraged but baffled by the Mohammed cartoons because they come from a world in which Islamic law dominates their countries and through its special place proclaims the superiority of Islam to all other religions.

Almost all Muslim countries are theocracies of one sort or another as a legacy of the Islamic conquests which Islamized them.

Egyptian President Sisi’s gesture of attending a Coptic mass was so revolutionary because it challenged the idea that Egyptian identity must be exclusively Islamic.

And Egypt is far from the most hard line of Islamic countries in the Middle East, despite a brief takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood in the aftermath of Obama’s Arab Spring.

In a theocracy, not only is government Islamic from the top down, but society is also Islamic from the bottom up.

Citizenship is linked to religion and even in countries such as Egypt, where non-Muslims may be citizens, there are fundamental restrictions in place that link Islamic identity to Egyptian citizenship. For example, Egyptian Muslims who attempt to convert to Christianity have found it extremely difficult to have the government recognize their change of religion by issuing them new identification cards.

While we may think of blasphemy in terms of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, each religion is mutually blasphemous.

Muslims argue that the West should “respect prophets” by outlawing insults to Mohammed and a panoply of prophets gathered from Judaism and Christianity. But the Islamic view of Jesus is equally blasphemous to Christianity. And Islam considers Christianity’s view of Jesus to be blasphemous.

If we were to truly prosecute blasphemy, the legal system would have to pick a side between the two religions and either prosecute Christians for blaspheming against Islam or Muslims for blaspheming against Christianity. And indeed in Muslim countries, Christians are frequently accused of blasphemy.

Malaysia’s blasphemy laws were used to ban Christians from employing the word “Allah” for god and to seize children’s books depicting Noah and Moses. The reason for seizing the children’s books was the same as the reason for the attack on Charlie Hebdo; both were featuring cartoons of prophets.

While Charlie Hebdo pushed the outer limits of blasphemy, every religion that is not Islam, and even various alternative flavors of Islam, are also blasphemous.

It isn’t only secularist cartoonists who blaspheme against Islam.

“Mohammed seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure,” St. Thomas Aquinas wrote. Maimonides called him a madman.

To Bill Donohue, there may be a world of difference between Charlie Hebdo and Aquinas, but not to a Muslim.

In a multi-religious society, in which every religion has its own variant theological streams, the right to blaspheme is also the right to believe. Liberal theology can contrive interchangeable beliefs which do not contradict or claim special knowledge over any other religion. But traditionalist faiths are exclusive.

Everyone’s religion is someone else’s blasphemy. If we forget that, we need only look to Saudi Arabia, where no other religion is allowed, as a reminder.

Muslims who question freedom of speech are not calling for a special status for all religions, but only for their religion. They don’t intend to censor their own Hadiths which claim that Jesus will return and break the cross or that the apocalypse will climax with Muslims exterminating the Jews. Their objections aren’t liberal, but exclusively theocratic. They want a blasphemy law that exclusively revolves around them.

Islam relates to other religions on its terms. It grants special treatment to Christianity and Judaism, despite nevertheless persecuting them, because of their relationship to Islam. It persecutes other religions even more severely because of their greater distance from Islam. Islamic theocracies are not respectful of religion, but respectful of Islam and disrespectful of all other religions.

Religious people need not embrace the extremes of French secularism or the anti-religious positions of the ACLU to see that some distance between religion and state is a good thing for both. A separation between religion and state should not mean compulsory secularism, but at the same time it avoids the religious tests for office which existed in colonial times in states with established churches that banned Catholics, Quakers and Jews, among others, from holding political office.

A neutral state allows us to believe what we please. Islamic efforts on blasphemy however warp us all around the theology of Islam.

When governments prosecute tearing the Koran or drawing offensive cartoons under hate crime laws, they are eroding the separation between state and mosque. Their efforts, even if well intentioned, lead inevitably to a theocracy which not only hurts critics of Islam, but destroys the religious freedom of all religions.

The legal distinction between secular blasphemy and interreligious disdain disappears in a theocracy. Each religion has beliefs that offend the other, actively or passively. When one belief becomes supreme, then religious freedom vanishes, as it has throughout the Muslim world where the practice of Christianity and Judaism are governed by how closely Muslims choose to be offended at other religions.

While some religious people may take issue with the celebration of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, equating them with such things as the infamous “Piss Christ,” there’s a fundamental difference between blasphemy against the innocent and the guilty.

Piss Christ or a museum which exhibited photos of naked women dressed in Jewish ritual garments are committed against the unresisting, making them the theological equivalent of spiteful vandalism. There are no Jews or Christians murdering artists or bombing museums. By attempting to enforce the theocracy of blasphemy laws, Muslims made the Mohammed cartoons into a symbol of free speech.

It was not the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, who specialized in offending all religions, who made their Mohammed cartoons into a symbol. It was their Muslim enemies who did it by killing them. It is intellectually dishonest for Muslims to create martyrs and then complain about their martyrdom.

Blasphemy against Christianity and Judaism fizzles because the lack of a violent response makes those responsible seem like bullies. Instead of revealing flaws in those religions, works like Piss Christ or Monster Mohel reveal the flaws in their makers. Their attempts at blasphemy prove self-destructive.

Muslim violence against the Mohammed cartoons however turns them into the bullies. The Hebdo cartoons did no damage to Christianity or Judaism. They did a great deal of damage to Islam, not because they were well done, but because Islam is shot through with violent anger and insecurity.

The spiritual power of religion balances between violence and non-violence. Most religions believe that there is a time to fight, but only Islam believes in violence as the first and final religious solution.

Mohammed cartoons exist because of the Islamic inability to cope with a non-theocratic society. Islamic Cartoonophobia is not only a danger to cartoonists. It’s a threat to all of our religious freedoms.

Written by Daniel Greenfield, originally published here: The Importance of Blasphemy.

Read more...

People Should Be Able to Say What They Wish Without Being Killed For It

“This has become the flashpoint for the defense of the freedom of speech,” said Robert Spencer at the recent Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest. “These cartoons are offensive to Islam, and there is a death penalty for those who blaspheme against Muhammad. The jihadis believe that these cartoons cross the line, and those who draw them and publicize them have to be killed.

“If we believe in free speech in a free society, then we have to stand up for the right of people to offend Muslims or even subject Islam to mockery. If it were anything else, it would be the same,” he said.

Spencer said he thought some of the cartoons were “in poor taste.”

“But that’s not the point,” he said. “The point is that there are people who can say what they wish without being killed for it.

“To say that we will succumb to violent intimidation and allow ourselves to be silent in the face of it is just to encourage more violent intimidation.

“Either we knuckle under or we stand. And we are standing.”

Read more at Texas Terror: Inside Event Targeted by ISIS.

Read more...

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

Tuesday

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...

Three Things About Islam

Friday

A group of activists who call themselves The White Roses created a video entitled Three Things About Islam. The authors write, "Parts of the text (of our video) have been strongly inspired by the website, http://www.citizenwarrior.com." In case you haven't seen it, you can watch it on YouTube: Three Things About Islam. It's a great 8-minute introduction to Islam for your friends and family.

We've posted the video on Inquiry Into Islam here so you can share the video with your friends and family on a site that will give them more information about Islam.

Now, more than ever before, more people are willing to discover the true nature of Islam. This video can help.

You can read more about the video here:

About the Video "Three Things About Islam"

Full Transcript for the Video "Three Things About Islam"

And the good people at Islam Exposed have created a detailed list of links and references to support the statements in this video. See it here: 3 Things You Should Know About Islam.

Read more...

News Plus the Question Why

Wednesday

I posted this awhile ago, but since the much more recent story about a video encouraging Muslims to start forest fires got me thinking about it, I thought I would re-post this. It is a great way to work some good information about Islam into a casual and innocent, non-confrontational conversation (as part of our mission to awaken our fellow citizens about Islam):

I did something tonight that worked pretty well. I was talking to a man I work with. We haven't talked much because he works in another department, but we get along great. He was telling me about camping on the other side of the mountains last week, and that they couldn't have a campfire because of fire danger (there have been several forest fires around here in the last month).

This seemed like such a great opening, I couldn't help myself. I said, "Just yesterday I saw a video of a former NSA official talking about forest fires. Apparently, when they killed Osama bin Laden, they also captured a bunch of computers and stuff, and they've found out al Qaeda had plans to inflict economic damage on the United States with forest fires. And already they've busted two al Qaeda operatives in California actually doing it! It's a great way for al Qaeda to harm our economy without costing themselves anything."

He said, "That sucks!"

But I had been thinking about asking my next question sometime as an experiment, and this seemed like such a perfect opportunity. So I asked, "Do you know why they want to harm the U.S.?"

He said, "Well, we haven't really been very cool to them in their homelands. It seems like a lot of Arabs probably hate us."

"It's not just Arabs," I said. "Orthodox Muslims all over the world, including some homegrown Muslims — people born in the USA — want to destroy America. It's what they're supposed to do if they are really believing Muslims. It says in Islamic doctrine that they're supposed to fight to impose Islamic law on everyone eventually. And they're at war with anyone who's not following Islamic law, which of course, includes the United States more than anywhere."

"What about all this stuff about our troops in Arabia?" he said, but not really in a challenging way. It almost seemed like he wanted to know what I would say about that.

"It's a pretext," I said. "A Muslim trying to follow Islamic teachings really strictly is supposed to follow Muhammad's example, and that's exactly what the al Qaeda dudes are doing. And Muhammad always had an excuse to attack non-Muslims. Any excuse would do. If we met every one of their demands, they would find some other excuse; they would not leave us alone. They'd attack us because we don't cover our women or something."

He seemed to accept this. He said, "And they'd probably just see us as weak and get more aggressive."

"Yeah, probably," I said, nodding. Now, at this point, the conversation felt complete. I'd gotten a little solid information into his mind without much resistance and I didn't want to "sell past the close," so I let it drop right there, following the principle of small bits and long campaigns. Someone else came into the room, and I brought up a different topic. I said to both of them, "Did you hear about the guy who proposed marriage by faking a car accident?" And we started talking about that.

I think these small conversations, sprinkled in with normal conversation — and as much as possible, making it seem like normal conversation — are really valuable. It helps change beliefs gently, and that's probably the best way to change the beliefs of another person. And this "technique" (if we can call it that) of telling some interesting bit of Islamic-related news, followed by the question, "Do you know why they're doing that?" might be a useful format or blueprint for getting some good information into the minds of our fellow non-Muslims.

Read more...

In July, Orthodox Muslims Were Urged to Start Forest Fires

Tuesday

On July 26, 2020, the Al-Hayat Media Center uploaded an animated video titled "Incite the Believers" to its Telegram channel. The narrator called upon Muslims living in non-Muslim lands to avenge their Muslim brothers using whatever weapons are available to them and to carry out jihad. Follow the link below if you want to see the video.

The narrator of the film said Muslims should use commonly available items to carry out their attacks and specifically gave the example of fire. He elaborated that fires such as forest fires have killed many non-Muslims and caused hundreds of millions of dollars of damage. The video encourages Muslims to start fires in a fashion that doesn’t draw attention to themselves and to dispose of all forms of evidence as they leave. The video urged viewers to set fire to forests, factories, agricultural fields, and buildings.

The video showed a man marking a location in California on a map to set ablaze.

The above is excerpted from a longer article at MEMRI. Read the whole article and watch the video here:


MEMRI translates television and video clips from the Muslim world into English.

Read more about the video from Homeland Security Today:

ISIS Video Urges Arson as ‘Five-Star’ Terror Tactic, Shows California Burning 

According to Wikipedia, the Al-Hayat Media Center is the media wing of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. It was established in mid-2014 by ISIS, which targets Western audiences and produces material in English, German, Russian and French. Read the Wikipedia page: Al-Hayat Media Center.

This call to destroy non-Muslims is consistent with Islamic doctrine and Islam's Prime Directive.

Read more...

What I Have Learned Since 9-11

Thursday

I was on my way back from a vacation when the first plane hit the World Trade Center. My wife and I were listening to music on a CD and enjoyed our ride home, and knew nothing about it. When we got home, we listened to our messages. The first two were from family members hysterically crying, "We've been attacked! America is at war!"

My first thought, of course, was the ever-eloquent, "What the fuck!?!"

We watched the news, and I was baffled. Why would anyone do such a thing? I was about as ignorant about this as someone can be. But I'm a learner. It's what I like to do. And since that day, I've learned a lot.

I learned that this was not an isolated incident. Attacks had become more frequent and more deadly over the years. I just hadn't noticed.

And I eventually learned that this is not just a problem of generic "terrorism," but a global movement based on teachings from the Koran and the example of Muhammad. I learned that Islam is a unique religion because it's a political system and a system of law as well as being what most people would call a religion. Its goal is world domination, it has explicit permission for (and approval of) violence in its holy books, and it is intolerant of non-Muslims. Its laws even include legally-imposed discrimination against non-Muslims (and all women). (Read more about that here.)

I learned that an almost-uninterrupted jihad has been waged against non-Muslims for 1400 years. The attacks are near constant. Most of us don't see it as a war. We see isolated attacks. If you take in the whole global view, however, or listen to the point of view of an orthodox Muslim or read this, you will see it for what it is: A global war — orthodox Muslims against everybody else.

I also learned that one of the main reasons democracies have so much trouble dealing with Jihadis is because of an important conflict within democracies. Specifically, most people in the free world believe 1) everyone has a right to worship as they wish, and 2) discrimination of any kind is wrong. These are important foundational principles of liberal democracies around the world.

Why is this a problem? Because the simplest way to deal with Islam would be to discriminate against it. In other words, to openly admit Islam is unique (because of its political aspirations and religious duty to overthrow all other forms of law and government), and stop all concessions to Islam and roll back any concessions already made.

We "can't do that" because it violates important values of our societies. Or does it necessarily? This dialog needs to happen and solutions need to be created for it. But of course, that can't happen as long as the majority of people in free countries remain ignorant of the most elementary facets of Islam. And it's not just ignorance. Many people have a real resistance to hearing anything about it because even talking about it seems to violate the principles of decency and kindness!

So the final thing I've learned is that the solution to this problem starts with a grassroots movement: Those who know something about Islam's dangers to the free world must talk to people who don't, and successfully educate them. Once enough people are educated, national conversations can happen that could result in new, carefully-crafted policies that retain our democratic freedoms while limiting the destructive and insidious encroachment of orthodox Islam.

Please add your comments below. What have you learned since 9-11?

Read more...

How One Man Awakened

I am always interested in how people come to realize Islam is not a "religion of peace." I've collected many such stories, and they remind me that when someone doesn't seem to "get it," all is not lost. Information sinks in and sometimes has a delayed effect. Here is how one man came to understand that the comforting notions about Islam we get from our politicians and mainstream media are misleading and incomplete:

Hi CW, I wanted to share my story with you because you might find it interesting. You have my permission to post any of it if you would like to. But first let me say I have been looking into Islam 24/7 minus sleep and eat time for almost three months and I think your site might be the most important I have found yet because it actually helps answer the question of what to do. I spent about six hours reading on your site tonight. That is the longest I have spent on any site upon first discovering it. And I will be back tomorrow to read more and I am sure I will be back several times. I’ll even have to make a MUST READ section in my blogroll for your site. THANKS FOR ALL YOU DO!

In '98 I was working evening shift and saw a late-night commercial offering a free Koran. Because I have an interest in all religions, especially Christian Cults, I ordered it and read it even though it was a very difficult read. I noticed peaceful verses and violent verses but did not know what to make of it all. Then after 9/11 I read the Koran again and this time I discovered a verse that talked about later verses superseding earlier verses. But I did not know which were early and later verses. Even after this and 9/11 I still believed that Islam was not a big concern for me as the only ones blowing things up were “terrorists” and not all Muslims were terrorists, right? Then came 9/09/10. It was the day that changed my life and mission. Because I have Mormons, Oneness Pentecostals, Word of Faithers and Bible Missionaries in my family, I had devoted the last 10 years to Christian Cult Apologetics, and then along came Pastor Terry Jones. Needless to say he and his Burn a Koran Day changed my life. Here is why:

On 9/9/10 I visited a friend's political blog and saw a post about the Burn a Koran Day. I’m not really sure why, but I thought, "This jerk could set the whole world ablaze if he burns those Korans." I visited Jones' site and also went to his Facebook page and also a Facebook page that was against the Koran burning. What I saw shocked me. It went like this: "We will kill you all if you burn our Koran,” and non-Muslims responded by saying: "Not if we kill you all first."

The non-Muslims were posting videos of Muslims burning people alive, beheading people, stoning people, hanging people, beating women, etc. I had seen a couple of these videos but had no idea there were so many. And of course on 9/11 they were showing all the tributes on TV which included the jumpers from the towers. I was really overwhelmed but still spent a total of five days on those Facebook pages.

One day as soon as I awoke, it dawned on me that I never saw a single Muslim denounce those atrocious videos without also half-heartedly justifying them. And many Muslims outright condoned the terrible acts. That day I noticed that far too many of the ones who condoned such acts were living in the West. I knew right then that there are not as many “moderate Muslims” as myself and most people thought. I decided that day that I would be changing the focus of my ministry and dedicating my life to studying Islam and telling others about its dangers. I started a blog on Islam and because I am disabled I plan on doing anti-jihad work full-time until I die.

I have been really blessed in that I have been able to educate my friends about Islam with hardly any resistance and they have been educating others. So far I have lost no personal relationships in doing so even though I alienated a couple of people in a Word of Faith Recovery forum I run for people who have had bad experiences in WoF churches — but all I did was quote the Koran and Ahadith. I guess my friends have listened because they respect me and tell others that if they have a question about religion, I am the guy to ask — they know about all I do is study.

I had the idea that I would get myself some conversation-starting Islam T-shirts so I could strike up a conversation with my local Muslim convenient store clerks and strangers, but after spending time on your site tonight I no longer feel that is necessary. I think after I spend some more time on your site reading your ‘what to do” and “how to do it” articles, I should have the confidence and skill to not be afraid to start conversations with anyone. SO THANK YOU SO MUCH. I saw you say you're not Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist, so I hope you take no offense in me saying that I hope God will bless you for all the great work you have done. I would bless you with a donation if I could.

THANKS AGAIN,
Damon Whitsell
TheReligionOfConquest.com

Read more...

Embedding a Fact Within a Story About Something Else

Wednesday

Today I wanted to try to say something to the two people I was working with about a news story of Muslims poisoning dogs in Sweden. But it is not really pleasant news, and to that degree it is unwelcome conversation in polite company. So I tried something different. I came to the fact indirectly. When one of them mentioned something about a sweet dessert that was too sweet, when they were done talking about it, I said, "Did you know antifreeze is sweet?"

One of them said, "Oh sure, everyone knows that."

The other one said, "Well, I didn't know that!"

The first one said, "I was just kidding. I didn't know that either, and I'm wondering how you would know that," as he looked at me.

"Well," I said, "today I was telling my wife about a news story about Muslims killing dogs in Sweden, and I'd read a comment on the article by someone from Sweden saying Muslims are using antifreeze. I told my wife I didn't know what that meant, and she said, 'Yeah, antifreeze is sweet. You have to keep it away from dogs and kids because they want to drink it.'"

One of my co-workers responded, "I wonder what makes it sweet?" And we went off on that tangent. It was just the normal kind of chitchat people do when they work together, but I was able to tell them about the Muslim news without anybody getting their hackles up. I was ready for someone to ask why Muslims would do such a thing, but the conversation went off on another track, so I didn't get a chance. I was going to say, "According to Islamic doctrine, dogs and pigs are considered unclean. So are non-Muslims, by the way."

This is a simple idea. What I was telling them was, "I found out today antifreeze is sweet." As the accompanying backstory to saying that, I told them what I really wanted them to know: Muslims in Sweden are poisoning dogs. I thought this might be a principle all of us could use.

One of the best ways to change the way someone thinks about Islam is to slip small facts into their minds here and there and give them time to come to the conclusion on their own that Islam is a problem. Embedding a fact within a story about something else is one way to do this.

Read more...

Ask This Simple Question

Saturday

Earlier today, after work, I offered to give one of the guys I work with a ride home. When we got in the car and started driving, I said, "Wanna learn something about Islam?" He said, "Sure," so I played an audiobook I was listening to on the way to work: Robert Spencer's Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). It started playing where I left off, in the middle of a chapter.

Let me back up a little. I had good rapport with this guy. We get along well and enjoy each other's company. And I was just goofing around, really. It's not socially appropriate to listen to something like that under those circumstances. So I played it for about 15 seconds and turned it off. But while it was playing, it said something about jizya. I asked him, "Do you know what jizya is? Ever heard if that?"

He said no, of course. I mean, how many people do you know who have any idea what that is?

"It's protection money," I said. "The Middle East used to be almost entirely Christians and Jews. Now it's almost entirely Muslim. Ever wonder how that happened? I mean, some of those countries are 99% Muslim! What happened to all the Jews and Christians? It's partly because of this clever little element in Islamic ideology called 'jizya.' It's written into Islamic law that when Muslims conquer a new area, they're supposed to offer the Christians and Jews the option to continue living as Christians and Jews if they paid a kind of tax, called the 'jizya.' Muslims didn't have to pay this tax. It was referred to by the Muslims as 'protection money.' As long as they paid the jizya, they were allowed to live. If they didn't want to pay the tax, they could either convert to Islam or be killed — whichever they preferred. Many of the Christians and Jews left the country if they could, and many of them paid this heavy jizya tax, but over the centuries, to get out from under the financial burden, many of them converted to Islam."

He seemed interested and surprised by what I was saying, and we didn't have anything else to do while we were driving, so I kept talking: "It's been so illuminating to learn about Islam because all my life, so many things have happened that I couldn't understand. I mean, really, why couldn't Israel and Palestine just work out their issues and get on with their lives? It's been going on since 1948 and shows no sign of changing! Come on, people! What's the holdup? And while I was growing up, I saw hijacked planes and hostages galore in the news. What's the deal? What were they doing? Why were they doing it? I couldn't understand it. I didn't know anything at all about the Islamic ideology."

He said, "It's the same ideology that caused 9/11, isn't it?"

I said yes.

But then he said, "Our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan really made it worse."

"Well, it's been getting worse since the 1973 oil embargo," I said in a relaxed, off-hand way. "Oil used to be cheap, but when Saudi Arabia and some other oil producers got together to dramatically raise the price of oil, suddenly all these Saudi princes found themselves swimming in money, and since many of them are hardcore follow-the-texts-to-the-letter kind of Muslims, what they did with their wealth was build madrassas all over the world — tens of thousands of madrassas — that teach nothing but the Islamic ideology, which includes hating non-Muslims, the subjugation of women, and the Islamic goal of bringing the whole world under Islamic law. They keep cranking out fanatics and unleashing them onto the world. So, of course, when there is any kind of jihad going on, like in Syria and Iraq now, these guys travel to the action and join the fight. According to the Koran, that's what they're supposed to do."

He seemed kind of shaken by the implications of this. So I changed the subject and we talked about other things for the rest of the trip.

We arrived at his place in good spirits. As I was driving home, I thought about our conversation, which didn't feel like an argument at all, but felt like two people just talking about something interesting and relevant, I was thinking that my original question was a great opener for this kind of conversation. "Have you ever heard of jizya? Do you know what that is?" The question leads naturally to information most people don't know and that would help give them an inside view of the ideology of Islam.

People are more curious about Islam than ever, and more open to finding out. Let's help them learn something valid about Islam's ideology. Ask this simple question to get the conversation started.


Read more...

The Most Misleading Passage Ever Quoted From the Koran

Wednesday

“…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...

The Bare Bones Message

Saturday

What is written in Islamic texts is dangerous to non-Muslims. That's it. That's the only message we need to get across. When this sinks in, it changes everything. It's a bitter pill to swallow, but from that point on the person will see the world with new understanding. From that point on, the person will no longer be bamboozled by the amazing amount of nonsense uttered by so many in the media. From that point on, the person is no longer a "useful idiot" (inadvertently supporting a cause that takes away freedom, rights, and the lives of innocent people).

The message we need to get across is simple, but it's still too much for many people to emotionally cope with. It ruins the life they once had. It shatters their innocence forever. Because of this, they will immediately try to find a way to dismiss this simple message. The first and easiest thing to say is, "Other religions have violence and intolerance in their texts." If you have no answer to this, they will be relieved. They can safely put the issue back out of their minds. "Everything is okay," they'll think, "Islam is just like other religions." There are other versions of this same objection. For example, Christianity is just as bad, all religions are evil, there are extremists in every religion, etc. (We have answers to these objections here.)

However, if you answer the objection successfully, the next thing people will usually come up with is, "Most Muslims don't follow the texts." That's somewhat true, and it's a good thing! But it doesn't change the fact that the texts themselves are dangerous to non-Muslims. It doesn't make the problem go away. Other versions of this are: Only extremists or fundamentalists take the texts literally, not all Muslims are terrorists, I know a Muslim and he's really nice, etc.

Just like getting any horrible news, people will try to deny it. That is the first line of emotional defense. They'll try to find a way to escape from the terrible news and its implications. But if you can prevent someone from escaping the hard fact, you will have done all you need to do. Reality will teach them the rest.

There is a lot we can say about Islam. But it's good to be clear about the most important fact to get across, and to stay focused on it: What is written in Islamic texts is dangerous to non-Muslims. Get this to sink in.

Read more...

Isn't it Okay to Dislike an Ideology?

Monday

Someone said to us: "I really believe that we can live together and have different beliefs and religions. We don't have to believe what the Koran says. I sure don't believe what the Bible says and think it is the cause of many of our problems in the US because many of those who believe in it think that everyone else should believe in it. We can cross paths with people and share many interests and not have to believe everything that person believes... We thought the same about the Jewish population and the Irish, Chinese, Japanese... I like people of all types, religions and colors. Until a person hurts me, my family, or anyone, I will trust and believe in all humans.We tried to keep those others contained and marginalized. We just never learn."

When you are telling people about Islam, you will sometimes get a response like the one above. And sometimes people don't say it, but they're thinking it. That's when it's time to make the following very important point. Here's how I answered the above message:

Yes, I get that. And I like people too. But there are some ideologies (the written ideas) that make humans do bad things. When Islamic ideas such as these are believed by Muslims, it becomes dangerous to our fellow human beings. That's just a fact. Isn't there an ideology you dislike? The KKK's? The one spelled out in Mein Kampf? It's okay to dislike an ideology, isn't it?

I often try to find an ideology my listener doesn't like, and then make that point. Usually this allows our conversation to continue, because most people agree that it's perfectly okay to dislike, discuss, and criticize an ideology. Of course. When you put it that way, people seem to understand what you're doing, and accept it.

For more ideas about how to talk to people about Islam, check this out: Tools to Help You Educate Your Fellow Non-Muslims About Islam.

Read more...

Approach is the Key

Tuesday

I've been practicing for a long time, trying to hone my ability to educate people one-on-one about Islam, and I'm pretty good at it. I rarely get into a "debate" or argument, and in fact, it's usually an enjoyable conversation. I've written down several of my conversations after they happened which you can read here, here, and here.

I've written a lot about how to talk to people about Islam, but I decided to try to think of all the things I take for granted about my approach that I haven't written about, and I ended up making the list below. These are personal rules or states of mind or ways of thinking about these conversations that I think really help them go well:

1. I try to only talk to someone about Islam when nobody else is around. I don't want to get into a public debate. When people talk in front of an audience, they are more likely to try to "win" or look good, and less likely to listen and learn. Being in a public situation tends to encourage people to take sides.

Perhaps more importantly, when someone makes a pronouncement to several people, they find it more difficult to change their mind later than when they make the same pronouncement to only one person.

All in all, you will be more likely to really inform someone one-on-one with no audience.

2. I try not to approach it as a debate at all. I am careful about the way I open a conversation. And careful about the way I speak, so it becomes clear that I know what I'm talking about, and that I know a lot more about the subject than the person I'm talking to, but not in a condescending way. I do not try to "dominate" the conversation except that I try to establish my authority by saying something simple like, "Have you read the Quran? No? Well, when I read it the first time, I was really surprised to find..."

3. I try to keep it interesting for the listener. I want them to find out something they are surprised at and interested in.

4. I don't try to rub their nose in it. I don't try to make them get how scary and horrible it all is. I realize because I've been learning about Islam for a long time, things that no longer shock me shock the hell out of others. I don't need to try to scare them. Even the mildest parts of this topic scare most people.

5. I try to keep it casual. "Hey, did you hear about what happened in France? They banned the burka. Yeah, and it was almost unanimous..." I try to prevent giving the impression I am on a campaign to stop the Islamization of the world. I'm just talking about interesting things I've learned lately. I just try to maintain a feel of easygoing conversation, and sometimes it becomes very engaging.

6. I deliberately stay relaxed, and try to "curb my enthusiasm." And I keep my sense of humor. This topic is intense enough without adding to it by being intense myself. I take deep breaths, I pause when I'm talking and ask them questions, and I don't give them the most shocking things until they are already fairly well-versed in the less shocking things.

7. I do not let it appear as if I want them to change their minds or that there is any kind of conflict between us. I find common ground. I try to speak about things I know they will care about, like the human rights angle or women's rights, or whatever.

8. I think in terms of small bits and long campaigns. Okay, I've written about this one before (here) but it's a good one and I didn't want to leave it off this list. It's important. I don't try to get the whole educational process done all in one conversation. I let it happen in small pieces over many months to give them a chance to absorb it and think about it, and hopefully ask me questions about it later. I plant seeds and expect the dawning realizations to happen over time rather than expecting enlightenment overnight.

I assume there will be many already-existing beliefs they hold that will need to change for them to understand more. Sometimes changing beliefs produces an internal struggle, and forcing more information into a struggling mind can make someone not want to talk to you any more. Plant the seeds and be patient.

9. I sympathize with their resistance and disbelief. I was there once, too, and I know, it's a shocker when it starts to really sink in. I remind myself of how I felt when I first started learning about Islam. It helps me empathize with my listener, and I think that helps the communication process.

10. I try to make it clear to my listener that we are on the same side of this issue. I know a lot more about it, but we are both non-Muslims. We're on the same team. I convey the feeling that we don't have all the answers and we're exploring this topic together. If the person brings up a good point or a counter argument, I will either say "that's interesting" and think about it and then come back later with more information, or I will say something like this: "I used to think the same way. But when I found out..." And lead them further into the topic with more information.

11. I reframe their objections like a salesman. Sales training manuals will often tell you to be glad when someone raises objections, because it means the person is interested. People who are not interested just make excuses and disappear. Someone who is arguing with you is often presenting arguments they think other people might bring up to see if you have a good answer for them — an answer that would satisfy other people. They do this because they are interested in believing you, but want to be sure.

So I don't feel put off by questions or arguments or "objections." I see it as a sign of interest and curiosity, and I try to answer the objection in a way that gives more information (rather than in a way that makes the other person feel wrong or stupid or anything negative). This perspective on objections helps prevent me from interacting in a confrontational way. It helps me avoid turning the conversation into some sort of contest or disagreement.

I also often refer to my own list of answers to objections for help.

12. When I have a difficult conversation and it really bothers me because I didn't have a good response, as soon as I can, I find a quiet place and write out what the other person said. I do it on my computer. Then I separate out each statement the person made and write out the answer I wish I had made at the time. I print it out and read it.

If my "failure" continues to bother me, over the next few days I may occasionally read it over and add to my answers and print up the new version. I look up facts if I am unsure about something. I write it all out until I feel I've made a really good answer.

If you do this, you will be better prepared for the next conversation. I welcome these difficult conversations, because I know I will use them like this. You should welcome the times when you're stumped and you don't know what to say. It can deepen your understanding and make you grow.

13. I try to never use the words "Islam" or "Muslim" by themselves. I always say "heterodox" or "orthodox" before every one. Most people know at least one Muslim person and cannot, out of the goodness of their heart — out of personal loyalty or just plain human empathy — think of that person as having bad intentions, and they know that not all Muslims are devout. So if you give blanket statements about Islam or Muslims, they reject your statements for perfectly sound reasons. Always use the descriptors.

I'm always learning and I hope you are too. If you would be so kind as to share your own insights about how to approach these conversations, we could all benefit from your hard-earned skill. I invite you to add your insights on our new comments page: Talk About Islam Among Non-Muslims, which, by the way, is already turning into a valuable resource, thanks to your welcome participation.

Read more...

"Criticizing Islamic Doctrine Will Turn Moderates into Extremists"

Wednesday

This is another in our series, Answers to Objections. In an article entitled, Taking the Fight to Islam, Andrew Anthony writes:

Does [Ayaan Hirsi Ali's] bald delivery not further alienate Muslims, forcing them to cling to traditional values? Hirsi Ali is too smooth of skin and composure to bristle, but it is obviously an accusation she finds irritating.

"Tariq Ramadan is filled with contempt for Muslims because he believes they have no faculties of reason," she replies in a beguilingly friendly tone, as though she had remarked that he had an excellent taste in shirts. "If I say that terrorism is created in the name of Islam suddenly they take up terrorism? He gives me so much more power than I have. Why don't my remarks make him turn to terrorism?"

This is a fairly common argument — that by educating non-Muslims about Islam, we are risking the possibility that otherwise peaceful Muslims will take up arms and join the third jihad. But the argument doesn't have much heft if you give it even ten minutes of thought. I heard Robert Spencer put it this way, in essence: Do you really think devout Muslims or even heterodox Muslims will be swayed by the teachings of a non-Muslim? That's ridiculous.

Spencer was commenting on the limitations imposed on U.S. security agencies to avoid using such terms as "Islamic terrorists" because it might make "moderate Muslims" want to blow things up. He asked how anyone could think that a believing Muslim would use the U.S. government as a reliable source on the teachings of Islam? Good question.

A Muslim, of course, will be influenced much more strongly by their own personal (usually life-long) understanding of Islam, their own reading, their own imam, the teachings of their own sect and their own parents, etc. To believe that a non-Muslim pointing out the supremacist teachings of Islam would cause a Muslim to give up his own understanding of his faith and become a jihadist seems, to put it mildly, highly unlikely.

Let's look at this another way. By definition, a "moderate Muslim" must reject some basic Islamic principles. Of course, for someone who knows little about Islam, this will not be obvious. But once they learn about Islam, this much will be clear.

Does it make any sense that a "moderate Muslim" who rejects some of Islam's teachings would become a fundamentalist because I am educating non-Muslims about those rejected teachings? Will my educational efforts make our moderate Muslim embrace what he has rejected and become an "extremist?"

I got this comment on one of my articles (Message to Peaceful Muslims):

Moderation is the enemy of any extremist. They thrive in a black-and-white world. This post agrees with the vision of extremistic Muslims: either you're a Muslim or you're a non-Muslim. This post states that a good Muslim is not relevant, because it does not fit in this black-and-white world.

Not a good Muslim, but Citizen Warrior is helping extremist Islam to grow.

Saying that not the extremists but Islam itself is the problem, you are creating a Western version of jihad. "So you Muslims want jihad? Fine, we can do that as well! I will declare myself a warrior."

Good luck with it.

Mike

This was my response:

Mike,

To think that what a non-Muslim says about Islam will change a believing Muslim's worldview is absurd.

Imagine Amhed, a peace-loving "Muslim in name only" (MINO) who thinks Islam means peace. He's a nice guy. He's never read the Quran, but his parents were Muslims, so he considers himself a Muslim.

And then he reads some non-Muslim blogger saying "true" Muslims are intolerant toward non-Muslims. Will Ahmed become intolerant toward non-Muslims now?

Don't hold your breath. I know enough MINOs to know they are not influenced by anything I say. They think I just don't understand. And devout Muslims would be even less influenced by a non-Muslim blogger.

If you are a Christian, would you be influenced by a Muslim telling you what Christians believe? Or telling you what it says in the Bible? Or how to be a good Christian?

Mike, what your criticism says is that what I write will influence Muslims who are against violence to become violent.

Not only do I have almost no impact on Muslim beliefs because I am a non-Muslim, but my audience is almost entirely non-Muslims. My job here is to alert the hundreds of millions of non-Muslims living in free countries to the basic and often surprising teachings of mainstream Islam. These teachings are being actively hidden by Muslims who have actually read the Quran because the political plan works best when non-Muslims don't have a clue.

So what you're asking me to do is to be silent on the slim chance that something I say will influence a Muslim to become intolerant, while at the same time leaving all the non-Muslims I might have reached in the dark.

Hmmm. Let me see...

Nah. I don't think so.

Upon discovering the intolerance and violence their doctrine really teaches, most good-hearted, peace-loving Muslims would be more likely to leave their faith than to become more devout. And even if some did become more devout because of something I said, the free world would still be better off if Islam's prime directive was widely known.

Right now, because of widespread ignorance of Islam, the initiatives of politically active Muslim organizations are proceeding almost completely unhindered. Orthodox Muslims, following the plan set forth by the Muslim Brotherhood (the largest international Muslim organization in the world), have successfully infiltrated and influenced Hollywood, newspapers, television news, textbooks, national security agencies, presidents and even comedians. How can they get away with this? Because so few non-Muslims know anything about Islam. And what many non-Muslims know about Islam is completely false because all these avenues of public education have already been compromised.

I propose to you that this argument was originally created by politically active Muslims in order to silence non-Muslims who are trying to educate other non-Muslims about Islam. This argument was then disseminated widely and taken up by devout multiculturalists because it served their own agenda, and it has now become widespread.

But however it happened, the argument is pathetic. Knowing what it really says in Islamic doctrines clearly has better long-term prospects than pretending it doesn't say those things and silencing anyone who tries to educate non-Muslims about it.

Citizen Warrior is the author of the book, Getting Through: How to Talk to Non-Muslims About the Disturbing Nature of Islam and also writes for Inquiry Into Islam and Foundation for Coexistence.

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