Showing posts with label dispelling myths. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dispelling myths. Show all posts

Islam is Different From Other Religions

Tuesday

I was telling someone yesterday about The Undercover Mosque program, and I mentioned that the women are not allowed in the main hall of the mosque. They have their own sequestered part of the mosque.

He said, "Orthodox Jews do the same thing."

He had done this kind of thing before: When I say something about Islam, he says something about another religion that's similar. The underlying point he is making is that "religions are religions; they all have their bad sides." The implied point to the underlying point seems to be: Quit picking on poor Islam.

But there are two very important differences between Orthodox Jews and Muslims. One is that an Orthodox Jew is free to leave his or her religion. It might cause upsets in the family, but she can renounce her religion if she really wants to. In Islam, the penalty for leaving the religion is death. This penalty is being exercised today all over the world.

The second difference is that Orthodox Jews are not trying to take over the government. Muslims are actively working to take over governments, and have succeeded in many cases, even recently. It is a fundamental principle of Islam to show your devotion to Allah with political action — it is your duty to try to make the whole world follow Shari'a law — by force if possible; but if not, by any means.

This answer (about the two differences: freedom to leave, and political aspirations) could be given to almost every one of the "equivalents" anyone has given me before.

I'm not a religious person. I don't care if someone else is or not, as long as they don't interfere with me or try to impose their religion on me. I don't really have anything against someone thinking Mohammad was the last prophet. I don't care if they want to cover their faces or disallow women to join men on the main floor of the mosque. But it isn't right that they make their women cover their faces, that the women cannot choose for themselves, and I do not like (and will actively fight against) their strong push to subvert the freedoms I enjoy in this country.

In other words, because of these specific differences, Islam is unique. It is different. It is not the same as other religions in at least these two important ways. I suggest we memorize those two differences and respond with them when we get the "equivalents" reaction.

For more ammunition, here are some of the concessions Muslims have wheedled out of Western democracies recently: Concessions to Islam. They're chipping away at our freedoms one by one.

And here is a list of basic principles of Islam, many of them significantly different than any other religion: The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex.

Not all religions are the same. That is the biggest mistaken assumption people make about Islam. And that mistake is the main reason Islam has so successfully encroached on the West so far. Let's clear it up for our fellow citizens before Muslims get any farther.

Read more...

If the Majority of Muslims Are Peaceloving People, Do We Really Have Anything to Worry About?

Wednesday

On one side of the debate, we have people who say, "The majority of Muslims are peaceloving people." The implication is that because of this, we can all just relax, because the growing presence of Muslim people in our midst is not a problem. On the other side, we have people who say Islam is a totalitarian, aggressive ideology that has already made inroads into Western countries with the aim of usurping our governments and replacing our laws with Sharia.

It's possible both sides are correct. Let me explain.

First of all, I think everyone can agree that there are a few dedicated jihadists who commit violence in the name of Islam. They are not "peaceloving people" by anyone's definition but their own. They may think of themselves as peaceloving because they think that once the whole world has submitted to the rule of Islam, the world will be at peace. But the methods they use to achieve that peace are car bombs, beheadings, and flying planes into buildings.

There are also a number of Muslims committed to forcing Sharia law on the world by rioting and the threat of riots. These are the ones who protest and riot when a Danish cartoonist publishes cartoons about Muhammad, for example. The ensuing riots killed 187 people. It is a violation of Muslim morality to draw Muhammad or to criticize him, and the violence intimidated many others in Western democracies into restraining themselves from re-publishing those cartoons, and in this way, the threat of violence enforced Sharia law on Western democracies.

The same thing happened with Draw Muhammad Day on Facebook, and with the pastor who burned a Koran. The violence and threat of violence by Muslims around the world affected the behavior of people in free countries, curtailing their freedom. The end result is the enforcement of Sharia law in Western democracies — not by changing what is written in the lawbooks, but by scaring people into doing what orthodox Muslims insist non-Muslims must do.

The people doing the rioting may, in fact, be "peaceloving people" in their daily lives in the opinion of everyone who knows them. It could be argued that everyone has a breaking point; anyone can lose their temper if the offense is great enough, and perhaps they love their Prophet or their Koran so much, that criticizing him or burning it was just too much for them to stand, so they went berserk, but really they are just normal, peaceloving Muslims in the rest of their lives.

Another sizable percentage of Muslims are dedicated to legally and nonviolently gaining concessions for Islam within Western democracies. They are pressing for halal food in public schools, pressing for Islamic limits on free speech (pressing for censorship in the media so Islam is never criticized — see some examples here). They are doing it in individual countries, and they're also doing it at the UN. The Organization of the Islamic Conference is the largest voting block in the UN and they are putting pressure on the rest of the countries to impose worldwide limits on free speech — the kind of limits Islamic law demands.

All these people working for the legal imposition of Sharia law may very well be peaceloving people.

A very large percentage of Muslims do not protest against the violent ones. Silence implies consent, usually, but they may keep silent out of fear. The violent ones are, of course, capable of violence, and peaceloving people could be afraid to speak out in protest against such violence in the name of Islam. And they may not feel that they have an ideological leg to stand on since the violence is sanctioned by Islamic doctrine and protesting against that violence is prohibited by it.

Another large percentage pay their zakat — it is a mandatory tithe to the mosque. This money is often used for charity (to help Muslims, according to Sharia law, and never to help non-Muslims). This money also sometimes goes to fund jihad. The people paying the zakat may be considered peaceloving people by most standard definitions.

Another group of Muslims are creating avenues for "Sharia finance," which also gives a certain percentage of that money to Islamic charities, some of which also fund jihad. Those who put their money in Sharia financial institutions or pay the fees could be peaceloving people, even though they are, wittingly or unwittingly, helping to finance the killing or subjugation of non-Muslims.

A sizable percentage of Muslims, according to polls, wish to have some measure of Sharia law, including things like Islamic limits on free speech and the death penalty for apostates (Muslims who leave Islam). In some places, a majority of the Muslims feel this way. But they do not commit any violence themselves and would be considered by many as peaceloving people.

When Muslims immigrate to Western democracies, they often form "enclaves" — whole areas where primarily Muslims live. The larger the number of Muslims in the area, the more hostile some of them are to the non-Muslims living there, so those non-Muslims move away. More and more Muslims move to the area until it becomes, for all intents and purposes, a small Muslim state within a Western democracy.

These enclaves are creating "no-go zones" where legitimate law-enforcement officers are reluctant to go, or where legitimate government authorities bend to the Muslims' demands (for fear of violent reprisals). There are more enclaves and no-go zones in Western democracies with every passing year in Sweden, France, Germany, and many other European countries.

Wherever Muslims gain a sizable minority, the most dedicated among them begin pushing for local manifestations of Sharia law.

But it would probably be correct to say that most of the people who move to a Muslim enclave from a Muslim country are peaceloving people. They are just families who are moving to an area where they have relatives, and they want nothing more than to raise their children and be happy.

Let us assume they don't know much about Islamic doctrine, and even if they do, they choose to quietly ignore the violent or political parts of it. They are still unwittingly helping to accomplish Islam's prime directive in many ways — they are helping those who are actively trying to convert Western democracies into Islamic states — even if they don't mean to.

Muslims around the world have lots of children. Some of them immigrate to Western democracies and go on welfare, so the raising of their children is being paid for by the non-Muslim taxpayers. But most of these people are probably not violent. They raise their children, telling them that they are Muslims and that the Koran is the word of Allah, but they don't explain to their children the political mandates of Islamic doctrine.

When the kids become teenagers, some of them are susceptible to recruitment by the more orthodox (politically active or violent) Muslims because the teenager has already been primed — a primary identity they have is "I am a Muslim" and the recruiter only has to say, "read your Koran and discover your obligations." And so we see that second-generation Muslims in Western democracies are more likely to become jihadists than their parents, even though their parents are peaceloving people. The young recruits may also be peaceloving at heart but feel pressured by the obligations Allah requires of them.

This is another way peaceloving Muslims are unwittingly helping jihadists accomplish their mission.

Another couple of groups I should mention are Muslim leaders and oil billionaires. There are quite a few prominent Muslim leaders who exhort their followers to pursue Islam's prime directive. These are not isolated leaders with little influence and few followers. These are heads of state and influencial people with huge numbers of followers (read more about them here).

And there are Muslim billionaires (primarily Saudi Wahhabis) who are pouring their money into building mosques and madrassas all over the world. They fund 90 percent of the world's Islamic institutions. Unfortunately, they are promoting Wahhabism, which is a branch of orthodox Islam — dedicated to jihad; dedicated to Islam's prime directive; dedicated to eliminating all democracies and establishing Islamic law for all people. This is not as impossible as it sounds. The world is far more Islamic today than it was even 20 years ago.

These oil billionaires have built and maintain most of the mosques in the United States and Canada, for example, and 80 percent of these mosques are actively promoting jihad (read more about that here). Promoting the violent overthrow of the government by jihad or any other means is against the law, but it is overridden by the protection of religious freedom. Because the jihad they preach is not extraneous to their religious teachings, but inherent in them, freedom of religion has protected them.

The oil billionaires and the Muslim leaders may have never done anything violent in their lives, and may only want a peaceful Islamic world, so they may be "peaceloving people" by most peoples' definitions.

One final idea we should consider is that it doesn't take a majority to cause serious trouble, which means that if the majority of Muslims are peaceful, it would be irrelevant (read more about that here).

So let's get back to our original question: If the vast majority of Muslims are peaceloving people, do non-Muslims really have anything to worry about?

Yes we do.

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

Read more...

How To Get Past Someone's Multiculturalist Defenses

Thursday

WHEN YOU begin talking about Islam with a multiculturalist, you will immediately run headlong into a wall of resistance. But you can soften their defenses if you immediately make the following perfectly clear:

1. You are against racism, and if people understood more about Islam, it would prevent racism.

2. You are not criticizing Muslims, you are criticizing the political and religious doctrine of Islam.

3. Until your listener has read the Koran for herself, she really doesn't know what's going on. And if you have read the Koran, make it a point to mention that relevant fact.

Work these into the early part of your conversation and you will have a much more willing listener. Listen to me: Multiculturalists are the people we most need to reach. Please do not write them off. These are the people we are not reaching, and there are millions of them. They could be our allies, but their wall must be penetrated. Hammer those three points adamantly up front, and you may well find yourself with an open mind to talk to.

Read more...

There is No Substitute for Doing the Work — Not Even Catastrophe

Monday

MANY PEOPLE seem quite sure that the "masses" will not wake up to the threat of Islamization until there is another big attack — as big or bigger than 9/11. But there is a problem with this idea. Orthodox Muslims recognize — at least many of them do — that a big attack would awaken the West, strengthen the West's resolve, and seriously curtail Islamic encroachment. So they will avoid it and try to go as far as possible first with stealth jihad, soft jihad, financial jihad, economic jihad, educational jihad, immigration jihad, etc. They will take these as far as they can before making the mistake, as they did on 9/11, of alerting Westerners to their goals. So we should not rely on a catastrophe to do our work for us. By that time it may be too late. Orthodox Muslims could have their roots into our societies too deep to extricate. So it is up to us. Now. Don't know what to do? Start here: WhatYouCanDoAboutIslam.com.

Read more...

Who Are We to Tell Muslims to Change Their Beliefs?

Saturday

A LITTLE WHILE ago, someone wrote me a long email message, and I wanted to answer it here, because it brought up points worth thinking about. Here is what I wrote:

I've been blogging on Citizen Warrior for nine years now, and I have never gotten a message like yours. I'm not going to answer all of it, but there were a few things I wanted to answer. The first was your statement, "As an outsider, who am I to tell a foreign cultural group to 'change' their ways or to lobotomize their belief system to make it safer for me?"

You have a duty to yourself to survive. If someone or something is threatening your survival or even threatening your ability to thrive, you have a inborn right to defend your life, whether that right is sanctioned by law or not. And beyond that, if someone wants to move to a country, that country has every right to say, "We will not allow anyone to immigrate who is intent upon overthrowing our government or causing harm to our citizens."

If you are my next door neighbor and you have some belief that endangers me, I will insist you change your ways. For example, if you believe that burning plastic bags in your front yard protects you from evil spirits, I will insist you stop it because those fumes are poisonous to me.

I believe people should be able to believe what they want, and do what they want based on those beliefs as long as it doesn't harm others who do not believe that way. If you are doing something that isn't safe for me, that is more important than my respect for your cultural values.

In your email, you also said that trying to make someone change their belief system to make it safer for me is "just as arrogant or non-consensual as Muslim extremists attacking non-Muslims or ex-Muslims." You're basically saying that if I insist that a Muslim change his belief that he should make war on non-Muslims, it is just as arrogant and non-consensual as that Muslim killing me because of his belief. Those are not the same. Not even close.

Later in your email, you said you could only see three possible options for non-Muslims:

1. Become a Muslim. Join the dominant culture, much like Native Americans did when they saw the Great Melting Pot could not be defeated.

2. Fight against Islam. (And because the name of this site is Citizen Warrior, you assume this is the one I choose.)

3. Relocate to a new area.

I would suggest a fourth alternative: Educate non-Muslims. The Native Americans were outgunned and outnumbered. Non-Muslims are not. The biggest problem we have is not Islamic beliefs; it is non-Muslim ignorance. This is citizen warrior. The military and security agencies have a job to do. But what can citizens do?

Citizens can solve the problem of the vast, incomprehensible ignorance of their fellow non-Muslims.

Islam has been gaining ground
— not because they are stronger or have a better military or have more intelligent people or have a numerical superiority. They have been gaining ground because we have been giving it to them. Why? Because of our ignorance of Islamic doctrine, our ignorance of Islam's prime directive, and our ignorance of Islamic history.

Because we have an already-existing and perfectly understandable commitment to multiculturalism, that commitment is ruling the day for the lack of anything to oppose it or refine it. But if more of us simply knew about Islam, the problem would be largely solved. As they pushed for concessions, they would find their way blocked by people who knew better, in the same way a "mark" no longer falls for a con job once they have been educated about it.

If you had never heard of email scams, you might fall for it. But once you know about it, the problem is solved. You simply delete the message, and the harmful intentions on the other end of the line are blocked. If enough people know, the scammers go out of business. It is no longer profitable. It has become a waste of time.

That's what we're trying to accomplish on Citizen Warrior. We aim to put orthodox Muslims out of business.

Read more...

Whose Side Am I On?

Thursday

I HAVE OFTEN said that when you tell non-Muslims some basic principles of Islam, many of them think you are insulting Islam. They think, "How can you accuse people of such terrible things?" After simply explaining a few basic Islamic doctrines to people, many of them have told me it was a terrible indictment against the Islam.

But I always try to make the point that this is what they believe, and the faithful do not think of it as an indictment at all. In fact, calling it an indictment is the ultimate insult. Calling it an indictment is insulting to a devout Muslim. In other words, calling a list of Islamic principles "an indictment" means you believe there is something fundamentally bad about those principles, and since a Muslim believes these principles are Allah's last word and the only true expression of divine will on Earth, if you think there is anything bad about it, you are insulting Allah, the Prophet, and all Muslims. It doesn't get any more insulting than that.

I just got a great example of this attitude on my article, Basic Principles of Islam. Someone left this comment:

Your articles are extremely interesting.

You claim to be against Islam but its clear that any non-muslim that actually reads what you have written would end up being closer to Islam and more likely to embrace it.

I am trying to work out if you have either been counter-productive or are an extremely intelligent Muslim who is giving dawah (missionary work for Islam) from a reverse psychological point of view.

Either way I hope you keep up the good work of Allah and may he reward you for your deeds if your intentions are pure.

Allah Hafiz

Now think about it. This guy thinks I am promoting Islam, selling people on it, yet in my article I have listed as basic Islamic principles things like subjugating women, using a double standard, using warfare and bloodshed to spread the religion, the command that Muslims create Islamic governments, Muslims are forbidden to leave the religion, dying in jihad is the only way to guarantee a Muslim man's passage to Paradise, etc.

By telling people about these basic Islamic principles, the commenter thinks I am doing a great service selling people on his "wonderful" religion!

Stranger than fiction.

In the future, if someone thinks you are insulting Islam when you list its basic principles, I hope you can straighten them out. I hope you can make it clear that their belief that you are insulting Islam is what would really be insulting to a faithful Muslim.

Read more...

A Small Concession is No Big Deal

Sunday

SOMEONE EMAILED the following message to us: "It is difficult to get the message over when a majority of people consider it as a taboo, as something that will hurt religious beliefs. Surprisingly many people around us do not really care if a piggy bank is no longer part of a bank and don't see a threat in this decline of our culture due to Islamic feelings. Do you have an idea, sources, etc., to help us get this point across?"

Our success in getting this point across is crucial. We must get our fellow non-Muslims to see each small concession in its larger context. We must get them to see the concessions as a gradual process of displacing our Western law with Sharia law. We must make them see each accomodation to Islam as an incremental insinuation of Sharia law into every aspect of life. Each concession is small — that's true. That's how and why they've gotten away with so much so far.

It's like a frog-in-the-soup-pot allegory: Put a frog in a pot of cold water and warm it up slowly, and the frog won't try to jump out (even though it easily could) until it's too late. By the time it notices how hot the water is and is motivated to escape, it is too cooked to jump.

Orthodox Muslims
, committed to Islam's prime directive, are using the same slow-heating principle. They know if they go slowly enough — if they make small enough demands — they can heat up the water (take away our freedoms) until we are unable to mount a defense against further advances. They seek many different kinds of concessions, but they're most committed to removing free speech — they want desperately to take away our freedom to criticize Islam. That's the best way to prevent non-Muslims from organizing an effective defense.

How could they possibly remove freedom of speech in free countries? Orthodox Muslims are doing it very cleverly: By using our own cultural superiorities against us. One of the most magnificent values shared by the cultures of free nations is the toleration of differences, and our accute, aggressive, deeply-felt intolerance of the persecution or bullying of any minority group by a majority group. From an Islamic perspective, this wonderful feature of freedom-loving cultures is a weakness, and orthodox Muslims are exploiting it.

Orthodox Muslims portray Islam as a persecuted, bullied minority. This works well as a weapon against non-Muslims in free countries, but it also works well on the Muslims themselves. Muslims must feel persecuted. The feeling of persecution is a necessary precondition for advancing the primary goal of Islam in free countries. Why? Because, as it says in the Quran, a) Allah does not love aggressors, b) Muslims must defend Islam, and c) the only action a Muslim man can do to guarantee his passage to Paradise is to die while defending Islam.

Add those all together and the simple solution is being seen and seeing themselves as persecuted. It provides motivation to fight for Islam within its constituents, and it simultaneously disables the defenses of the non-Muslim population. Some Muslims have even been caught provoking persecution (faking hate crimes, for example) and making mountains out of molehills in order to continually portray themselves — not as conquerors and invaders — but has innocent, harrassed, tormented minorities.

Portraying themselves this way is extremely effective with non-Muslims who are filled with "white guilt" (as it is called in America) or "post-colonial guilt" (as it is called in Europe), making it fairly easy for orthodox Muslims to gain one small concession after another.

Most non-Muslims think, "What's the big deal? The poor Muslim minorities have had some tough breaks, let's cut them some slack and show them our support and they'll become our friends." The only way to sustain that kind of thinking is to be unaware of the ultimate goal or the ideology behind these efforts to gain concessions. Free people only go along with it because they mistakenly assume Islam is like any other religion. If you make that assumption, the demands for any particular concession seems acceptable.

So one way to get people to see these concessions as unacceptable is to teach them more about the basic elements of Islam. Then they will be able to see each of these concessions in a different way. They will stop seeing it as merely a way to demonstrate our tolerance, but as an incremental gain in establishing Sharia law in a free country. But they have to have enough knowledge about Islam to know that Sharia law is profoundly intolerant and thus our demonstrations of tolerance ultimately enables the establishment of intolerance.

Another approach is to help them grasp the great number and variety of concessions happening in many different arenas, and to help them see it as a deliberate strategy to move slowly and gradually enough to stay under the radar. Memorize lists like this one, so you can begin to easily recite them off the top of your head. Here is a huge collection of such concessions. Choose what you would consider the top ten clearest and most important concessions and memorize them. Each one by itself may not seem alarming, but when they are all said at once, the scope of the invasion becomes more recognizable, distinct, and impressive.

This directly counters the normal way of perceiving these concessions. In the normal course of events, if any of these events are covered in the news, each is portrayed as a separate issue, and "Islam" is usually not even mentioned. So each appears as an isolated incident that seems innocent enough. It is the very smallness and gradualness and incremental nature of these concessions that keeps anyone from resisting it or even understanding what's happening.

This is one of the techniques the Chinese used on American POWs during the Korean war. The communists in China had a sophisticated system of brainwashing, and one of its core principles was to get POWs to make a series of small, inconsequential concessions. They would ask the POWs to simply write down a few things that weren't perfect about the United States. Seems innocent enough. But psychologically, each POW who agreed to this small demand made a commitment, and the communists built on this, slowly widening the concessions to greater and more forceful public statements against America and ultimately in favor of the communists. When one of these servicemen came back to the United States speaking out against America and in favor of communism, it was a powerful public relations coup for China. It weakened America's ability to defend itself against further communist aggression (in Vietnam, for example).

This brainwashing technique took advantage of the principle of commitment and consistency. Experiments show that demonstrating a commitment to something — even by taking a very small, seemingly inconsequential action — a person is much more likely to make a bigger, more substantial commitment to the same thing later.

A girl wants to wear a veil. What's the big deal? A school wants to serve halal-only meat. A bank decides to stop giving away piggy banks because they don't want to offend Muslims. These concessions are small commitments. They seem innocent enough. But each is a small commitment to the principle that our way of life, our values, and our freedoms should yield to Islam. When we allow it, we are committing to the principle "when Sharia conflicts with our freedoms, it is our freedoms that must give way." And this commitment can then be built upon, and the concessions can be widened into greater demonstrations of that commitment over time.

When the Ultimate Fighting Championships first came out many years ago, I remember watching Hoyce Gracie as he held his opponent on the ground while Gracie worked his way almost imperceptibly closer and closer to the position he was aiming for. Every time his opponent moved or struggled to get out, Gracie closed in tighter, or moved into a better arm lock or whatever, until at last the opponent was held immobile and his air supply was choked off.

I have heard pythons do something similar. They grip their prey and wait until the prey breaths out. Then they squeeze a little tighter and hold it, so air is harder and harder to take in until the prey can no longer breathe.

This is what Islam is doing in the West. Get this message across. They are gaining one small concession at a time. Not many concessions are ever undone. Islam is a ratchet. It only goes one way.

But if enough non-Muslims become aware of the prime directive of Islam, these concessions will stop and many will be undone. We will be like Charles the Hammer. We will stand our ground, unified, and say to orthodox Muslims, "You shall go no further."

Read more...

Are All Fundamentalists Dangerous?

Wednesday

A Zen master is a Buddhist fundamentalist. Zen masters, such as the late Shunryu Suzuki, shown in the picture here, try to practice Buddhism in its pure form. They try to do things the way Buddha did them, and they try to follow Buddha's teachings. They live austere lives devoted to meditation and teaching, just like Buddha did. They try to focus more on direct experience than in learning doctrines (something Buddha repeatedly stressed in his teachings). They try not to conceptualize too much. They get their students to learn about their own minds from long periods of meditation.

A Buddhist fundamentalist cultivates a state of calmness and kindness, and cultivates the ability to keep her or his attention in in the present moment and not in the past, the future, or lost in thought.

These are Buddhist fundamentalists.

If Zen devotees work hard, most of them will achieve a state of abiding inner peace and a profound and lasting feeling of kindness toward others.

Islamic fundamentalists try to practice Islam in its pure form. They try to do things the way Mohammad did them, and they try to follow Mohammad's teachings. They live austere lives devoted to jihad. They don't sit around contemplating their navels. They prove their devotion with action. They try to make the law of Allah the supreme law of the world. They devote their lives to fulfilling the political goal of Islam, just as Mohammad dedicated his life to it, and just as Mohammad taught his followers to do.

An Islamic fundamentalist cultivates hatred toward non-Muslims and works toward the day when all non-Muslims are either subjugated as dhimmis, converted to Islam, or dead.

These are Islamic fundamentalists.

If Islamic devotees work hard, most of them will find themselves in some form of warfare with non-Muslims and ideally will be killed fighting in the way of Allah.

Are all fundamentalists dangerous? Are all ideologies the same? Would it matter to you what kind of fundamentalist you had as your neighbor? Would it matter to you what kind of fundamentalist your children chose as close friends or heroes? Would it matter to you what kind of fundamentalist your country allowed to immigrate to your country?

Read more...

Possessing Freedom is Not Enough — We Must Exercise Our Freedom to Preserve It

Saturday

The following is a transcript of a speech columnist Diana West gave at a free speech conference of the International Free Press Society held in Denmark's parliament in Copenhagen: AMERICANS ARE proud, and rightly so, of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights, which, among other things, protects speech from government control. The Amendment says in part: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Increasingly, however, Americans seem content to regard the First Amendment not as the fundamental working tool of democracy, but as a national heirloom, a kind of antique to admire rather than put to use. I don’t think many of my countrymen perceive how profoundly their attitude toward free speech has changed. But there is a difference between having freedom of speech and exercising freedom of speech, one that has become glaringly and distressingly obvious to me since September 11, 2001. So, while it is true that the US government is not Constitutionally empowered to make laws that censor Americans, it is also true, I believe, that Americans have come to censor themselves. But why? I speak today in regard to the effect of Islam on speech in America — Islam as it has entered our national discussion and debate — and, I must add, lack of national discussion and debate — since the heinous Islamic attacks on the US in 2001. You may recall that just days after the attacks, then-President Bush said — and I quote — “This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while.” At that same moment, the Pentagon, just across the river from the White House, was a colossal ruin, there was still carnage and mangled steel in the Pennsylvania woods, and an acrid fire of souls burned at the bottom of Manhattan. But once President Bush uttered that word “crusade” a new fear seemed to grip Washington and the wider world: namely, the fear that the President would “alienate” Muslims, even so-called “moderate Muslims.” I believe such a fear may be unique in the annals of peoples under assault and bears further consideration. The English word “crusade,” of course, harkens back to the medieval wars between Islam and Christendom, which Islam ultimately won, as we know. In the more than nine centures since, the word has become a familiar metaphor for any moral fight for right: Long ago in America, Thomas Jefferson spoke of a “crusade” against ignorance; the feminist Susan B. Anthony called for a women’s temperance “crusade”; more recently Colin Powell referred to the “equal rights” crusade. And when Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote his memoir of World War II, he called it “Crusade in Europe.” But after 9/11 it became instantly clear that there wasn’t going to be a 21st-century-“crusade” against newly expansionist Islam — not even against the most violent manifestations of jihad as exemplified by these bloody attacks on civilians and cities in the United States. Why? Muslims didn’t approve. Non-al Qaeda Muslims, presumably, didn’t approve of a “crusade” against al-Qaeda, and the leader of the Free World deferred. A White House spokesman quickly expressed the president’s “regret” that anyone might have been “upset” by the word “crusade.” After that, the word was effectively struck from the English language. This may seem like a small thing, no more than a diplomatic nicety, but the significance of excising this rousing and storied word from the vocabulary of Americans at the onset of war can hardly be overstated, and must be understood as an early and decisive psychological victory for Islam over the West. In this early semantic retreat we can see the beginnings of the official American lexicon that now strives to avoid associating Islam and jihad altogether, that no doubt gives mighty encouragement to the Organization of the Islamic Conference’s continuing efforts to outlaw all criticism of Islam. Let me explain. In acceding to the Islamic interpretation of the word “crusade” as something wrong and indefensible — and, worse, something taboo and also verboten — the president traded away a piece of our history and our language — and our understanding of our history through our language — for the sole sake of appeasing Islam. And truly, this was just the beginning. Soon, the president was giving up other words, other pieces of our culture. Operation Infinite Justice, the Pentagon name for the assault on the Taliban, for example, was changed after Muslims complained that they believed only Allah dispenses infinite justice. The new name was Operation Enduring Freedom. Presumably, Muslims do not believe Allah dispenses freedom, enudring or otherwise (which is interesting), so that was all right. But in making the change, the US was again deferring to Islamic demands, Islamic understandings. In other words, as a military intelligence officer-friend of mine likes to put it, we were “outsourcing” our judgment to Islam. Indeed, the name “war on terror” itself was a generic sop to Islamic sensibilities, omitting any reference to the Islamic dimension of the struggle, namely the jihad that was and is underway. In those early days after 9/11, President Bush also made it part of his job to serve as the nation’s head cheerleader for Islam as “the religion of peace.” Confusingly, this immediately put “jihad” in a box as something superfluous to Islam. This is now the conventional wisdom in America, from Left to Right: jihad has nothing to do with Islam. Or: “Jihadism is not Islam,” former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney obediently declared. People think Barack Hussein Obama is the first American president to promote Islam. The fact is, President Bush’s incessant declarations that Islam is a peaceable creed that terrorist-traitors had “hijacked” or “twisted” drove Abu Qatada, the notorious imam in Britain linked to Al Qaeda to comment — and I quote: “I am astonished by President Bush when he claims there is nothing in the Koran that justifies jihad or violence in the name of Islam. Is he some kind of Islamic scholar? Has he ever actually read the Koran?” It’s fair to say that the answer to both questions is no. It’s also disturbing to realize that in the mainstream conversation, the only questions balking at the president’s depiction of Islam as a hearts-and-flowers ideology came from an Islamic terror-imam — never from our own media or politicians. George W. Bush’s Department of Homeland Security made it difficult for government officials to talk about anything but “hearts and flowers” Islam by issuing a long memorandum “suggesting” that government officials stop using all such words as “jihad,” “jihadist,” “Islamic terrorist,” “Islamist” “Islamofascist” and the like when discussing, well, Islamic terrorism. “Using the word “Islamic” will sometimes be necessary,” the memorandum said, adding that the department’s Muslim experts were concerned that in such a case — quote — “we should not concede the terrorists’ claim that they are legitmate adherents of Islam.” It’s not hard to imagine Abu Qatada cackling over this propaganda, but I regret to say there was scant media coverage of even this outrageous Islamic apologetic via government directive. This shouldn’t be surprising since the media in the US, as elsewhere in the West, is overwhelmingly predisposed to ignore or deny, as a key point of cultural relativism, all specifically Islamic roots of jihad violence and conquest. This is the philosophical basis of what I call Islam-free analysis. Add to that the fear factor of Islamic violence — as we saw in the Danish cartoon crisis — or fear of Islamic protests or harassment, and the United States of America is happy to comply with a universal gag order on Islam, First Amendment or no First Amendment. And so, from the so-called war on terror — which is now, even more opaquely known by the Obama administration as an “overseas contigency operation” — to newsrooms across America, Islam as what sociologists call “an underlying cause” is increasingly treated as a forbidden topic. Another example: As a journalist, I attend expert lectures in Washington, DC, on, What happened in Iraq? or, The future of Afghanistan. I can attest that at all the ones I have attended, Islam — its culture, its history, beliefs, supremacism, sharia, jihad, anything — is never even mentioned. In this same mold, when Gen. Stanley McChrystal gave one his first interviews as the newly confirmed commander in Afghanistan about the challenges facing coalition forces in Afghanistan. Such challenges, apparently, have nothing to do with Islam, Islamic law (sharia), or jihad — none of which he even mentioned. This same see-no-Islam mindset, to focus on the media for a moment, drives stories such as the Buffalo, New York “businessman” who beheaded his wife this spring after she filed for divorce. Did I mention he was a Muslim? That he had founded a television station to combat negative Islamic stereotyping? Most US media didn’t. Initial reports, such as they were, cited “money woes,” or general “domestic violence” as the trigger, never noting the sacralization of misogyny within Islam, let alone the unfortunate Koranically inspired propensity toward beheading people. To take another typical story, last month authorities uncovered a terror plot in New York City targeting synagogues and military aircraft. I listened to a 2 minute and 29 second radio report of the story and didn’t get the information that the suspects were jailhouse converts to Islam until the final eight seconds. And that was typical. Another non-story for the Islam-blind: When Harvard University’s Muslim chaplain recently declared support for the traditional Islamic penalty of death for apostasy, there were exactly two newspaper stories: one in Harvard’s student newspaper, and one that I wrote. Some of the most egregious examples of Islam-free reporting came out of the jihadist attacks on Mumbai. Early this year, for example, the Indian government released intercepts of conversations of the jihadists who murdered 163 people last November. The conversations frequently invoked Allah, Islam and the need to spare Muslims in the bloody rampages but world media including the New York Times and the Asscoiated Press, for example, omitted all or very nearly all references to Allah, Islam, and the need to spare Muslims in the bloody rampages. As a conservative, I would like to say that such silence on all things Islam is a phenomenon of the mainstream media, or the Left in general. But this same silence is also a phenomenon of the Right, the side of the politial spectrum where one expects to find some fight. But American conservatives, too, protect Islam by not talking about it — our most famous conservative talk show hosts, for example, barely ever mention it — or by obscuring the subject with the nonsense words that hide the mainstream Islamic roots of terror and supremacism. Soon after 9/11, I tried some of these same terms out myself — Islam”ist,” Islamo-fascist, radical fundamentalist, Wahhabist, and the like — but came to find them confusing, and maybe purposefully so. In their amorphous imprecision, they allow us to give a wide berth to a great problem: the gross incompatibility of Islamic ideology with Western liberty. Worse than imprecision, however, is the evident childishness that inspires the lexicon, as though padding “Islam” with extraneous syllables such as “ism” or “ist” is a shield against politically correct censure; or that exempting plain “Islam” by criticizing imaginary “Islamofascism” spares us Muslim rage — which, as per the Danish experience, we know explodes at any critique. Such mongrel terms, however, not only confuse the disucssion, but keep our understanding of Islam at bay. Here is how it works on the Right. In writing about Cartoon Rage 2006, Charles Krauhammer, probably the leading conservative columnist in America, clearly identified why the Western press failed to republish the Danish Mohammed cartoons. He wrote: “What is at issue is fear. The unspoken reason many newspapers do not want to republish is not sensitivity but simple fear.” Unquote. This was clear as a bell: but then he wrote: “They know what happened to Theo van Gogh, who made a film about the Islamic treatment of women and got a knife through the chest with an Islamist manifesto attached.” To repeat, the columnist wrote that Theo van Gogh made a film about the “Islamic treatment of women” and was killed by a knife “with an Islamist manifesto” attached. Given that both Theo’s film and murder-manifesto were explicitly inspired by the verses of the Koran, what’s Islamic about the treatment of women that’s not also Islamic about the manifesto? The “ist” is a dodge, a semantic wedge between the religion of Islam and the ritual murder of van Gogh. It saves face. But why, why, is it up to an infidel American columnist to save face … when the face is Mohammed’s? I think the answer is connected to what may have been the real war President Bush began to lead the day he gave up the “crusade.” I’m afraid this effort isn’t against “jihad,” and it isn’t against Islamization. On the contrary, it’s a very strange war for the West: it’s our war against alienating Islam; our war against blaming Islamic ideology for violence and repression in the cause of Islamic conquest. In this Western struggle to protect Islam, denouncing an Islam”ist” manifesto, for example, leaves Islam itself ideologically blameless. And this constitutes a win in this very weird war. But the war against alienating Islam is not a war I want to fight — and no adherent of Western liberty could believe it’s the war we want to win. Indeed, this war effort turns out to be the same thing as fighting for Islam. It calls us to self-censorship, self-abnegation, self-extinguishment. It depends on and encourages our submission. This is the behavior of the dhimmi and the culture of dhimmitude as catalogued by the great historian Bat Ye’or. Honestly, I don’t think Americans realize they’re engaged in such a suicidal effort, which has even intensified under President Obama. Nor do I believe most Americans would rally to such a cause — if, that is, they became educated enough to understand it. But the knowledge gap is as wide as the communications gap. Deep down we may not have lost our will; however, at this terrible point, we have lost our language to mobilize that will. And very few Americans seem to realize it. A final point: I’ve had the opportunity to observe Geert Wilders speak in the United States this past year, and, as you know, he speaks in robust terms to explain forthrightly the perils of Islamzation in the West. His heroic manner and clarity electrify many of the Americans who hear him — which suggests there is a healthy flicker of life out there. But there is often someone in the crowd who will tell Mr. Wilders that while he agrees with the message, Mr. Wilders should soften his words so as not to offend anyone — meaning, of course, Muslims. “Don’t say Juedo-Christian culture is better,” I heard one man say to Mr. Wilders. “Say: 'we believe in women’s rights.’” I know I don’t have to worry about Mr. Wilders “moderating” his message, but I worry greatly about all the Americans who ask him to. On hearing about the Dutch court’s sharia-compliant prosecution of his freedom of speech, an American journalist reacted with genuine horror that such a state of repression could exist in a Western country. At the same time, I could sense his quiet pride in knowing, at the back his mind, that he, as an American, was fully protected by the First Amendment. But I wondered to myself, Did he use it? Did his colleagues use it? If the state of American journalism is any marker, the answer is no. Geert Wilders speaks out as if he is protected by the First Amendment, but US journalists and politicians speak so as not to “give offense,” so as not to raise alarm, so as not to criticize Islam. Islam, of course, is not our only block on speech. For decades, Americans have been schooling themselve to speak with political correctness. As the country has lurched Left under President Bush and now even further under President Obama, we are now seeing ominous legislation making its way through Congress — so-called “hate crimes” legislation — that bodes ill for free speech and also for equality before the law. We are seeing alarming efforts on the Left to “regulate” — in fact, to censor — radio talk shows, for example, and also the Internet. I wish I could end on a hopeful note, but my sense is that it will have to get worse in America before it gets better. And how will we know when things are beginning to improve? When Americans, as a people, learn, or re-learn something: that it’s not enough to possess freedoms. We must learn that it’s vital to exercise our freedoms if we want to have any hope of preserving them.

Read more...

Does Niceness Work With Everybody?

Monday

"If we are nice to them, they will be nice to us." This is the assumption behind the basic human principle of reciprocity, one of the foundational cornerstones of almost all cultures. If you cooperate with me, it almost compels me to cooperate with you. This is a sound principle of human relations, used to good effect in business and all other spheres of human interaction.

But reciprocity isn't inborn. It is taught. Reciprocity is intentionally and painstakingly hammered into the heads of our children until it is instinctive.

But unless you're very young, you have found out, probably painfully, that some people do not follow this principle. There are a small percentage of people who will accept your generosity and cooperation and do nothing for you in return, and have no feeling of guilt about it. They do not reciprocate. They are either sociopaths, or they never had this basic principle pounded into them at an early age.

Once you recognize someone like this, how do you treat such people? Do you keep being nice? Do you keep giving? Do you allow them to continue to take advantage of you? Maybe for awhile, but eventually, what will you do? You will stop giving. You will stop being nice.

I'm sure you have figured out why I'm bringing this up. Some ideologies are not reciprocal. Islam is one of those. It divides the world sharply into us and them. In Islamic ideology, reciprocity between Muslims is instilled. But reciprocity is sharply discouraged with non-Muslims.

Islam is a ratchet. It only goes one way.

Just as there are some people in this world who will only take advantage of your kindness and generosity, and will not reciprocate, there are some ideologies that only take advantage of fairness and accommodation, and will not reciprocate.

What shall we do with the people following such an ideology? What's the appropriate, sane, intelligent response? Tit for tat. That is, you begin with cooperation, but at the first sign of a deliberate lack of cooperation, you cut your losses and respond to a lack of goodwill with an equal lack of goodwill.

It is foolish, self-defeating, and counterproductive to do otherwise. Niceness doesn't work with everybody.

Read more...

Is Anti-Islam Sentiment a Bad Thing?

Friday

SOMEONE LEFT a comment on the article, What Makes Islam So Successful, and I broke the comment up into several statements and answered each one. When I was done answering the several statements, I thought the whole thing would be an article worth reading, so here it is:

The commentor wrote:
"Almost all, if not all, of these points also apply to Christianity." (Note: The article, What Makes Islam So Successful, is a list of some of the fundamental ideas of Islamic docrine such as, "A Muslim must pray five times a day," "Women are to be subjugated," "Muslims are permitted to spread the religion by war," etc.)

My response:
Thank you for asking questions worth answering. In answer to your first statement, almost none of these points apply to practiced Christian doctrine. I'm not a Christian or a Jew. I don't have any religion. But it is such a common response that people use (that Christianity is just as bad), I ended up writing a list of some of the important differences between Christianity and Islam. You can read it here: Why I'm Worried About Islam But Not Christianity. Another aspect of this is the nature of the violent or intolerant statements in the Old Testament versus the Quran. In the Old Testament, the verses are applied to very specific places, times, and people. In the Quran, the verses are open-ended and for all time, such as "slay them (non-Muslims) wherever you find them." Here's much more about that aspect.

The commentor wrote:
"There most definitely are moderate Muslims, and the people behind the mosque proposed for 2 blocks from Ground Zero say a big part of their proposal is to give a face and presence to moderate Islam, as opposed to fundamentalist Islam."

My response:
There are definitely heterodox Muslims who disregard some of the teachings of their own doctrine, but it is explicitly forbidden to do so in the Quran, their most holy book. To employ only part of their teachings is considered apostasy, the penalty for which is death. Yes, many Muslims in Western democracies get away with apostasy for now, if they don't live in one of the Muslim-only enclaves that have sprung up all over Europe, where such apostasy can be life-threatening. The whole concept of "moderate Islam" is suspect. For the most part, Muslims who are not interested in violence are considered moderate. If they are still interested in pursuing Islam's prime directive to bring all people on earth under the domination of Islamic law, but are doing it by peaceful but stealthy means, Muslims are generally considered to be "moderate." They are committed to non-violence — not because they abhor violence, but because it is tactically foolish for the accomplishment of long-term plans (and this has been expressed explicitly in documents siezed at the Holy Land Foundation trial), but to me this is not comforting in the slightest. The largest international Islamic organization in the world, the Muslim Brotherhood, has made it their goal to dislodge non-Muslims from power in Western democracies by stealthy (and non-violent) means, and they have been pursuing this in America for decades.

The commenter wrote:
"The Bible is filled with all kinds of stuff similarly: It's OK to stone adulterers, women should subjugate themselves to their husbands, Jesus is the only way, justification of holy wars (Remember the Crusades?), hellfire and brimstone, etc., etc. Just as so many (if not most) Christians do not take all these writings literally, all Muslims don't take their Islamic corollaries literally."

My response:
I appreciate your desire to learn more, and I hope you read more. I know it must seem to you I am a "hater" or "Islamophobe," but I have simply tried to learn more about Islam, and found out a lot that most people are unaware of. I agree that the information is not pleasant.Yes, it's true, there are similar passages in the Old Testament. But when is the last time you heard of someone being stoned to death by Christians or Jews? Yet Muslims still do it today. This is because Mohammad apparently learned something about how to make a religion stick to its teachings by watching how Jews and Christians did it. So in the Quran and in Mohammad's statements preserved in the Hadith, rules were laid down about the penalty for not following the teachings. There have been many movements in the Islamic world to "modernize" Islam, but counter-movements always come along to "get back to the basics" because Islamic doctrine is very explicit about this. It is not vague. These back-to-the-basics movements are not done merely because people think they should get back to the basics. Allah Himself and Mohammad himself said straying from the path cannot be allowed and needs to be harshly punished. As a result, Islam, as it is practiced throughout the world, more closely follows all of its teachings than either Christianity or Judaism. Unfortunately for the non-Muslim world, the teachings are hostile, intolerant, and supremacist. About the Crusades: Islam had taken over most of the Middle East by force (it was largely Christian when Islam began), had conquered part of India, most of North Africa, and had invaded up into Europe, seizing Spain. Islamic warriors came north into Europe as far as modern-day France before they were stopped. Four of the five major centers of Christianity had been attacked or conquered by Muslim warriors. The only one left unbesieged and unconquered was Rome. Besieged Christians in the Middle East begged Rome to help them. Rome wanted to unite Europeans and help defend Christians in the Middle East, but the European countries were independent, usually competing with each other rather than cooperating. Rome saw that the only thing that could unite rival European countries was their shared religion and a common enemy, so he called for a Crusade, not to try to free all the Christians who had been subjugated to Islamic rule, but to simply make it safe for Christians to make their pilgrimages to the Levant and to help prevent any more Christian areas from being conquered. In other words, the Crusades were a late (and rather weak) response to about 400 years of Islamic conquest and aggression. How did we get such a distorted view of the Crusades? Some time ago, as part of the stealth jihad, some Muslims set themselves up as "historical accuracy checkers" for school textbooks in America. They made what seemed like a perfectly reasonable suggestion: If Islam is going to be mentioned in school textbooks, it should be checked with Islamic historians for accuracy before being printed. But what they did was scrub Islam's image clean, and give the false impression that the Crusades were an unprovoked attack on poor, innocent Muslim countries who were living in peace and harmony. Your perception is very common. It has been orchestrated carefully and they've done their job well. The purpose of this "textbook jihad" was to make Americans unsuspecting of Islam, and distrustful and suspicious of their own cultural heritage, and it has succeeded to a remarkable extent.

The commenter wrote:
"I find so many of these comments chilling, along with the atmosphere of anti-Muslim sentiment. (Note: I am not a Muslim!) Just as in Christianity, there are all shades of Islam. We know several very progressive, kind, loving, peaceful, enlightened Muslims who have nothing to do with the extreme fundamentalism which lay behind the 9/11 attacks."

My response: When you learn about Islam, when you read the Quran, I'm afraid you will be even more chilled. It is shocking and disturbing in a way you now can't imagine. I had exactly your point of view before I began learning about this. And when I heard "anti-Muslim" statements, I distrusted the source. But I would like to say in my defense that after learning that there are 245 verses in the Quran that say something positive about non-Muslims, but they have all been abrogated, and that there are 527 verses in the Quran that say something negative about non-Muslims, including 109 that call for violence against non-Muslims, and that none of them have been abrogated, that I definitely developed an anti-Islam sentiment. As a non-Muslim, I see nothing to like about any of this. About the fact that you know some peaceful, loving Muslims: I do too. Three of them are my friends. They are truly three of the nicest people I know. Not one of them has read the Quran. That's part of the confusion. There are lot of Muslims whose only knowledge of Islam comes from their heterodox parents, who happen to be nice people and who ignore much of Islam's teachings. But another issue is perhaps more important here. The existence of nice Muslims does not invalidate the statement that Islamic teachings advocate intolerance and violence toward non-Muslims. The fact that you know a Muslim who knows how to get along with non-Muslims does not mean he would not also advocate imposing Sharia law on non-Muslims, and does not mean he is not actively striving toward that goal. The fact that he is really nice does not mean he repudiates the supremacist nature of Islamic teachings. The existence of a Muslim who happens to be charming does not discredit a single thing written in this article.

The commenter wrote:
"It's ironic that there were places and times where Christians, Jews and Muslims lived together peacefully; it's scary that in this day and age it seems an ever-more-elusive goal."

My response:
When the Christians, Jews and Muslims lived together peacefully in Muslim-dominated countries, the Jews and Christians were subjugated second-class citizens. They were under the "dhimmi laws" where they paid the jizya (a tax for non-Muslims), where they couldn't hold any positions of authority over Muslims, where they were strictly limited in their ability to express their own religion, and where they were subject to occasional pogroms. The reason living together peacefully seems an ever-more-elusive goal is that for the first time, non-Muslims are learning about Islam's political intentions before being subjugated. Because of printing presses and the internet, and because of the large-scale attacks in New York, London and Madrid, which made many non-Muslims interested in learning more about Islam, more non-Muslims know about Islam than any time in history. Most subjugated non-Muslims in history had no idea what Islam was about until it was too late. It has often been illegal in Muslim countries for a non-Muslim to even touch a Quran, much less read it. But those days are over. Not only is the Quran available in English in most bookstores in the free world, but many Qurans are available to read for free online. And to make things even better, unscrambled versions of the Quran are now available (the message in the Quran has been made difficult to decipher). Non-Muslims, for the first time in history, are learning about Islam. Before making up your mind about any of this, I hope you will take the chance and read the Quran yourself. And then decide what is really true. I urge you to take the pledge and read the Quran. Thank you for taking the time to make your comments.

Read more...

One Solid Fact Can End an Argument

Wednesday

ONE OF THE MOST important keys to understanding Islam is the fact that according to the Quran, a good Muslim must follow Mohammad's example. This simple fact underlies a complete understanding of Islam's purpose and methods in the world. It is the key.

And it is the key to helping
others understand Islam. I have found it powerfully effective to tell people that it says 91 times in the Quran — Islam's central holy book — that a Muslim is obligated to follow Mohammad's example.

Then the conversation can shift into a description of Mohammad's life. At that point, the educational process accelerates tremendously.

Bill Warner has done it again. Bill is the one who
counted how many times the Quran warns people to follow the example of the Messenger, and I can't thank him enough for doing so. That simple fact is incredibly devastating. The flimsy pieces of uninformed arguments are blasted away like a nuclear bomb just went off, and it immediately puts the conversation on a productive track.

Allow me to introduce a document written by Bill Warner that goes into detail about the instructions in the Quran to Muslims to follow Mohammad's example. It's entitled The Sunna of Mohammed. It is thorough. And it will convince.

Every time I mention (in an email or in an article) the fact that it says 91 times in the Quran a Muslim must follow Mohammad's example, I will use a link to this:
The Sunna of Mohammed. And I suggest you do it too.

Read more...

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.


Copyright

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

  © Free Blogger Templates Columnus by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP