The Good Must Associate: Key Strategies in the Counterjihad Movement

To prevail against orthodox Islam's relentless encroachment, we need to employ three essential strategies: gather allies, coordinate our efforts, and concentrate our forces at decisive points. Let me explain these in more detail:

1. Gather allies. A large number of orthodox Muslims are working toward Islam's prime directive. Obviously three counterjihadists will not prevail against such a large, organized group. We need numbers. The more allies we have on our side, the greater our chances of winning.

If three of us demonstrate outside a mosque, and five hundred Muslims protest our demonstration, we will look like a small, unpopular fringe group and the Muslims will look like the mainstream majority opinion. This kind of thing has a psychological impact on anyone watching this on television because of the principle of social proof. But if five hundred Muslims demonstrate and ten thousand counterjihadists protest their demonstration, it sends an entirely different message to anyone watching on television or participating in the demonstration. Numbers count.

That's why it is so crucial to educate people about Islam. We need more people on our side.

Many Citizen Warrior readers took to heart the article, Facebook Allies, and applied the principle, and it made a difference. The purpose of the article was to solve a problem counterjihadists were having on Facebook — they would share something about Islam, and their Facebook friends and family would gang up on them, arguing, criticizing them, and defending Islam. It was upsetting to a lot of counterjihadists. It made them feel isolated and alone. And to their friends and family, it made them look like factious, disaffected loners who needed to be straightened out by the "sensible majority."

So people went to counterjihad Facebook pages and read comments and posts, looking for allies, and friended them. Then when any of their allies posted something on their personal Facebook page about Islam, they would receive lots of support and "likes" and approving comments from their allies, and if one of their family members criticized it, their allies would jump in and defend it, and each ally does that for each other.

This feels a lot better, is much less upsetting, and has a greater impact on anyone reading. The original poster no longer appears as an isolated agitator, but rather has become a spokesperson for a popular, supported point of view. The key strategy at work here is gaining allies.

This is one of the reasons ACT! for America is such an important organization to the counterjihad movement. As Brigitte Gabriel says, when the ACT! for America lobbyist walks into a senator's office in Washington, D.C. she can say she represents an organization of almost a million voters, and that's enough to make a senator listen! If the lobbyist represented an organization of forty people, would a senator take the time to listen? Not likely. They are busy people. Numbers give clout.

2. Coordinate efforts. If there were a hundred thousand active counterjihadists, but each worked on different projects, we wouldn't accomplish much. But if most of us worked on a few central projects, those projects would be much more likely to succeed.

That's what we did by writing to Councilwoman Deborah Pauly (see story here). She was vilified by Muslim groups and the media. She probably felt outnumbered, and for many people, that would make them hesitant to speak up again. On the other hand, if she heard from thousands of people who support her and encourage her, it could embolden her to continue her outspoken resistance to creeping Sharia. Coordinated efforts could make the difference.

3. Concentrate force at a decisive point. This is where allies and coordination can have their greatest impact. In the book, How to Win on the Battlefield, the authors write, "The concentration of force was regarded by Clausewitz as the first and highest principle of war. He reiterated that, at the operational level, commanders had to concentrate maximum force, which in his day equated to all available troops, at the decisive point; it was essential to overwhelm and break the enemy physically and morally."

Many times in history, a military force was outnumbered and yet won the battle. Often it was because the principle of concentration of force does not require absolute superiority in numbers. It only requires a local superiority at a decisive point.

When women were fighting to gain the vote in the United States, for example, they had to get 36 states to ratify the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Women's suffrage organizations sent organizers from all over the country to the state that was considering the legislation at that moment, thus concentrating their forces at the decisive point.

That is what we must do. The big question for all of us is, of course, "What is the decisive point?" As Brian Tracy said in Victory: "Determining the right time and place requires a combination of judgment, timing," and good information (good "intel").

We're getting much better information now than we did at the beginning of the modern counterjihad movement, and we're getting it much faster. And through our formal and informal networks, we are collectively making good judgments on where to concentrate our forces. Some calls for action are shared far and wide, and some fizzle out, as each person essentially "votes" on the proposal (by either forwarding or deleting).

Our networks are getting bigger. Our numbers are growing. And we're getting more and more organized. It's time to look at strategy. We can each begin by deliberately applying the three principles above. When you're thinking about some event or thinking about potential actions you might take, ask yourself, "How can I apply the three key strategies to this situation?" It will give you effective ideas and ways to proceed.

Edmund Burke once wrote, "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."

So let us associate, let's organize, let's concentrate our forces, and let's win.

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...

Waging Jihad by Gaining Concessions

If your goal was the eventual overthrow of the government and establishing sharia law as the law of the land, but you didn't have a large enough majority to do it by voting or by force, how could you do it? One good way would be to keep pressing for small, incremental concessions. And when you gain one, to hold it, and try to gain another.

And if you were using this strategy, what is the first concession you'd try to gain? I think it would be to establish laws and cultural norms that prohibit criticism of your group or its goals in speech or writing. This could effectively prevent an organized effort to block the next concessions you try to gain.

That is exactly what orthodox Muslims are trying to do.

Every totalitarian state that ever ruled a nation has done the same thing, and did it first. If you can't criticize something in public, you are left with your private thoughts and your few intimate friends. Are you the only ones who think this way? You don't know. Silencing criticism isolates the dissenters. And it prevents important public discussions from taking place.

Silencing criticism makes it possible for other concessions to be gained without effective opposition.

Earnest Muslims are using every method they can think of to shut down criticism and free speech. They legally lobby politicians and media outlets, pressuring them to silence or fire someone who criticized Islam. They slander anyone who criticizes Islam by calling them "Islamophobic" or "racist." They bring lawsuits against people even if they know they will not win because the bad press is damaging enough. And they riot in the streets. After a Dutch newspaper published a cartoon depicting Mohammad, Muslims rioted all over Europe, leaving 187 people dead and making publishers think twice about publishing something critical to Islam again.

And this aggressive religion will keep pushing unless we stop it. A sufficient number of them will not try to be fair, will not try to "assimilate," and will never let up on the pressure to take over. It is their religious duty.

The way to stop its spread without being cruel or violent is to establish the policy: No more concessions to Islam.

I once had a job working for a seminar company. My job was to call people who had taken an introductory seminar and convince them to take the main seminar we were selling. I was given a stack of cards participants had filled out at the introductory seminar and I was told how to handle the calls: "If they give you a definite 'no,' throw the card away. Otherwise put it here and we'll call them again later."

And we would keep calling these people, harassing them for years because those people were too nice to simply say, "I am not interested." People would say, "I don't know, let me think about it." They would say all kinds of things other than "no." I could hear in their voices that most of them really wanted to say no, but they wouldn't. I felt sorry for these people, and yet I couldn't help but think they were stupid. Why not be firm? Why not be honest? It would save them a lot of stress. If only they knew my instructions, they would have said no firmly right up front.

But the thing is, most of us are used to dealing with people who will not exploit our "niceness." We deal with fair, considerate people almost all the time, and our ways of dealing with fair people work very well. I'm assuming you are a fair person. What do you do? If someone gave you a "socially acceptable" excuse like "I'll think about it," you would let them bow out, wouldn't you? You wouldn't ignore their signals and keep pushing.

But here's what we all have to learn sooner or later: For people who ignore your signals and keep pushing, you had better develop a different approach — an approach with more firmness and strength, an approach that protects yourself and defends your interests.

The same goes for dealing with aggressive vacuum-cleaner salesmen. Have they ever come to your door? If you show the slightest interest, you'll be stuck talking to them until you say yes. They are relentless, and to deal with it, you had better be firm. If you say, "I'm busy right now," they will say, "That's okay, when would be a good time to come back?"

Islam operates much the same, except on a much larger scale with a political agenda and more deadly consequences. Islam is pressing for concessions constantly, trying to find the weaknesses, trying to find the cracks, the loopholes, and it will keep pushing until it accomplishes its goal: A world in which every country is ruled by sharia law.

This is not one of those problems that will go away by itself. It is up to us to be firm. They are not going to stop on their own. They must be stopped by us.

Read more: Islam's Relentless Encroachment.

Learn how they can be stopped by us: What Can a Civilian Do to Stop Islam's Relentless Encroachment?

Read more...

Can An Open Society Prevent a Persistent and Determined Islamic Encroachment?

The following is an excerpt from a book review of Serge Trifkovic's book, Defeating Jihad. The reviewer is Brian Mitchell. You can read the entire review here.

The excerpt addresses the problem of how an open society can ethically deal with the dilemma created by freedom of religion on the one hand, and laws against sedition on the other. Up until now those two laws have not created a problem. But with the immigration of Muslims into democracies, the dilemma has become obvious.

How will free societies protect themselves from overthrow, and yet remain free? Mitchell writes:

[Trivkovic] insists that Islam itself is “inherently seditious” but recommends action against only “Islamic activism,” defined as the political act of propagating, disseminating or otherwise supporting “Jihad”…, discrimination against Christians, Jews and other “infidels,” discrimination and violence against women and sexual minorities, anti-Jewish bigotry, sanction of slavery, etc.

Trifkovic knows, of course, that the Koran propagates all these things and that there can be no Islam without the Koran. His point seems to be that the Constitution empowers us to ban Islam because of its politics and not because of its religion. “We do not need new legal theories, or a different conception of the First Amendment,” he writes. “[W]e need an educational campaign.”

He might be right about the law. As Justice Jackson pointed out, the Constitution is not a suicide pact, and there is certainly no overestimating the willingness of American jurists, when provided enough political cover, to argue around inconvenient legal obstacles. It seems to me, however, that a paradigm shift sufficient to get us honestly out of our ideological box would require us to admit that the First Amendment’s Anti-Establishment Clause is a large part of the problem. Any schoolboy can see that, if some religions are inherently seditious, a constitution tolerating all religions invites its own overthrow.

Our educational campaign must therefore teach two truths: that Islam is seditious, and that the Founding Fathers were wrong. Teaching the former and not the latter will cause confusion and keep us thinking inside the box.

There is also the danger that the prosecution of “Islamic activism” alone, especially when clouded by the requirement of unrestricted religious freedom, will not protect us from “moderate” Muslims who disavow the seditious aspects of their religion only until they are too strong to oppose. Trifkovic indeed warns that moderates cannot be trusted because Muhammad’s doctrine of taqiyya sanctions dissembling for the sake of Allah. He also warns that nominal Muslims, when demoralized by Western culture, sometimes sincerely rediscover their own true faith — with violent consequences.

What is needed to strengthen this book’s recommendations for a practical response to Islam is a more thorough theoretical treatment of the problem of Popper’s Paradox, which says (in words too plain for Karl Popper himself) that even open societies, if they are to remain open to some, must remain closed to others.

What do you think?

Read more...

What Would Happen?

What if everyone (or at least a majority) knew and accepted the truth that Islamic doctrine is inherently and predominantly intolerant, aggressive, and violent? What if most non-Muslims found out Islam is not a religion of peace? What if everyone knew that political action to establish Sharia law is a religious duty for all able-bodied Muslims? What if most non-Muslims knew about taqiyya?

What do you think would happen?

Please post your answers as a comment. I will publish an article later with the best answers.

What do you think non-Muslims in the free world would do if everyone understood Islam as we understand it? What new laws would be passed? What new policies would be instigated? What new goals would be pursued? What do you think would be the end result?

Read more...

Why I'm Worried About Islam But Not Christianity

First let me say right up front: I am not a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, or a Buddhist, and I never have been. Neither were my parents. But whenever I talk about Islam to people here in America they almost always bring up Christianity. They compare Christianity with Islam, basically implying that I am criticizing Islam but Christianity is just as bad. Even Christians say this to me.

People who know nothing about Islam try to defend it just because they think of Islam as the underdog (an impression orthodox Muslims have carefully created), and good citizens everywhere instinctively want to defend any group (especially an underdog group) against discrimination or "racism" (even though Islam is not a race).

While Islam looks like other religions westerners are familiar with — Judaism and Christianity — and portrays itself as such, it is profoundly different in important ways.

In response to my statement, "Islam makes the attainment of political goals a religious duty," somebody said to me recently, "Christianity is a political religion too." Below is my answer to him.

This is why I'm worried about Islam's relentless encroachment far more than Christianity's:

• Plenty of people in America and Europe are already aware of the political dangers of Christianity, and have long ago taken steps to prevent it from taking over governments.
• In contrast, very few people in America and Europe know about the dangers of Islam, and, in fact, people are so reflexively against Christianity, they tend to favor Islam and give it the benefit of the doubt. When I talk to people about the most basic principles of Islam, I am often shocked at how little people know about this religion.

• Some Christians have political goals, just as some dog fanciers have political goals.
• But Islam is different in an important way: Muslims have a religious duty to work for political goals — it is a form of devotion and worship — and Muslims don't get to choose what goals they should strive for; the goals have been decreed by Allah. Mohammad was against living in monasteries or living a contemplative life. Muslims do not meditate. The way to show devotion to Allah is to fight for Islam. Literally (and politically).

• As far as I know, no Christians have expressed any desire to kill me. And it would have no doctrinal support from the New Testament if they had.
• Many Jihadis have openly expressed the desire to kill all Americans, many Americans have already been killed by them, and they have plenty of doctrinal support from the Qur'an to justify this killing.

• A Christian can leave Christianity any time they want.
• The penalty for leaving Islam is death.

• When Christians kill, it can only be in spite of Christian teachings.
• When a Jihadi kills, it is likely because of Islamic teachings, and they will tell you so openly and proudly.

• Christians sometimes push for the spread or protection of Christian ideas.
• Jihadis push to do away with hard-earned freedoms and replace the laws of free countries with a repressive, backward system (Shari'a law). It is a religious duty for a Muslim to relentlessly strive for the establishment of Shari'a wherever they are. Allah considers "man-made" governments (democracies, for example) to be illegitimate. The only legitimate laws are Allah's.

• Christian morality insists they tell the truth to all people.
• Islam's morality insists they tell the truth to fellow Muslims but to lie to non-Muslims if it can further the political goals of Islam.

• In battle, Christians will try not to kill innocent bystanders.
• Jihadis don't believe any kafir is innocent and they deliberately kill ordinary (non-military) citizens.

• Christians voluntarily try to follow Jesus's example, and he was peaceful and kind.
• Muslims must follow Mohammad's example (it says so 91 times in the Qur'an they must do so) and Mohammad tortured and killed people.

• For sinning, Jesus advocated forgiveness.
• For sinning, Mohammad advocated stoning and beheading.

• Jesus encouraged his followers to turn the other cheek when people criticized Jesus.
• Mohammad encouraged his followers to assassinate people who criticized Mohammad. Several people who had criticized Mohammad or Islam were killed by Mohammad's followers with Mohammad's consent and approval. One was even assassinated at his request for the sin of criticizing Islam.

• According to Christianity, the guaranteed way of getting into heaven is to believe Jesus died for your sins. 
• According to Islam, the only way for a man to guarantee his passage to heaven is to die while fighting for Islam. By the way, these points I'm making about Islam are not a twisting of Mohammad's teachings; they are not an "interpretation" of Islamic doctrine. Well-read Muslims would agree with my statements. This is all based on mainstream Islamic theology.

Those are the main reasons I am more worried about Islam than Christianity. I used to think Islam and Christianity were very similar, but they are not. Why is Islam so different? The reason is historically interesting.

All other major religions were started within an already-existing state. Islam is an historical exception to this rule.

Any organized government will, of course, put a stop to violent uprisings of a rebellious political group. Christianity arose within the Roman Empire, for example. If Christianity had been a militant or political uprising — if Christianity had tried to take over the government — Rome would have killed or imprisoned all the followers. Probably many military or political religions did start up then, but we've never heard of them. They couldn't get off the ground.

But Islam arose in Arabia when there was no central ruling power. The whole area was comprised of individual tribes. Under those circumstances, the most efficient way to gain converts was by force. And that's how Islam came to be.

Mohammad borrowed many ideas from both Judaism and Christianity, and that's why it bears a superficial similarity to familiar religions. But it is fundamentally different. The circumstances of its time and place of origin led to teachings that were written down and declared sacred, and those teachings now rule 1.3 billion people.

Mohammad's life itself is an example of the principle (that when you don't have power, you cannot promote violence). When Mohammad first started Islam, he was one man with no political power surrounded by many others with their own religions and lots of power. He could not be belligerent or start any wars, so he used persuasion. In the first half of his career, using his persuasive skills, he gained 150 converts. In the second half of his career, he used warfare more and more as he gained numerical and financial strength. Using the "conversion by the sword" method, he gained tens of thousands of converts in the same amount of time. Converting by force is a more effective method if you can get away with it, especially if you can reinforce it with total control of government and the law.

Mohammad created a complete system that rules every aspect of life. But in order to make the system work, Islam must be the law of the land. It doesn't work, for example, to cover all your women so Muslim men are not sexually tempted by their bodies or faces if half the women in the country are not Muslims and walk around in shorts. For the system to work, every woman must be covered. And for that to happen, the government has to follow Shari'a law.

Mohammad used force to gain converts, and all his decrees and justifications for his actions were written down in the Qur'an, which are now memorized and studied by over a billion people, many of whom take the teachings to heart. The result is a powerful, unrelenting push for Islamic political power all over the world. Their percentage of the world's population keeps increasing.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

If you like this article, send it to people who give you the Christianity comparison. Read it several times and use the specific answers next time someone makes the comparison in a conversation. And if you can think of any other good answers, please leave them in the comments to this article for others to use.

Read more...

Infidels Around the World Unite

Whoever is the most organized will win the conflict between orthodox Muslims and non-Muslims. And a new tool has been created to help the non-Muslims organize. It's called Infidels United. It will never censor you for posting something about Islam.

I don't recommend you give up Facebook, because we can use it to reach those friends and family who still need to be educated about Islam (here is how to use it for that purpose).

But for mutual support, for insider news, for sharing with each other good links, articles, and arguments — and for launching coordinated actions — Infidels United is helpful. All of us should sign up and get our fellow counterjihad friends to sign up too. You can use an alias freely at Infidels United, unlike Facebook. The creator of the site understands the danger of our work and respects our need for anonymity.

When coordinated action needs to be taken, it would be helpful to have a central communications hub where the message can get to everyone. Infidels United fits the bill.

Read more...

A Citizen Warrior Fighting the Good Fight in Terre Haute

A READER and dedicated counterjihadist named Ramachandra got a letter published in the Tribune Star on March 4, 2011. With his permission, we are republishing it along with our congratulations on his persistence and clarity. Here is his letter:

The pitfalls of understanding Islamic law

In the Feb. 6 Tribune-Star, syndicated columnist Diana West states (referring to the Islamic world) that “their freedom is not necessarily our freedom.” In fact, language is a major impediment in understanding Islam, as pointed out by Gregory Davis in his book, “Religion of Peace? Islam’s War Against the World.”

Davis mentions the following issues:

When the Islamic world refers to the “establishment of justice,” it means the “the establishment of Sharia.” Sharia is Islamic law which mandates the subjugation, oppression and exploitation of non-Muslims and women; hardly something that the free world would term “justice.” Islamic law institutionalizes male Islamic supremacism, to the detriment of non-Muslims and women. Thus “Islamic justice” constitutes “injustice” for non-Muslims and women.

When Sayyid Qutb, the guiding light of the Muslim Brotherhood, affirmed that “Islam is a Religion of Peace” in his book, “Islam and Universal Peace,” what he meant was this: “Islam seeks the subjugation of the whole world under Sharia. When Sharia becomes universally triumphant, peace will reign; therefore Islam is a Religion of Peace.” Thus the “peace” of Islam can only be achieved after non-Muslim civilization has been destroyed.

Islamic virtues such as “mercy,” “forgiveness,” “kindness,” etc. apply toward other Muslims, not to mankind in general. In fact, being unfriendly to non-Muslims is considered a virtue in Islam. (The Koran, Surah 5 Verse 51: “Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends”). Thus “virtue” in Islam is what would be considered “rude behavior” in the West.

Islam forbids suicide, but in Surah 9 Verse 111, The Koran promises paradise to those who “kill (non-Muslims) and are killed” in the cause of Allah. Thus while suicide is forbidden by Islam, it becomes a virtue in “suicide bombings,” if it results in the killing of non-Muslims.

Both Western society and Islam forbid rape, but “rape” means very different things in the two societies.

In the West, rape is any form of nonconsensual sexual intercourse. However, in Islam, consent is not required of “those women whom one’s right hand possesses,” that is, non-Muslim women captured during jihad (The Koran, Surah 33, Verse 52). Thus non-consensual sexual intercourse with non-Muslim women captured during jihad is lawful under Islamic Law. Thus what would be considered rape in the West is a lawful act in Islamic Law.

Indeed, language is an impediment in understanding Islam.

— Ramachandra

Are you looking for something you can do that would make a difference? Here's something: Write clear, persuasive letters to the editor of your local paper, and keep writing and clarifying and improving your ability to communicate until you get something published. This is not the first letter Ramachandra has written to the editor. This isn't even the first letter he's had published. He persists and he succeeds. He's an example for us all.

Here's another letter to the editor, published in Terre Haute: The contradictions of ‘peaceful’ Islam.

Read more...

The Achilles' Heel of the West

Achilles was invincible, so the story goes. He was strong and lightning fast, and in every battle he was undefeatable. But when he was shot with an arrow through the back of his heel, he was momentarily disabled, and that gave his enemies enough time to finish him off.

The West seems invincible too. We have superior technology and war-making know-how. We seem undefeatable. But we have a weakness. It is known in North America as "white guilt." In Europe it's called "post-colonial guilt."

But this guilt is founded on a mistake we should all easily see. The mistake is a simple overgeneralization (the enemy of us all). If we looked at it from another angle, most of us could clearly recognize the error.

If someone said, "All Muslims should die because of what they did to us on 9/11," almost everyone could see something wrong with the statement. Not all Muslims were involved in bringing down the Twin Towers. Some Muslims hadn't even been born yet. So it would be a moral wrong to punish all Muslims for what some Muslims did.

Let's look at it from another angle. Let's say an African-American kills a European-American in a robbery. Should all African-Americans be punished for this? Should all African-Americans even feel guilty about it? No, absolutely not. Just because someone is a member of your race or religion does not mean you are responsible for what they do. They are individual human beings, and they choose their own destiny. All African-Americans should not be held responsible for what any individual African-American does.

We can easily see this. And yet what is white guilt?

For a "white" person, it says "because some people in the past lacked the same amount of skin pigment as you, and because they did some terrible things to people of dissimilar pigmentation (Native Americans or Africans, for example), then you should feel guilty about it, and feel responsible for it, and people your level of pigmentation should do something to make amends for it." Nobody says this explicitly, but it is an unspoken basic assumption in the hearts of a large percentage of people of European descent. It is a presupposition so widespread, it is almost never even spoken aloud, and yet it underlies much of what is spoken and done.

This guilt is a major weakness, and orthodox Muslims are aggressively exploiting it.

As long as we are paralyzed by this arrow through our heel, orthodox Muslims have the upper hand. We are vulnerable.

Many of us have familiarized ourselves with Islamic doctrine, and we seek to educate our fellow non-Muslims about the information, and we seek to propose solutions to the problem, but we are often labeled as "racists." It is an oxymoron. It doesn't make any sense. It's crazy. But it is effectively making many people in prominent places — politicians and news commentators, for example — back off from saying anything honest about Islam.

Very few people have examined the guilt clearly enough to recognize the unarticulated, mistaken assumption it is based on, so a public charge of racism can be devastating to a person's career. A sizable portion of the population is motivated to bend over backwards for Muslims because of an undiscerning guilt — a guilt that stems from a feeling that "we" have harmed people of other religions and races and that we can (and should) make it up to the "oppressed" and "downtrodden" underdogs of the world.

I heard a 19 year-old freshman in college talking the other day about his class in early American history. He was upset about all the terrible things "we" did to the Native Americans. He clearly felt appalled and guilty about it.

I asked him, "Have you ever done anything bad to a Native American?"

"No," he said, "but white people did."

"Are you somehow responsible for what other white people did?" I asked. He seemed confused. He had completely accepted the point of view of his teacher and textbook (it's the standard position of many teachers and textbook authors that "we" should feel guilty for what "we" did).

I asked him, "If you were transported back to those times, would you have done anything bad to the Native Americans?"

He said, "I don't think so."

I said, "Were any of your ancestors living in America at that time?"

"I don't know."

"So let me get this straight," I said, because I can't seem to leave well enough alone sometimes, "your ancestors may have still been living in Europe and had nothing to do with what other Europeans were doing to the Native Americans, and even if they were living in America at the time, you really are not responsible for what your great, great, great grandparents did anyway, are you? And yet here you are feeling guilty for something you would never do and have never done, and maybe even your ancestors never did it? Your ancestors might have even been working on the other side of that issue for all you know, trying to free slaves or fight for the rights of Native Americans! Doesn't that seem kind of crazy?"

People accept this point of view — this white guilt or post-colonial guilt — and they teach their children the same guilt. And it has consequences. When the Muslim Students Association wants to create their own prayer room just for Muslims on a college campus, they make their appeal to administrators who have a deep-seated, well-ingrained white guilt, and these Muslims know the administrators have this guilt, and they press on that sore spot. It usually doesn't take much before the administrators acquiesce. And a little Muslim enclave has just been created. A little piece of Sharia law has been implemented (every concession to Islam is an incremental establishment of Sharia law). And as time goes on, the concession becomes accepted as permanently established because it has "always been there."

Muslims are getting away with this sort of thing all over the free world. In this gradual way, Western culture is giving way to Islamic culture. Islam is a ratchet.

What causes Western culture to give way? The main culprit is white guilt. If a student had come in and said, "We are Scientologists and we want our own prayer room," the administrator would have chuckled and wondered how someone could be so stupid as to think they could demand such a thing on a college campus!

Why the different response? White guilt does not apply to Scientology. Or Catholicism. Or Protestantism.

Everywhere orthodox Muslims are pressing for concessions — concessions they would not get if they were Catholics or Scientologists — the white guilt blinders need to be removed so the request can be seen for what it is, and those special privileges and special considerations can then be refused in exactly the same way all the others would be refused, and with no guilt.

"We" don't owe anybody anything because of what "our" ancestors may have done. We are all here now. Let's move forward. When you're talking to your friends, keep your ears tuned to white guilt. You will often hear it as a presupposition in what they say. Point it out when you hear it. Shine some light on it. Ask them if they feel guilty. Ask them if they feel responsible for what other Americans or Europeans or Caucasians have done in the past. And make it clear to them that this is the same mistake — this is the identical mistake — that racists make when they say some derisive comment about a race.

Your friend's guilt arises from an overgeneralization. The more people who understand this, the more often orthodox Muslims will be thwarted in their efforts to gain concessions. Right now the free world is yielding to Muslim pressure. Let's put a stop to it every place we can.

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...

Robert Spencer Proposed a Realistic Solution

ONCE YOU come to grips with the fact that Islam has not been hijacked, and that it teaches the necessity to strive to establish Sharia law everywhere in the world by any means necessary, one question fixates your mind: "Good grief! What are we going to do about this?"

I've heard everything from "Nuke em all" to "get used to the idea of an Islamic world because it is inevitable." This is an extremely difficult challenge. What kind of solution can we possibly come up with? We have a lot of Muslims in the world. Not all of them are orthodox, but there are enough of them to pose a serious problem for free societies.

Should the religion be banned altogether? That doesn't fit with our fundamental values. And it probably wouldn't work anyway.

This question is important. One of the reasons people don't want to even consider the possibility that mainstream Islam might be fundamentally supremacist, political, and aggressive, is that having a big problem without any solution in sight is hard to take in. The mind naturally wants to reject the premise. It can't be. It must be untrue. Rejection of the idea is reflexive, automatic, and robust.

But what if you had a possible solution? What if you had an idea that wouldn't involve any of the horrible possibilities people are afraid of? It would make your listener more willing to consider the possibility that your original premise (that Islam is supremacist, political, and aggressive) might really be true.

In an excellent talk available on YouTube entitled, Islam or Islamism?: Robert Spencer at the Vienna Forum, May 8, 2010, I thought Spencer's closing remarks offered one of the most sensible solutions I've ever heard, so I transcribed his closing remarks below.

The only thing that could prevent the application of Robert Spencer's proposed solution is if we fail at getting the word out. If enough people understood Islam the way you and I do, this solution could be put into practice, and it would manage the problem. As Spencer has said, not all problems can be solved, but every problem can be managed. Here are Robert Spencer's closing remarks:

The implications of what I'm saying are very bad. There's no way to sugarcoat them. But there are precedents. And there are useful ways forward — if we have the courage to face this problem as it truly is.

This is a problem within Islamic teaching, within core Islamic teaching, founded on the Quran. As such, wherever there are Islamic communities, there will be terrorism and efforts to impose elements of Islamic law through peaceful means, to assert the precedence of Islamic law over the laws of the state in which the Muslims happen to be residing. That will always happen.

Now, in 1945, the McArthur government — the occupational government in Japan — issued an edict saying that Shinto (the religion of the Japanese that had fueled Japanese imperial militarism in World War II) would have no interference from the United States' occupying forces as an expression of individual piety, as the religion of any Japanese citizen. No interference whatsoever from the government. However, Shinto would have no role in the government or in the schools.

The distinction was made — it was imposed from without — that Shinto would have no way to express the political militarism that had led to World War II in the first place.

Now, the United States, Great Britain, Europe, are all facing a very similar problem, with growing Muslim communities asserting political and societal notions that are at variance with our ideas of the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, the equality of rights of women with men, the equality of rights of all people before the law.

If our governments had the courage to stand up and say that any assertion of these political aspects of Islam that are at variance with our existing laws will be considered to be seditious under existing sedition laws, there would be a tremendous amount of progress made on this problem.

But of course we're nowhere near that, because we can't even admit that there are such initiatives going on from the Islamic communities as such.

And so as long as this unrealism persists, then the cognitive dissonance will continue to grow. And as long as the cognitive dissonance continues to grow, so also will the assertiveness and beligerence of the Islamic communities in the West, because they will see that we are not able and not willing to take the decisive steps necessary to do anything serious to stop them.

Read more...

A Parable For Our Time

I HAVE HAMMERED on one theme — that we only need to focus on educating the public about Islam. And the reason I have hammered on it is because many people who have awakened to the terrifying brilliance of Islam are looking for something else to do about it.

But educating our family and friends is the vital first step. Once a large percentage of the population is aware of what's in the Quran, everything else that needs to be done will be easy. Until that point, everything else that needs to be done is damn near impossible. How we understand Islam will determine the policy decisions we collectively endorse or resist. That's why we created The Pledge.

Many of us underestimate the power of simple knowledge. But the fate of Flight 93 illustrates what a big difference a little knowledge can make.

What was the difference between the passengers who passively allowed the Islamic supremacists to fly their three planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, and the passengers on board Flight 93 who aggressively stopped their plane from reaching its intended target?

The only difference was that the passengers on Flight 93 had a little knowledge of the true intentions of the hijackers.

When enough non-Muslims in the world know the true intentions of the Islamic supremacists, Islam's relentless encroachment will be stopped.

Read more...

Questions for Every Muslim

The following was written by Bill Warner and originally published December 14, 2009

WHEN YOU STUDY the incident of Major Hasan at Fort Hood, you realize that there were some questions that needed to have been asked. But, no one knew what to ask, since the wrong questions might seem, well, politically incorrect. No one wants to be politically incorrect. We don't want to offend.

If you look around you will find that no one is asking any Muslims hard questions. Never mind the Major Hasan types, no one asks questions to the Muslim at work. It turns out that there are many questions that each and every Muslim should be asked. These are simple ones that deal with the core of Islam. Every Muslim knows the answers.

"Do you believe that the Koran is perfect?" This is not offensive. Muslims must believe that the Koran is perfect, without error. They also believe that it is eternal and universal. Most of all, it came from the lips of Mohammed.

"Is Mohammed the ideal Muslim? Should Muslims pattern their life after Mohammed?" Again, don't worry that Muslims will find this awkward. Mohammed is admired, looked up to, and idealized. He is the perfect father, husband, friend, warrior, wise elder and best companion that could be.

These questions establish the Islam of the believer. Every Muslim believes that the Koran is perfect, and Mohammed is the ideal human.

Islam is only partially based on the Koran. Far more of a Muslim's life is governed by Mohammed than the Koran and Allah. Why is this so important? The practical way to understand Islam and what Muslims believe and think is to know about Mohammed. This is very good news. Anyone can understand Mohammed's life.

However, once you get to know Mohammed, the perfect Muslim, Islam becomes problematic. From the first days of being a prophet Mohammed not only preached a better way of life, but he attacked all those who did not believe him. He created a new type of human being called the kafir, usually called unbeliever, but this is not an accurate translation. A kafir is the worst person in the world; an unbeliever is just someone who does not believe. A kafir can be mocked, deceived, tortured, enslaved, murdered, robbed, raped, and plotted against. Kafir is the worst word in the human language.

Now we are ready to ask a Muslim another question. "Am I a kafir?"

The only answer is yes, but that is not the answer you will get. If you are a Christian you will be told no, you are a person of the Book. That sounds nice, but if you don't believe that both Jesus and Mohammed were the prophets of Allah and that the Gospels are false, then you are a Christian kafir. They also might say that you are a non-Muslim, but that is not what the Koran says. The Koran says that you are a kafir.

Now we come to more questions that should be asked, but most people do not have the knowledge to ask them, since the questions are based on knowing Mohammed's life. As an example, Mohammed repeatedly advised Muslims to deceive kafirs if it would advance Islam. So: "Have you ever deceived a kafir?" is appropriate to ask.

Mohammed assassinated kafirs, tortured, enslaved, robbed and plotted against them. His entire life as a prophet was an attempt to make kafirs submit to Islam by any means possible. It is proper then to ask: "How do you feel about what he did?"

If you are a Christian, ask: "Over 60 million Christians have been killed in jihad. Christians are persecuted daily in Islamic lands. Have you ever apologized for this?"

If you are a black American, ask: "Islam sold slaves on the West coast of Africa, the east coast of Africa and the Mediterranean. You enslaved over a million Europeans. Why do you never take any responsibility for slavery?"

If you are a Jew, ask: "How do you see the war against Israel as jihad?"

The other reason we do not ask questions is that we have become a nation of deceivers under political correctness. We don't ask Muslims any question that would make them feel "uncomfortable."

It is completely reasonable to ask anyone about their ideology. Christians, Jews, liberals, conservatives and every other ideology have to answer questions about what they believe. Why not Muslims?

That is the true question for kafirs: "Why are Muslims the only people in the world who don't have to be asked difficult questions about what they believe?"

All Muslims must answer questions about Islam, questions about Mohammed and the Koran for the only way to know a Muslim is to know their Islam.

Bill Warner

Permalink
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.

Read more...

Is It Racist to Criticize Islam?

WHEN I'M TALKING about Islamic teachings, sometimes people say, "That seems racist." I usually respond that I'm talking about the teachings, not the person, and that it couldn't be racist anyway because Islam is not a race. There are Muslims of every race on earth.

I make the point that: "Even if I were to say, 'All Muslims are evil,' that's not racism, either. It would be an overgeneralization, but it's not racism. If I said, 'Indonesians are evil,' THAT would be racism."

I just came across a story I'm going to keep in mind next time someone accuses me of racism. As the story shows, anyone from any race or country can be a devout Muslim, and if he is following the strict teachings of Islam, he is a threat to any non-Muslim of any race. The story is about training whites in Muslim training camps.

The "racism response" is one of the most common reactions people have when they hear about Islamic supremacism. You and I need to be clear on why our criticisms of Islam are not racism so we can answer effectively.

If I said the tenets, recruitment practices, and indoctrination techniques of the Ku Klux Klan are dangerous to civil rights in America, would anyone call my statement "racist?" Would it be called "hate speech?" Am I suffering from KuKluxKlanophobia?

No, those criticisms would be ridiculous. Rather, my statement that the tenets, recruitment practices, and indoctrination techniques are dangerous to civil rights is a legitimate statement of debate, and there is nothing the matter with stating it openly and talking about it.

But say the same about Islamic supremacism in mixed company and there is an almost audible gasp, and an embarrassed silence, as if you had broken some sacred taboo. Why? The Islamic supremacists themselves have been accusing their critics of racism and hate speech and Islamophobia, and they've influenced the mainstream media to do the same, so it has entered the mainstream cultural thought-process. Now, it is an almost automatic emotional reaction.

Islamic supremacists have been using these accusations because they know in this country we have a hot-button on those issues. Nobody wants to be considered racist. The Jihadis use this fact as a weapon.

So we need to carefully and effectively explain to everyone why criticism of Islam is quite different from hate speech, Islamophobia, or racism. Make this distinction clearly and persuasively. People need to hear about Islam, but as long as they have this barrier to their listening, you can't get through.

Start with the idea that learning about Islam actually prevents racism.

Read more...

Identifying Jihadis in America

The following was written by Martel Sobieskey. When I first read it, I thought his suggestion was somewhat extreme, but the further into the article I read, the more sensible it seemed. I would be interested to know what you think about it (in the comments on this article).

Here it is, Sobieskey's "Identifying Jihadis in America:"

THE “SPECTER” of a nuclear bloodbath hangs over America, caused by a jihadist frenzy “foaming at the mouth” for our destruction. In order to “flush out” these nuclear maniacs, registration of the entire Muslim community in America is absolutely essential. The jihadist nuke-America agenda is not an idle threat, particularly since they have already acquired the weapons (see chapter 6 “Ignoring the Booming Nuclear Black Market” of Dr. Paul Williams’s book, Dunces of Doomsday).

Furthermore, experts agree that several thousand jihadists are living comfortably within the Muslim community, a combination of foreign jihadists and “homegrown” jihadists. The “homegrown” varieties are militant Muslims born and raised in the United States. (See Steven Emerson’s book, Jihad Incorporated: A Guide to Militant Islam in the US.)

The incendiary mix of foreign jihadists, “homegrown” jihadists, and nuclear weapons is an “ominous fuse ready to be lit” clearly warning that 500,000 Americans can be vaporized in an instant! This is no paranoid exaggeration, but a clear and present danger. F.B.I. Director, Robert Mueller, informed Ronald Kessler of News Max on May 15, 2007:

“. . . al-qaida’s paramount goal is clear: to detonate a nuclear device that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans…We are going to be hit at some point…it’s just a question of when and to what extent.”

Failure to Protect Ourselves

The F.B.I. boss nearly guarantees we will suffer a jihadist nuclear attack, yet America remains paralyzed with self-complacency and disbelief. Have we become a nation of sheep ready for the slaughter?

The answer is yes; proven by our failure to enact the safeguards designed to protect us.

What must be done? We need to immediately implement the 1940 Alien Registration Act (Smith Act), and the 1798 Alien Enemies Act thereby registering all Muslims living in the USA and placing them under intense scrutiny.

This is no time to be polite, servile, or politically cowardly. We need to get the job done. According to Dr. Graham T. Allison of Harvard University: 500,000 killed would be the number of instant victims if a small (10 kiloton) nuke were set off in New York’s Times Square on a typical day. Dr. Allison gives the carnage a greater than 50% chance of happening.

Dr. Allison’s website at www.nuclearterror.org is crucially informative and brings home the harsh realities by providing a nuclear blast map which can be applied to your own city. His book, Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe, reveals that nuclear terrorism is inevitable if we continue on our present course, which in my opinion, is “floating” like a sitting duck waiting to get blown out of the water.

Why not break the impasse and protect ourselves? Registering Muslims will “throw a monkey wrench” into the jihadist plan, greatly reducing the probability of an attack. Please think deeply about this. Do you want to stop a nuclear attack or not?

The Precedent for Registration

In times of emergency all nations must monitor and register large groups of people, if they wish to survive. Unfortunately, a large percentage of Americans have lost their survival instinct, taking for granted their privileged lives which they mistakenly believe are “cost” free. They couldn’t be more wrong. Each American is obligated to share the “cost” of protecting our nation. Already, more than 4,000 soldiers have been killed, and a few million others are serving in the military, police and security community.

Compared to these heroes, registration is a minor inconvenience and minuscule price to pay. Shamefully, many Americans have become so selfishly spoiled and hubristic that they flatly refuse to suffer even the slightest inconvenience when asked to protect their nation. You will find these loathsome fools screaming “bloody murder” at the slightest hint of security measures such as registration of Muslims or the Patriot Act. No loyal American or reasonable person will behave so deplorably; such blatant irresponsibility emboldens the jihadists' nuke-America obsession. Registration proved very effective during WWII and is infinitely more necessary today.

Prior to World War II, a total of 4,741,971 aliens were registered in a period of 4 months, in order to uncover the enemies hiding within. President Roosevelt was prudent enough to make a “hot pursuit” of potential saboteurs. As a result, he successfully prevented internal attacks upon our homeland for the duration of WWII.

Today, it is imperative we follow Roosevelt’s example and register every Muslim 14 years or older. Each must be required to submit their photo, fingerprints, address, date and place of birth, physical description, occupation, employment history, arrest record, names of relatives in the USA and abroad, memberships in clubs, organizations, societies, and other pertinent data. The harshest penalties, for those who fail to register or lie, such as prison or deportation, must necessarily apply.

Michelle Malkin’s book, In Defense of Internment, provides a definitive report completely debunking the erroneous views of those opposing registration. Obviously, in times of great emergency, such as the present nuclear threat, national security takes precedence over the civil liberties of peacetime. Once again, ask yourself do you want to stop a nuclear attack on our homeland or not? Obviously, we must be proactive in preventing it.

The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 requires that when any predatory incursion is attempted or threatened against the United States, the President can make a public proclamation in order to single out and “round up the group” within which the enemies are hiding. This is exactly the course which needs to be pursued with the Muslim community today. It is a fact that the jihadists are hiding within our homeland and we must do whatever it takes to stop to them. It is well past time to “take off the gloves” and get down to the business of protecting ourselves. The noble adage — the price of freedom is eternal vigilance — has never been more relevant.

Weak-Minded

Nearly 50% of Americans are so weak-minded that the jihadist hate-America lobby believes that by simply calling us names like Islamophobe we will “shrink up” and let down our guard — enabling them to nuke us. So far they are 100% correct; nearly the entire Democratic Party refuses to defend our national security and remains adamantly in denial about the jihadist nuclear threat to our homeland. They are definitely suffering from the same mental disorder that afflicted Neville Chamberlain when he believed “romancing” and appeasing Adolph Hitler would bring peace to the world.

But the facts cry out loudly; never has there been a more urgent need to single out a group of people. Registration will serve as a much-needed litmus test, sorting out the elusive moderate Muslims from the militants.

Certainly, anyone who protests registration is not a moderate Muslim but an enemy to the United States’ national security. If you believe such opinion to be impolite, then most likely you have failed to “face the fact” that this is the age of jihadist nuclear terrorism.

Please think deeply: The jihadists possess an extremely entrenched homicidal mania and religious fervor to nuke us and their plan is well underway. This point cannot be overemphasized.

A Million Times More Dangerous

One of the world’s richest men, insurance magnate, Warren Buffet believes a nuclear terrorist attack on American soil is going to occur. At an annual meeting of Berkshire Hathaway he stated, “We’re going to have something of a major nuclear event in this country…It will happen — whether it will happen in 10 years or 10 minutes, or 50 years…it’s virtually a certainty.”

Today the threat of a jihadist nuclear attack on American soil is a million times more dangerous than the threat by conventional weapons during WWII. But things get even worse. The jihadists plan to nuke 7 American cities simultaneously and kill 4 million Americans. This is a sinister goal well-documented by Dr. Paul Williams. They will do just that if we fail to prevent it.

What is wrong with us? We registered 5 million people prior to WWII, but now, facing a nuclear weapon, we remain inert. Have we become our own worst enemy? The answer is yes.

Let’s compare the gravity of the situation. Today less than a dozen nuclear jihadists can vaporize 500,000 Americans in an instant. On the other hand, during WWII 350,000 Americans were killed during a 4-year period, and it took several million enemy soldiers armed with enormous amounts of weaponry to do so. Without doubt the risk we now face is astounding, beyond belief, and makes WWII seem infinitesimal.

Consequently, we can no longer afford to give a “religious pass” to the Muslim community because the majority of them are not nuclear jihadists. To the contrary, the severity of the nuclear threat is so far off the charts, we are forced to subject all Muslims to the utmost scrutiny in order to weed out the bad apples hiding amongst them. There is no other choice.

Conclusion

Anyone who disagrees with registration of the Muslims in America is a suicidal fool if not an outright enemy to American national security. Such chastisement is well justified because the consequences of failing to act are apocalyptic. “One bad apple spoils the whole bunch” especially when it’s a nuclear apple. We must take out all the stops in order to thwart the jihadist dream of massacring us on our own soil.

So enormous is the jihadist nuke-America threat that the Department of Homeland Security developed a special department called the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) on April 15, 2005. Well done indeed! One of their strategic objectives is to establish situational awareness through information sharing and analysis. The registration of Muslims will greatly enhance and facilitate this objective, proving to be the key ingredient for success. On the other hand, continuing the status quo of non-registration will neutralize, if not forecast a failure (which means we get nuked).

Registering Muslims is obligatory for preventing a jihadist nuclear blast on American soil as well as the other types of WMD’s. It is the epitome of negligence not to implement all methods of prevention. Remember 9/11 anyone? Let not history repeat itself by making a commission — after the debacle — in order to decide what should have been done to prevent it. Let’s do the right thing now!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Martel Sobieskey has 36 years research experience in the field of religious conditioning and its relationship to warfare. He is greatly alarmed that American politicians, military commanders, educators, journalists, intelligence analysts, security and police personnel have failed to comprehend the deeply entrenched jihadist conditioning inherent in all of Islam — moderates included.

Read more...

Promote Peace...One School at a Time

In the back of the book, Three Cups of Tea, which you can read about here, Greg Mortenson (the lecturer in the photo) writes, "It is my vision that we all will dedicate the next decade to achieve universal literacy and education for all children, especially for girls.

"More than 145 million of the world's children are deprived of education due to poverty, exploitation, slavery, gender discrimination, religious extremism, and corrupt governments. May Three Cups of Tea be a catalyst to bring the gift of literacy to each of those children who deserves a chance to go to school."

He has several suggestions of things you can do to help. Here are the three I encourage you to do:

1. Visit ThreeCupsOfTea.com for more information, book reviews, updates on events, and more ideas. If you're going to buy a copy of the book, buy it through this web site and seven percent of your purchase goes directly to a girls education scholarship fund in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Buy a few copies for your library if you want to do more.

2. Suggest the book to a friend, workmate, book club, or to any group you're associated with.

3. Make a contribution to the Central Asia Institute (Greg Mortenson's school-building non-profit organization). It costs one dollar per month for a child's education in Pakistan or Afghanistan, a penny to buy a pencil, and a teacher's salary averages one dollar a day. Contribute here:

Central Asia Institute
PO Box 7209
Bozeman MT 59771

Phone: 406-585-7841

www.ikat.org

His work is worth supporting. It is a practical and uplifting way to help prevent the spread of fundamentalist Muslims schooled in Wahhabi madrassas, while at the same time giving young women an education they wouldn't otherwise get.

Learn more about Mortenson's work: Three Cups of Tea.

Read more...

Stop the Jihad on Campus In Progress

The Terrorism Awareness Project has an "update" page on what's happening on campuses this week during Stop the Jihad on Campus Week. Here are a few stories:

Penn State: Stick to Football Oct 15, 2008

Courageous members of the Young America's Foundation chapter at Penn State sponsored my talk there tonight. Courageous? Certainly. Not only do they have to deal with ostracism, ridicule, and abuse on a more or less regular basis, but tonight one of the attendees at my talk told the YAF student organizer that he better be careful to "walk a narrow line." more>>>

A Tale of Two Advertisemements Oct 14, 2008

The David Horowitz Freedom Center bought an advertisement in the UNW Post, school newspaper at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, to publicize Robert Spencer’s speech there on October 16 as part of Islamo Fascism Awareness Week III. On October 13 the ad appeared with an answering ad on the opposite page of the school there was a full page ad which was taken out by Muslim Students Association (MSA). more>>>

'Stop the Jihad' week declared Oct 14, 2008

Conservative author David Horowitz puts some of the blame for extremism being encouraged on college campuses on the Muslim Student Association (MSA), which he says is more of a political group than a religious group, and hides its agenda under the guise of representing Western students. more>>>

Stifling Debate at Eastern Tennessee State Oct 13, 2008

When East Tennessee State University grad student Sean Rife tried to bring author Robert Spencer to campus, he wasn’t looking to start a fight. As the president of ETSU’s Society for Intellectual Diversity, a non-partisan student group that champions free debate and academic freedom, Rife was just looking to stir discussion about a subject, Islamic terrorism, which increasingly has come to dominate Americans’ concerns. But a fight — and a lesson in politically correct bullying — is exactly what he got. more>>>

If you'd like to help the work they're doing, go here to find out what you can do: Become a campus coordinator, report activities by pro-jihadists on campus, donate to the project, find out where an event is taking place and attend or write about an event for your local paper.

Read more...

Stop the Jihad on Campus

DURING THE WEEK of October 13-17, students on more than 100 campuses will hold events under the banner of "Stop the Jihad on Campus," a campaign designed to make the university community aware of the growing power of the Muslim Students Association (otherwise known as "MSA," pictured in the photo above speaking on a campus) and other campus groups that support the jihad against America, Israel and the West.

The objective of “Stop the Jihad on Campus” Week is to publicize the ties between the Muslim Student Association and the radical Islamist Muslim Brotherhood — godfather organization to al-Qaeda and Hamas — and to begin a movement to defund the MSA for misrepresenting its agendas and obstructing free speech on campuses.

One hundred Muslim Students Associations contacted by the Horowitz Freedom Center have refused to condemn the genocidal terror groups Hamas and Hizbullah, and have declined to repudiate the infamous Hadith which calls on Muslims to kill Jews to bring about the Day of Judgment.

The call to withdraw recognition and funds from the Muslim Student Association is not an attempt to suppress speech, even hate speech. The MSA has a First Amendment Right to spread lies about Israel and the Jews, to express hatred of gays and contempt for women (on the other hand, the University does not have an obligation to support such hatred). The Freedom Center’s call to defund the MSA is based on their deception about the nature of their organization and their attempts to obstruct speakers they disagree with who are invited to campus.

The MSA national headquarters recently sent the radical imam Sheikh Khalid Yasin on a speaking tour to Penn State, Ohio State, Minnesota State, the University of Minnesota and St. Clould University with the help of student funds. Sheik Yasin claims the U.S. government was behind 9/11, that homosexuals should be put to death, that AIDS was invented in U.S. government laboratories; and that Jews are “filth” deserving of death.

In securing funds for hate speakers such as Khalid Yasin, the MSA has misrepresented itself as a religious and cultural organization subscribing to the general multicultural idea of harmony and mutual respect.

“The MSA has surrounded its misogyny and homophobia and hatred of Israel and America with a certain ambiguity. But by sponsoring supporters of terrorist organizations such as Hamas and refusing to condemn or even distance itself from such organizations, it reveals its solidarity with them,” says Freedom Center President David Horowitz. Horowitz notes that “Hamas and Hizbollah make no bones about their determination to kill the Jews, but I have personally and publicly confronted MSA leaders who will not condemn their vile deeds and poisonous agendas. Not a single MSA leader — not one — has stepped forward to declare clear and unambiguous condemnation of two of the most violent and genocidal terrorist organizations in the world."

Much is tolerated on campus today because of the contemporary university’s conception of itself as a free marketplace of ideas. But there is no official tolerance for hatred of African Americans or for hatred of women and gays, unless it is expressed by radical Muslim speakers such as Sheik Yasin.

The MSA takes advantage of the current emphasis of multiculturalism and diversity on campus to posture as a religious or cultural organization whose “traditions” must be respected. But Horowitz charges, “This group has nothing in common with Hillel, the Newman Club, or other such groups. It may hide its agenda by posturing as a religious and cultural organization, but it is a hardcore political organization committed to the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood and the radical Islamic jihad.”

Muslim Students Association chapters at universities around the country receive heavy funding from student governments based on the fiction that they are merely one of many “diversity” groups on campus. “The MSA is in fact an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization, which has created a network of front groups to conduct a stealth jihad in America. This network includes CAIR, the Muslim American Society and the Islamic Society of North America,” David Horowitz points out.

The Muslim Student Association’s relationship to the Muslim Brotherhood was revealed as a result of documents seized by the FBI in 2007 as part of the government case against the subversive Holy Land Foundation. In these documents a Muslim Brotherhood operative makes clear the organization’s chief objective: “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within…” He makes clear too that this objective will be achieved by the “stable organizations that are connected with our Movement and which fly in our orbit.” Chief among the organizations he named as advancing this cause in America was the Muslim Student Association, which the Brotherhood had helped create in the U.S. years earlier.

Stop the Jihad on Campus Week will reveal these connections and show that giving university money to this organization violates every community standard the universities themselves have set, and in the long run is suicidal.

More information on “Stop the Jihad on Campus” can be found at the Terrorism Awareness Project.

If you'd like to participate, help, donate, please do. Here is something practical we can do to bring more awareness to the goals and scale of the Islam's relentless encroachment into the free world.

Contact: Elizabeth Ruiz
818-849-3470, ext. 202
Elizabeth@horowitzfreedomcenter.org

And here's a Powerpoint-like presentation you can watch online about the connections between terrorists and the Muslim Students Association: Jihad in American Academia.

The article above was copied from The Terrorism Awareness Project, slightly edited by Citizen Warrior.

Watch a three and a half minute YouTube video on Stop the Jihad on Campus.

Read more...