Glamourbombing

I received an email a couple of days ago from a woman named Kate. I liked her idea and got her permission to publish it here:

After reading most of the stuff on your site, I can see why, for most people, this subject sends them into a glassy-eyed state of denial. Islam is so insidious and counter to the way most people in the West think, that it is just a lot to take in.

So, how do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. I have a suggestion that you might want to pose to people. There is a practice called "glamourbombing" where people, mostly teens and young adults, leave objects in unexpected places, to surprise and hopefully delight the finder. So, I leave the Danish and other cartoons depicting the truthful irony of "Islam," in library books, coffee shops, book stores etc.

If even one new person starts to pay attention, it is worth the little time and effort it takes me.

Kate sent along two examples (below) of cartoons depicting the irony of Islam.





Another simple way to intrigue people and help educate them is to get some of those business cards you can print on your home printer and make cards that say nothing but "InquiryIntoIslam.com" and put them wherever you can. Some grocery stores, for example, have a place you can post your business cards, or a bulletin board. Every time you go to the store, re-stock the cards.

People who are interested will seek more information.

Kate is right. Islam's relentless encroachment is a difficult topic, full of controversy. A gentle introduction is probably best.

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...

Petitions to Stop Muslim Immigration Into Western Democracies

Some Muslims move to Western countries for a better life. But some want to follow Mohammad's example (as it says they should 91 times in the Koran) and make the governments of their adopted home eventually follow Sharia law rather than the already existing laws. We have no test to determine the political intentions of a Muslim, so it is a prudent caution to stop Muslim immigration until such a test is created. So please join with us and sign a petition to stop Muslim immigration now:

For U.S. citizens, ACT! for America has a new petition to stop Syrian Refugees from entering the U.S. It is an open letter to Congress. Read about it here, complete with links to the petition: No Syrian Refugees to the U.S.

Here are things U.S. citizens can do: Three Ways to Tell Your Legislator No Refugees.

Petition to Temporarily Halt Muslim Immigration to the United States.

Here's one for the UK: Stop allowing immigrants into the UK.

Here's one to stop refugees coming into Canada: Refugee Pause.

When you come across more petitions, please email them to me here.

If you want to create your own petition, you are welcome to use the following text:

We have no way of determining which Muslims are Islamic supremacists and which completely reject Sharia law. Islamic supremacists seek to undermine and eventually overthrow democratic countries. Orthodox Islam has a political goal: the domination of Islam over all other religions and governments.

When Muslims move to a country, a certain percentage of them start agitating for special considerations. They start to organize and influence the nation politically in a way that is good for Islam and bad for freedom and equality. When the percentage of the Muslims in a nation's population becomes high enough, freedoms and rights begin to disappear.

Until we have a way of determining who is an Islamic supremacist and who is a heterodox Muslim, no more Muslims should be allowed to immigrate into free countries.

Does this seem extreme? It's not as bad as it might seem. Each country already chooses who can immigrate and who cannot. We are not under any obligation to allow anyone to immigrate who wants to. They do it with our blessing or they don't do it.

So this policy is simply adding to the already-existing filter.

This is not racist. Islam is not a race; it's an ideology. The policy of stopping Muslim immigration is simply acknowledging the reality of the Islamic teachings. If you don't know what Islam teaches, please take the pledge and read the Quran.

There are Muslims who reject the violent and intolerant verses of the Qur'an. But Islam also teaches the principle of "religious deception" (taqiyya) and we have no way of knowing who is sincere and who is deliberately deceiving us.

We should not take the chance, at least until we find some way to discover who genuinely rejects the political goals of Islam and who does not. In the meantime, we should stop all immigration into free countries by Muslims while we can.

Right now it would be impossible to pass this legislation because too few people know even the most basic precepts of Islam. Until a large percentage of our population knows about Islam, we will not be able to politically protect ourselves from the Islamic invasion now underway.

The situation is urgent because at some point Muslims will comprise too large a voting block for politicians to ignore. We must stop immigration soon. The first step is to show political leaders there is widespread support for such a policy. So please sign the petition for your country. And get all your friends to sign it. Post it on Facebook. Do whatever you can to get the word out. Let's get this done.

Read more...

A Well-Funded Public Campaign of Disinformation

By the time I finished reading the 24-page report put out by Smearcasting.com (about the top 12 Islamophobes in America), I'd scrawled so many notes in the margins, I could have easily written a document twice its size in commentary on the PR effort to convince readers that those who are trying to educate the public about Islam's political goals (and the methods of Jihadis) are all "Islamophobes" who are doing nothing more than smearing the good name of Muslims everywhere and stirring up "racial hatred."

The whole 24-page document, entitled Smearcasting, criticizes, insinuates, implies, but doesn't really say anything substantial. Yet it displays a virulently hateful and sarcastic tone about these "Islamophobes." Ironically enough, they seem Islamophobe-phobic and yet in the entire document, they never once refute any of the quoted claims of their hated dirty dozen.

Robert Spencer, one of my favorite writers, is one of the dozen the document tries to discredit. "Spencer serves as an intellectual force in the [Islam-bashing] movement," it says, "specializing in one-sided interpretations of the Qur'an...Yet Islam does in fact have an interpretative tradition..." The note I wrote in the margin was: "Who cares?!" Let me elaborate on exactly why Islam's interpretative tradition doesn't matter to non-Muslims:

1. Simply by reading the Qur'an — which I have done, and which I recommend you do — you will see why Jihadis are doing what they're doing. They are not "interpreting" the Qur'an and they have no need to do so; they are just doing what Allah tells them to do very directly.

2. You can look on TheReligionOfPeace.com and see the tremendous number of Muslims following the Qur'an's directions.

3. It doesn't matter how the peaceful Muslims have "interpreted" Islamic teachings. It doesn't matter what the "true" teachings are. The non-Muslims — the target of Islamic hatred — need to know what the Jihadis believe, not what the "moderate" or apatheistic Muslims believe.

In addition to all the insinuating and criticizing, the writers of Smearcasting do not acknowledge — and I think this is a significant omission — two vital facts. And the omission of this acknowledgment makes the document lose all credibility. The two facts they omit are:

1. Muslims are committing large numbers of violent acts in the name of Islam.

2. The Qur'an violent and intolerant passages — not mere references to violence but clear commands to Muslims to practice intolerance and violence in their lives.These are such glaring and pertinent facts, I don't think any amount of whitewash of Islam or vilification of these 12 pundits could gain any credibility unless the two facts above are addressed, or at least acknowledged.

Despite all this, the Smearcasting article cheered me up because they offered nothing that caused any doubt about the work we're doing (the dirty dozen and all the rest of the writers, bloggers, podcasters, radio personalities and public speakers trying to educate the public). And more important for my morale, the Smearcasting article revealed the impressive reach of these 12 pundits. It was heartening to know so many people are hearing about Islamic supremacism and apparently wanting to hear the message.

Micheal Savage has a radio show that reaches 8.25 million readers per week. That's impressive. According to the article, Savage "sees a monolithic Islamic scheme to take over the U.S." This statement, as well as many other statements quoted in the Smearcasting article, is never refuted in the article. The authors of the article must have assumed they were writing for multiculturalists who would accept the implication that these claims were preposterous. But, in fact, there IS a monolithic Islamic scheme to take over the U.S. Read about it here. And here. Michael Savage isn't "seeing" it, the Muslims themselves have published their goals!

Bill O'Reilly's Radio Factor show reaches 3.5 million listeners. His show, O'Reilly Factor has an audience of two million prime time viewers. Michelle Malkin and Robert Spencer both have bestselling books. Glenn Beck has the third highest-rated national radio talk show among adults ages 24 to 54, and he has "repeatedly associated Islam with Nazism. He drew a parallel between Mein Kampf and 'jihad' because, he said, both mean 'my struggle.'" Here was another statement left standing, as if it was self-evidently ridiculous, when in fact it is an accurate statement.

Anyway, it was a relief to know these counterjihad pundits were so popular. And it was pleasing to know that in this well-researched onslaught, which was meant to defame and hopefully destroy these twelve kings and queens of Islamophobia, that the best they could come up with was completely toothless.

One of the dirty dozen is Steven Emerson, the man who made the film, Terrorists Among Us. According to Smearcasting, Emerson, "specializes in advancing allegations linking Muslim groups in the U.S. to fundamentalist Islamic international terrorism." Allegations? He's caught them on film!

It seems as if the authors of this slick PR effort didn't think anyone reading it would know anything. Emerson doesn't "alledge" these Muslim groups are linked with terrorism, he simply shows you on film leading known terrorists speaking to large Muslim audiences in America, preaching fiery jihad at events sponsored by large, well-established, mainstream, seemingly moderate Muslim groups in the U.S. Read more about how they operate in America.

I'd like to point out one interesting comment in the Smearcasting article. They were criticizing Robert Spencer, accusing him of "selectively ignoring inconvenient Islamic texts." They write, "A similarly selective reading of the Torah might lead one to conclude that Jews favor killing homosexuals, as well as those who wear garments that mix cotton and wool."

This was one of the best arguments they made in this cloying article, and it is so weak as to be pathetic. When is the last time a Jew killed a homosexual or a someone wearing a cotton/wool blend?

On the other hand, when is the last time a Muslim killed a non-Muslim for being a non-Muslim? Probably a few minutes ago.

These particular texts may be obscure for some Muslims (like those who have never read any Islamic texts), but clearly a lot of Muslims take the Qur'an and Sunnah to heart and sacrifice their lives to fulfill the holy passages. The texts Spencer quotes are relevant and significant right now. Those texts present a concrete threat to the free world. In fact, Spencer continually illustrates quotations of those texts with recent acts of Muslims.

The Smearcasting article also quotes Sean Hannity as saying Islamic extremists have the goal of making Islam the religion of America. This statement was said as if it couldn't possibly be true, which is one of the things that make this article seem like taqiyya. Nobody who wrote this article could possibly be unaware of the goals made public by the largest Muslim organization in America, the Muslim Brotherhood, who very much wants to make Islam the religion of America.

If the people who wrote this article knew about this — and I don't see how they could not be aware of it — then this whole article is an effort to smear the dirty dozen. That is, the article must have been written to intentionally mislead the public about the nature of this issue and to discredit these pundits unfairly and innacurately...knowingly and intentionally. In other words, the article itself is smearcasting. The article is jihad.

Here's a bonus Islamophobe: Brigitte Gabriel. She wasn't one of the dirty dozen. I personally think she qualifies. Check it out: CAIR’s Smear Job Against Brigitte Gabriel.

Read more...

Mohammed and the Unbelievers

CSPI (the Center for the Study of Political Islam) has produced some excellent material for the non-Muslim. Their work centers around the idea that understanding Islam need not be difficult — it can be written in plain English. And they've done an excellent job doing so.

I've read (and recommended) A Simple Koran, and was thoroughly relieved to have such an understandable rendering of the Qur'an.

One of their books, Mohammed And the Unbelievers, is along the same lines. If you're only going to read one book, this is the one to read. It is only 167 pages, and contains everything you need to know about Mohammed's stance toward non-Muslims (and therefore Islam's stance today), and what he demonstrated in his life.

One of the things I have often recommended is talking to people about Mohammed because one of the most universal bedrock principles in all sects of Islam is that Mohammed's example is supposed to be followed by all Muslims. The reason this is so vital for non-Muslims to know is because Mohammed had a policy toward non-Muslims that Muslims follow to this day, all over the world. Here are some excerpts from the book:

"The religion of Islam is important to Muslims, but the politics [of Islam] affect every non-Muslim."

"Islam's success comes primarily from its politics. In thirteen years as a spiritual leader, Mohammed converted 150 people to his religion. When he became a political leader and warrior, Islam exploded, and Mohammed became king of Arabia in ten years."

Why knowing about Mohammed is important:

"The Koran repeats more than thirty times that a Muslim is to obey Mohammed in word and deed, and more than forty times it condemns those who do not."

Every passage in Mohammed And the Unbelievers has references to the original Islamic mainstream source of the passage, and it gives you the chapter and verse. I have checked many of these passages with my standard Qur'an (published by and for Muslim believers), and found every quote is accurate. One more excerpt from the book:

"Mohammed was the supreme master of complete war and has had no equal to this day. His understanding of the use of force was sophisticated and subtle. Physical violence was only a small part of his understanding of war. That is why comparisons make him superior to military men such as Julius Caesar. Other military geniuses established empires, but none of them had a process for war and empire that lasted for fourteen hundred years and is still going strong.

"Mohammed's profound insight was not just the waging of physical war but of the mind, emotions, culture, politics, and religion. There is no aspect of being human that Mohammed did not use for war. Money, salvation, sex, culture, religion, destiny, family, immigration, legal codes, government, power, deceit, racial pride, tribalism, community, fear, propaganda, diplomacy, spy-craft, philosophy, ethics, and psychology were all used for jihad. Jihad was not holy war but complete and total civilizational war."

I urge you to read Mohammed And the Unbelievers, and share what you learn with all your friends. Think of the education of those around you as a long campaign. Start today.

Read more...