Let's Thwart Islam's Prime Directive With Speed and Efficiency

ALMOST EVERY TIME you send out an email about Islam or post something on your Facebook page, you will get back objections. They're almost always the standard responses: Christianity is just as bad, I have some Muslim neighbors and they're nice people, this is just a few extremists, blah blah blah. You've probably heard it all so many times you're bored with it. It is a lot of work to start from scratch with each of these objections and educate people all over again, especially if you've already done it again and again. It's tedious. And it's not necessary. Let's speed up our work and make it less boring. Let's all use the Answers to Objections as our central go-to page. Let's simply cut and paste from the answers. And if you get an objection that's not on the list, let us know and we'll add it to the list. Let's be efficient with our time and not waste our efforts reinventing the wheel. We have a lot of people to educate. If you have an answer to one of the objections — an answer not included in the article — post your answer in the comments of that article (or email it to me and I'll do it for you) so others can use it and so you, yourself can cut and paste from the article in the future. Use the article as a place to store your material. When you make a particularly good answer in an email or on Facebook, or if you read someone else's excellent response, cut and paste it into the comments on the appropriate article. Let's develop a useful encyclopedia of good responses. Citizen Warrior is not a temporary blog. We've been around since October 11th, 2001, and our domain name is paid up for the next five years. So please use this site as a permanent resource. Use the linked list of Answers to Objections to store your own best answers and the best answers you come across. Then you'll only need one link to go to all the answers to every objection. Let's waste as little time as possible awakening our fellow non-Muslims.
Learn more about influencing your friends: How to approach a conversation about Islam
Answers to objections when you talk about Islam
How to think outside the persuasion box

Read more...

A Small Concession is No Big Deal

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...

Why the Peaceful Majority is Irrelevant

This is another in our series, Answers to Objections. It is an article written by Paul on Celestial Junk. The reason I'm reprinting this is because one of the most common responses we get when we mention anything negative about Islam is, "But the majority of Muslims are peace-loving people." This seems like such a final, decisive, irrefutable, self-evident conclusion, it makes all your ranting about Islam completely pointless. Or so it seems to the person who says it.

But from now on, when someone counters your educational efforts with "most Muslims are peace-loving," school them with Paul's response. Here it is:

Just as a "committed" Christian is one who truly follows the Bible, so a "committed" or "devoted" Muslim is one who truly follows the Quran. And just as a "devoted" Christian is one who truly follows Jesus, so a "devoted" Muslim is one who truly follows Muhammad.

A man whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, he replied, "Very few people were true Nazis, but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories."

We are told again and again that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Even if this unqualified assertion is true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of zealous Muslims rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is that the committed, devoted, zealous followers of Muhammad...the "true Muslims"...rule Islam at this moment in history. Some call them "fanatics" or "extremists." It is these zealous followers of the Quran who march. It is the fanatical, committed, zealous, literal followers of Muhammad who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the committed Muslims who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatical followers of the Quran who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the fanatical followers of Muhammad who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatical, committed Muslims who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatical Muslims, those who take the Quran and the teachings of Muhammad very seriously and literally, who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.

The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful Muslims, the "silent majority," (IF they are indeed in the majority), are cowed and extraneous.

Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.

And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery? Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were "peace loving?"

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points:

Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.

Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like the aforementioned German aristocrat, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

Brigitte Gabriel made this answer to a questioner, summarized emphatically. Watch it here on YouTube: Brigitte Gabriel's Epic and Brilliant Answer To "Most Muslims Are Peaceful..."

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...

A Victory For Freedom: Update on the Geert Wilders Trial, Friday, October 15, 2010

ACCORDING TO Radio Netherlands, "The Geert Wilders trial is as good as over. The public prosecutor has called for the populist politician to be acquitted of all charges against him. The trial will continue, but everything is now an anti-climax.

"During two days of intricately constructed arguments, the prosecutors told the court they found no evidence that Geert Wilders had broken the law.

"We request acquittal on fact 2...we request acquittal on fact 3." Statement after statement, and charge after charge, prosecutors Birgit van Roessel and Paul Velleman, who took turns reading the arguments, said Wilders had not broken the law.

"The prosecutors consistently came to the same conclusion. What Wilders said may be 'hurtful to Muslims, and may be met with emotional responses', but he did not break the law.

"The prosecutors analysed each of Wilders' statements for each of the five charges against him. The charges included group defamation, inciting hatred of Muslims and non-western ethnic minorities, and inciting discrimination of Muslims and non-western ethnic minorities."

The conclusion was confirmed by Dutch News, which wrote: "The public prosecution department on Friday afternoon (October 15th, 2010) stated that Geert Wilders is not guilty of discriminating against Muslims. Earlier on Friday it announced he should also be found not guilty of inciting hatred.

"Prosecutors Birgit van Roessel and Paul Velleman reached their conclusions after a careful reading of interviews with and articles by the anti-Islam politician and a viewing of his anti-Koran film Fitna."

Geert Wilders and the forces of freedom have won this battle.

Let the trumpets sound, and let's all raise a glass to this victory. Join with people all over the world today and drink a toast to this triumph of freedom over the forces of tyranny. Free speech laws defeated hate speech laws. This is a moment worth commemorating.

And if you were one of those who helped alert others to Wilders' case, who made comments on other web sites or shared a post about it on Facebook, or if you participated in the SITA actions and wrote letters to the judge and prosecutors, please take a bow and give yourself a pat on the back. You deserve it.

Read more...

Are All Fundamentalists Dangerous?

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...