A citizen warrior using the name Jack Rainbow wrote today to say, "My leaflets are illustrated and use advertising techniques to hold readers' attention. Please put them up on your site for all to use."
Some are PDF documents, some are Jpegs, and some are Word documents. Check them out:
http://4freedoms.ning.com/group/leafleting
A READER asked this question: "If the Koran was arranged out of chronological order and Mohammed started out a nice guy and then turned into a "Psycho-Killer," why don't some of his earlier, more peaceful teachings contradict his later, more violent teachings and consequently prevail?"
It's a good question. As you probably know, Mohammad's chapters (called "Suras") are not in chronological order in most versions of the Koran. It is traditional to have them arranged in the order of the Suras' length. But when two passages conflict, the mullahs decide which passage overwrites which by looking back to the chronological order rather than the traditional order.
They know with certainty what order the chapters were written in. But the chapters are arranged from the longest to the shortest chapter (except for the first chapter), and that has become the traditional way to arrange them.
Unfortunately, the most intolerant, violent passages in the Koran are chronologically later. So they abrogate (supersede or overwrite) the earlier, more tolerant passages.
So then the question is, "Then why are there any peaceful Muslims?"
Peaceful Muslims come about for three reasons:
1. Muslims are, of course, human beings and most people do not want to be violent. Mohammad anticipated this and told Muslims they had to be intolerant and even violent whether they liked it or not (and as a test of their faith), but people do their best to ignore these very direct Islamic teachings. And they tend to ignore the teachings rather than speak out against them because it can be dangerous to contradict or criticize the Koran. More devout believers can become quite violent and intolerant when a fellow Muslim criticizes any Islamic teaching.
2. If the Muslim is living in a non-Muslim majority country and violence (or even intolerance) would impede the ultimate victory of Islam, then peaceful behavior is called for, at least for the moment. Mohammad anticipated this too (the possibility of a Muslim living in a Muslim-minority country) and provided ideas for many other ways to work toward eventually gaining control of the laws of the country (Islam's prime directive) — by having lots of children, trying to convert others, giving money to Muslim organizations, etc. I'm sure many Muslims are quite happy to avoid living a life of political agitation, and this way they get to satisfy their Islamic obligations while enjoying a peaceful life in a free country.
3. And of course, a Muslim can always pretend to be peaceful while actively working toward violent goals. Apparently nice people have occasionally been known to be intolerant and even violent.
IN AN ARTICLE in the Huffington Post, Nancy Graham Holm wrote one of the most idiotic articles I've seen in awhile, and she did it with an appalling degree of arrogance. The article is entitled, Three Questions to Ask Geert Wilders About Anti-Islam Hate Speech. Her point is that when Geert Wilders talks about Islam, he only causes problems and doesn't help anything.
Holm takes it for granted that limiting (or God forbid, STOPPING) Muslim immigration to a Western nation is such a ridiculous notion it is not even worth arguing about. Wilders has suggested in many times, and with good reason, but she dismisses it as an idea unworthy of consideration.
She first says that some Muslims out there are so "short-fused" that they "would rather kill and be killed than tolerate Wilders' brutal humiliation." When I read that, it startled me. I am in the middle of reading Unbroken right now, the true story of an American captured by the Japanese in World War II. He was deliberately starved for years, tortured, brutally beaten almost every day, and intentionally humiliated. THAT was brutal humiliation. A politician talking about the hate-filled passages of Islamic texts may be insulting, but "brutal humiliation" goes way overboard. That was in her first paragraph.
It gets worse.
Her grasp of Islamic doctrine is basically non-existent, and yet she writes about the issue with a condescending arrogance that defies comprehension. She mentions an opinion piece Wilders wrote wherein he suggests outlawing the Koran in the Netherlands. "Mein Kampf" is outlawed, says Wilders, because of its Jew hatred. If the Dutch are to be consistent, then, the Koran should be outlawed.
Nancy Graham Holm, of course, thinks this is "provocative" and clearly believes the allegations are preposterous. Of course, she doesn't have a clue about the work of Bill Warner, who simply counted up how many incidents of Jew hatred are in Islamic texts and Mein Kampf. What did he find? There is far MORE Jew hatred in Islamic texts than Mein Kampf, so Wilders has a point and Holm should be embarrassed. Check out the proportions:
Another provocative thing Wilders said was that Muhammad was a "barbarian, a mass murderer and a pedophile." According to Islamic history, and using our modern definitions of barbarism, mass murder, and pedophilia, Wilders is simply stating a fact. She is assuming it can't possibly be true (or that facts that some would consider provocative should not be spoken in public, in which case Holm should be silent because she is definitely provoking me).
I agree with her about one thing, though. It would be a terrible thing to say if it weren't true. However, she could easily discover for herself that Wilders is speaking accurately. The information is available in every bookstore. The information is not difficult to find at all. It is not a secret. And it can be found in Islamic texts themselves, not mean non-Muslims writing about Islam in order to denigrate it.
It sometimes feels as if I'm in a crazy world where someone can write an article ABOUT Islam without knowing the first thing about Islam, all the while criticizing someone who knows a lot about Islam, and criticizing what he says about Islam! And all this published in a well-known, well-respected, mainstream magazine, who no doubt have fact-checkers on staff. How does this happen? How is it possible? Have I fallen into a rabbit hole and don't know it?
Holm writes, "Geert Wilders does not acknowledge the profound reform movement that is under way in contemporary Islam." I have been studying and writing about Islam for ten years. While I am aware of some Islamic reformers, characterizing it as a "profound reform movement" is stretching it. The problem, which Holm is apparently unaware of, is that "reforming" Islam means to deny or reject a substantial amount of basic Islamic doctrine such as the 527 unabrogated passages in the Koran advocating intolerance or violence toward non-Muslims, or the 91 passages telling Muslims they must take Muhammad as an example (a "beautiful pattern of conduct"), which means a reformer who would wish to create an Islam that is no longer a threat to non-Muslims would have to seriously edit the Koran or seriously edit the Sunnah and Hadith, which are mostly about Muhammad's egregious example. And such editing is strictly forbidden since the Koran is the word of Allah.
In her final two paragraphs, she asks four questions of Wilders. I will answer them here. Wilders can probably answer them better and I hope he does, but here's mine:
1. Does your hate speech produce physical or mental suffering or does it increase safety and quality of life? By the way, she asks these questions with a self-satisfaction which I'm sure makes her feel as if she "won her case."
There is a presupposition in her question, sort of like asking, "Do you still beat your wife?" I have listened to many speeches by Wilders and he doesn't do "hate speech." And in his first movie, Fitna, which created so much controversy, all the "hate speech" in the movie is done by Islamic doctrine and Muslims themselves.
But let's set that aside and answer her question, put in my language: Do Geert Wilders' speeches produce suffering or does it increase safety and quality of life? Answer: If he was heeded, it would increase safety.
2. Have you considered the available alternatives and compared them in terms of benefit to harm ratio? Yes.
3. Which alternative produces the best ratio? Making accurate knowledge widespread.
4. What good can come of Wilders saying the things he does? If people listened to him, they would have a better grasp of the real situation (rather than the situation we might wish for), and if there is a problem to be solved (and there is) a good place to start is with the facts.
ONE OF OUR allies sent us a new idea for raising awareness. And we have a new leaflet. It's really good and different than the first two. (Read more about the first two and get links to them here.) It is entitled, "You Must Accept My Religion." This new one never mentions the words "Islam" or "Mohammad." Why not? Here's how the author explained it:
I have tried to reveal the essential thrust of Islam without once using those words. It’s like a gestalt. I think Islam is uniquely defined by its rules and the character of its founder that, hopefully, people will focus on those instead of being inoculated against the message by the hot trigger words that seem to numb so many peoples' brains. I would also like to think that someone trying to challenge what the leaflet says would be forced to admit that we all know it’s about Islam precisely because it sets out some of its defining features.
I just wanted to share some things with you that I do to make a stand. I find these things empowering and I think a lot of your readers would also. They are small things but they make a difference. One of the things that really annoys me about living near Muslims is that their standpoint is written all over them and you’re just left feeling like a cipher. Isn’t there a way of saying “I reject your way of life” without getting arrested or beaten black and blue?
One thing I do is to wear a lapel badge of the Israeli flag — I live in an area where there are a lot of Muslims and (almost as bad) left wingers. I wear it in such a way that when my collar is turned up it doesn’t show so if there are some particularly aggressive people about I turn it inwards. When I’m in a public space where there are lots of security cameras, I show it more. Because Israel and Jews are such objects of loathing to Muslims, by wearing this badge I am implicitly rejecting Islam and its virulent anti-Semitism. Israel is on the front line in this worldwide struggle (though I realise in a sense we all are now) and supporting Israel is a way to rebuff some of the madness and evil. No-one can accuse you of a “hate crime” or “Islamophobia” (I don’t accept the validity of these but they are forced upon us) but you can still make a statement. Israel is a beacon of western civilisation and it is good to show our solidarity with her.
I also have an IDF cap with a Star of David and “Israel” boldly stitched across the front. I wear this when I go to the supermarkets or department stores as I think I would actually be very quickly assaulted if I wore it anywhere else. It’s a good bold statement of support for a great country taking a lot of flak from the Jihad and the wretched left-wing fools. You can easily get badges from suppliers on ebay and I got my cap from a company in Israel. It’s good to support Israeli companies too.
I think by wearing these things it also brings it into the awareness of less partial people too. It puts another dimension into the public space. If more people did it, it would have a much greater impact. If people challenge you about Israel, it opens up an opportunity to dispel some of the malicious mythology that has been built up over the last few decades. I must say no-one has said anything to me yet but a lot have noticed the badge and been made to wonder a little.
Yesterday I posted a link to video (see the post here), and I thought it might be more shareable for some people if it was on the Inquiry Into Islam blog. For some people, as you probably know, when you share a link to a site with the word "warrior" in it, they dismiss it automatically.
The video is something everyone should see. So here's the link to the Inquiry post:
Koran's Antisemitism Still Alive
© Free Blogger Templates Columnus by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008
Back to TOP
