Citizen Warrior

Why Islam?

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 09:23:00 +0000

Much of the Middle East is now Islamic. Muslim warriors conquered it centuries ago, and Sharia law has been slowly eliminating the last remnants of non-Muslims ever since. Now some orthodox Muslims are working to conquer Europe.

But why is Islam so different from other empires that have come and gone through history?

The Mongols conquered the largest landmass ever controlled under one government, and if Genghis Khan hadn't died when he did, his warriors may well have conquered Europe.

But nobody is worried about the Mongols now. Why?

Because they didn't write a book and they didn't start a religion. There are no faithful followers of Genghis Khan still working to fulfill his vision of world conquest.

We cannot say the same about Muhammad.

"Are You a Hatemonger? I Don't Believe in Promoting Hatred"

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:36:00 +0000

THIS IS another installation in our series, Answers to Objections. When you criticize Islam, you may very well be accused of being a "hater," as if telling people about basic Islamic doctrines means you advocate hatred toward Muslims as the solution. And nobody likes a hater, or wants to be one.

This objection is fairly easy to answer. Here are three possible ways to respond:

1. Hatred is not the answer. If anything, I am anti-hatred. That's why I am trying to expose Islamic teachings: Shari'a law includes a system of legally-mandated hatred. Mohammad is their model, and he expressed hatred toward non-Muslims. He maligned them, robbed them, tortured them, killed them, raped them, and took them as slaves. Muslims are supposed to follow his example. It says so in the Qur'an 91 times.

2. I'm talking about the teachings, not the people. Some Muslims follow the teachings, and some are Muslim in name only. But non-Muslims need to know about the teachings, because many of the most fundamental Islamic teachings are about how to deal with non-Muslims. According to the teachings, we must be subjugated under Islamic law. All of us. Voluntarily or by force. And the tens of millions or hundreds of millions who follow Islamic doctrine to the letter are actively working toward that end. They have gained control over how Islam is taught in American schoolbooks. Devoted followers have set up organizations in the United States and other Western democracies with the express purpose of undermining those democracies from within. We need to know about this stuff. It is affecting us already.

3. If I say the teachings of communism advocate ending economic inequalities, does that make me a hatemonger? If I say Republicans advocate smaller government, does that make me a hater? If I say Buddhists believe in reincarnation, does that make me a hater? But if I say the teachings of Islam advocate striving to institute worldwide Shari'a law, that makes me a hatemonger? That doesn't make any sense. Where did you come up with that?

When you answer these questions, think of the question itself as an earnest request for knowledge, even if the question comes out as an accusation. People don't really know how to understand what you're doing, so they use the only model they can think of to interpret your actions: They think you must be like a racist or a religious bigot or something along those lines.

So a helpful response is to give them a better model to interpret with. What you're doing is much closer to education than hatemongering. Urge them to read the Qur'an for themselves to find out more about it.

The Key Point of the Whole Argument

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 22:25:00 +0000

IN OUR discussions with others about the third jihad, what is the one barrier that seems insurmountable? Here's what I'll bet it is: You say it is a fundamental and essential part of Islam that Muslims must wage jihad against non-Muslims until the whole world submits to Islamic law. And they say, "It can't be."

It can't be because all religions are the same. It can't be because everyone is basically good. It can't be because most Muslims aren't violent. It can't be because if it is, the consequences would be too much to bear. It can't be because only a racist would say such a thing. It can't be because everybody knows Islam is a religion of peace. It can't be because I have this Muslim friend and he is really nice.

In other words, all the things people say to you to argue this point are a desperate attempt to not allow that fact to be true.

This should be the key point of any public education we engage in: That it's an essential part of Islam to wage jihad until the whole world submits to Islamic law. Once that point is accepted, all things that need to be understood can be understood easily.

But how can you get someone to accept that fact as a fact?

Last night I was reading a rather long article called A New Koran? and I think I've found something we could use to help people accept the key point.

The article is a discussion between several well-known people. Among them are Robert Spencer, Bill Warner, Khalim Massoud (president of Muslims Against Sharia).

The topic of discussion is the re-writing of the Qur'an. Massoud is working on a project that removes all exhortations to intolerance and violence from the Qur'an. The argument goes on to discuss how the Muslim world has responded to this and other attempts to make the Qur'an less dangerous for non-Muslims.

As I was reading, something struck me: THIS would be persuasive evidence for the unenlightened.

These Islamic scholars, some of them Muslims, are almost universal in their agreement that the Muslim world will never accept at altered version of the Qur'an. In other words, intolerance and violence toward non-Muslims is such an inherent, fundamental part of the Qur'an, taking it out would make Islamic teachings almost unrecognizable to the Muslim world!

This is the kind of article that would only be interesting to those who are in the field — those who write and speak about it, or who are working on projects to stop Islam's relentless encroachment. But I thought this might be good evidence to make our point in a way the uninitiated would listen to.

I suggest we print out the article and have it handy. I suggest we bookmark it where we can find it easily. And then let's use this article when someone says, "It can't be."

Growing Numbers Denounce Islam

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 06:51:00 +0000

The inimitable Ramachandra B. Abhyankar got another of his letters published in the Tribune Star. Below is his newest letter (originally published here):

Many Muslims are renouncing Islam because they respect the human rights of non-Muslims and women and disagree with the Islamic doctrines of Jihad (Islamic holy war against non-Muslims) and Sharia (Islamic law) which calls for the subjugation, oppression and exploitation of non-Muslims and women.

The list of such former Muslims includes names such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, author of the book “Infidel”; Wafa Sultan, author of the book “A God who Hates”; Nonie Darwish, author of the book “Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law”; M.A. Khan, author of the book “Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery”; Ali Sina, author of the book “Understanding Muhammad: A Psychobiography”; and Ibn Warraq, author of the book “Why I am Not a Muslim.”

These respected individuals have concluded that Islam cannot be reformed. At a time when it is well known that Muslims enjoy equal rights with non-Muslims in non-Islamic countries, Islamic countries continue to discriminate against non-Muslims to various degrees because of Islam. Discrimination against non-Muslims and women is at the heart of Islam. By renouncing Islam, former Muslims announce their resolve to peacefully co-exist with the rest of humanity.

Former Muslims are heroes because they have listened to the voice of their conscience in spite of the ever-present threat of the command to Muslims contained in the Islamic edict pronounced by the Prophet of Islam and recorded in the Sahih Bukhari Hadith Collection: “If any Muslim gives up his Islamic religion, then kill him.” This edict of the Prophet of Islam is codified under Sharia as the death penalty for apostasy from Islam.

Ibn Warraq has suggested that former Muslims be given asylum by Americans, just as Soviet dissidents were granted asylum by Americans during the Cold War. Former Muslims can give valuable advice to Americans, as they have firsthand knowledge of Jihad and Sharia.

Americans can use this advice in combating the threat of homegrown Jihad, a topic dealt with in depth in the following book by Erick Stakelbeck: “The Terrorist Next Door: How the Government is Deceiving You About the Islamist Threat.” The book describes the “chip away strategy” of homegrown Jihad: mounting small-scale attacks like the Fort Hood attack or the attempted Times Square bombing, as opposed to a spectacular attack, such as the Sept. 11, 2001, attack.

Following the killing of Osama bin Laden, the FBI has warned that such small-scale, homegrown Jihad attacks are more likely.

— Ramachandra B. Abhyankar

Is It Possible For Islam To Take Over The World?

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 21:30:00 +0000

SOMETIMES I TELL people Islam is a political doctrine and its purpose is to make every country on earth, including this one, follow Shari'a law.

Of course, most people think, "Yeah right. Good luck with that one."

In other words: Okay, so they want to take over the world. So what? It ain't gonna happen, not now, not ever. Completely impossible.

But the truth is, it doesn't matter whether it's possible or not. What matters is that a growing number of already-numerous people hold that as their most important goal. They consider it their holy duty. They consider it their ticket into heaven and the only assurance they can get that they will not burn in the fires of hell for eternity. They are motivated.

So we have one group that says, "Yeah, right," and goes on about their business, watching their sitcoms and buying stuff on eBay. And we have another group that feels strongly that the Almighty has given them a clear mission to take over the world by every means available to them, including recruiting new soldiers, having lots of children, protesting against any criticism of Islam, working to change laws, giving money to organizations that sue people for criticizing Islam, putting political pressure on politicians to alter laws, immigrating to infidel countries to help build an Islamic political presence there, going on web sites and arguing with people who try to criticize Islam, complaining to YouTube (and getting all their Islamic friends to complain to YouTube) about any video that criticizes Islam until YouTube removes the offending video, going to schools in democracies and speaking to the infidel children about how loving and peaceful and wonderful Islam is, reading about nothing else and thinking about nothing else.

Now over a period of time, who will gain more ground: A totally committed group, or the ones watching sitcoms and buying stuff on eBay?

And the more ground they gain politically, the more ground they can gain because they are gaining more political clout. Already in Europe, the politicians are very careful about not offending their Muslim constituents because the Muslims are very organized and politically active, and most of the rest of the voters are lackadaisical and not really paying attention. So Muslims are gaining power quickly in European countries. (Read more about the removal of freedom and Shariatization of Europe.)

The same has begun to happen elsewhere: Canada, the U.S., Australia, Africa, Eastern Europe, and of course India has been dealing with this issue for a very long time.

Remember this when you're talking to someone and you can see them thinking, "Impossible. There is no way the Muslims are going to take over the world."

It doesn't matter if it's impossible. With all that commitment they can make our times very troubled, they can make the fight more difficult, they can take away freedoms one by one, and in fact, they really can take over the world. It is not technically impossible. It doesn't seem likely, but only if you don't know much about what they're already doing, which most people don't (partly because of what they're already doing).

What this means is that if you'd like to do something about this, if you'd like to help preserve the freedoms we enjoy, then your most important task is to simply share this information with your fellow countrymen. Learn about jihad, and share what you're learning with others.

Here's what you can do about it: What Can a Civilian Really Do?

Here is an ongoing list of concessions Islam is pushing for and winning from democracies around the world: Concessions to Islam.

What "Religion of Peace" Really Means

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 21:57:00 +0000

Malise Ruthven's book, A Fury for God: The Islamist Attack on America, seeks to understand the forces behind Islam's relentless encroachment. It is a difficult book to read, and yet parts of it clarified and illuminated Islam's prime directive better than anything I've ever read. And A Fury for God: The Islamist Attack on America is one of the very few books I've read that has no obvious ax to grind. Below are some selected quotes from the book:

As almost every account of Islam will explain, the word Islam (self-surrender) derives from the same root as salam (peace). In its self-definition Islam is primarily a "religion of peace." The problem consists not in the idea of peace as a good, but in the means deployed to achieve it. In the Quranic discourse, as in the legal formulations derived from the Quran and the Prophet's traditions, the very notion of peace is conditional on the acknowledgment of the Islamic idea of God.

The Quran implies that the world will be at peace when every person on Earth submits to the will of Allah (by force if necessary). In that sense, Islam is a religion of peace. Another quote from the book:

The jihad was integral to Islamic expansion. Understood as a political-military struggle, it provided the rationale for the Islamic imperium.

...Jihad, as is now widely known, means "struggle:" it has the same root as ijtihad, the interpretative "effort" needed to fathom the law as revealed by God and his Prophet. According to a well-known hadith, jihad is the "monasticism" of faith. "Every nation has its monasticism and the monasticism of this nation is the jihad." Muhammad disapproved of asceticism: there was to be "no monkery" in his community. Jihad held the place occupied by asceticism in early Christianity.

Ever since I read that, I've thought differently of jihad. If you are a devout person, if you want to please Allah and show him how much you worship Him, but you do not have the avenue of expression called asceticism, how can you demonstrate your devotion? Muhammad gave the answer: Jihad. Express it in action. Express it by striving mightily in the name of Allah, not just in your mind, but in the world. Advance Allah's cause by defending Islam, and by trying to make every country on earth follow the law of Allah. Work at it. Put your money where your faith is.

And one final quote from A Fury for God:

Modernity is seductive: Satan is a tempter, not a tyrant. Since Muslim cultures tend to draw boundaries around social behavior, emphasizing external rather than internal moral constraints, governments — or more pervasively "the West" — are blamed for the availability of temptations. Imported American dramas such as Dallas, Knott's Landing and Falcon Crest, showing human behavior in situations dominated by lust, greed, and selfishness, are seen as undermining the Muslim family by introducing aspirations towards materialism and sexual immorality.

I thought that was interesting. In the West, because we hold liberty as a fundamental value, we think of morality as something we exercise personally, from within.

Islam is more oriented toward controlling the environment — essentially to limit temptations — in order to impose morality (or strengthen it) from outside. In that sense, then, a free society is incompatible with the strict application of Islam. An Islamic-style moral life would require an Islamic state, or at the very least, the kind of isolated or enclosed community the Amish have. (This may explain, at least in part, why the mosque Nonie Darwish attended encouraged American Muslims to stay isolated from the infidel American culture.)

Islamic fundamentalists see the establishment of Islamic law as a moral duty. It creates an environment where everyone can be moral, and where infidels cannot infect the Muslims with their immoral example. The Islamic vision is very much like the Pleasantville fantasy-perfect world, but the achievement of the vision requires the removal of so many liberties it becomes a repressive totalitarian state.

Anyway, I recommend Malise Ruthven's book, A Fury for God. It is a valuable contribution to the greater conversation about how to reverse the trend toward global jihad.

A 20-Year Plan To Overthrow The U.S. Government

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 22:50:00 +0000

ORTHODOX MUSLIMS cannot wage all out war on the U.S. and expect to win. But they have a religious obligation to participate in jihad in some way in order to eventually subjugate all countries under Islamic law, including the U.S. There are more devious ways to conquer than straightforward war, however. In the excerpt below, from an article by Anis Shorrosh, author of Islam Revealed, shares what he sees as the "Islamists' 20-year plan" to conquer the U.S. As you will see, many of these things are already being done.

1. Terminate America's freedom of speech by replacing it with statewide and nationwide hate-crime bills.

2. Wage a war of words using black leaders like Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Jesse Jackson and other visible religious personalities who promote Islam as the religion of African-Americans while insisting Christianity is for whites only. What they fail to tell African-Americans is that it was Arab Muslims who captured them and sold them as slaves. In fact, the Arabic word for black and slave is the same, ''Abed.''

3. Engage the American public in dialogues, discussions, debates in colleges, universities, public libraries, radio, TV, churches and mosques on the virtues of Islam. Proclaim how it is historically another religion like Judaism and Christianity with the same monotheistic faith.

4. Nominate Muslim sympathizers to political office to bring about favorable legislation toward Islam and support potential sympathizers by block voting.

5. Take control of as much of Hollywood, the press, TV, radio and the Internet as possible by buying the related corporations or a controlling stock.

6. Yield to the fear of the imminent shut-off of the lifeblood of America – black gold. America’s economy depends on oil and 41 percent of it comes from the Middle East.

7. Yell ''foul, out-of-context, personal interpretation, hate crime, Zionist, un- American, inaccurate interpretation of the Quran'' anytime Islam is criticized or the Quran is analyzed in the public arena.

8. Encourage Muslims to penetrate the White House, specifically with Islamists who can articulate a marvelous and peaceful picture of Islam. Acquire government positions and get membership in local school boards. Train Muslims as medical doctors to dominate the medical field, research and pharmaceutical companies. (Ever notice how numerous Muslim doctors in America are, when their countries need them more desperately than America?) Take over the computer industry. Establish Middle Eastern restaurants throughout the U.S. to connect planners of Islamization in a discreet way.

9. Accelerate Islamic demographic growth via:

* Massive immigration (100,000 annually since 1961).

* Use no birth control whatsoever – every baby of Muslim parents is automatically a Muslim and cannot choose another religion later.

* Muslim men must marry American women and Islamize them (10,000 annually). Then divorce them and remarry every five years – since one can't legally marry four at one time. This is a legal solution in America.

* Convert angry, alienated black inmates and turn them into militants (so far 2,000 released inmates have joined al-Qaida worldwide). Only a few ''sleeper cells'' have been captured in Afghanistan and on American soil.

10. Reading, writing, arithmetic and research through the American educational system, mosques and student centers (now 1,500) should be sprinkled with dislike of Jews, evangelical Christians and democracy. There are currently 300 exclusively Muslim schools in the U.S. which teach loyalty to the Quran, not the U.S. Constitution. In January of 2002, Saudi Arabia’s Embassy in Washington mailed 4,500 packets of the Quran and videos promoting Islam to America's high schools – free of charge. Saudi Arabia would not allow the U.S. to reciprocate.

11. Provide very sizable monetary Muslim grants to colleges and universities in America to establish ''Centers for Islamic studies'' with Muslim directors to promote Islam in higher-education institutions.

12. Let the entire world know through propaganda, speeches, seminars, local and national media that terrorists have hijacked Islam, when in truth, Islam hijacked the terrorists.

13. Appeal to the historically compassionate and sensitive Americans for sympathy and tolerance towards Muslims in America who are portrayed as mainly immigrants from oppressed countries.

14. Nullify America's sense of security by manipulating the intelligence community with misinformation. Periodically terrorize Americans with reports of impending attacks on bridges, tunnels, water supplies, airports, apartment buildings and malls.

15. Form riots and demonstrations in the prison system demanding Islamic Sharia as the way of life, not America's justice system.

16. Open numerous charities throughout the U.S., but use the funds to support Islamic terrorism with American dollars.

17. Raise interest in Islam on America's campuses by insisting freshman take at least one course on Islam.

18. Unify the numerous Muslim lobbies in Washington, mosques, Islamic student centers, educational organizations, magazines and papers by Internet and an annual convention to coordinate plans, propagate the faith and engender news in the media.

19. Send intimidating messages and messengers to the outspoken individuals who are critical of Islam and seek to eliminate them by hook or crook.

20. Applaud Muslims as loyal citizens of the U.S. by spotlighting their voting record as the highest percentage of all minority and ethic groups in America.

Shorrosh is a member of the Oxford Society of Scholars, has traveled in 76 countries, and is a lecturer and producer of TV documentaries. Islam Revealed is a bestseller now in its eighth printing. His forthcoming 10th book, from which the 20-point plan is abridged, is titled ''Islam: A Threat or a Challenge.''

Critique of Pure Islam

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 20:55:00 +0000

WHEN SOMEONE says that some of the passages of the Quran are violent, and that Islam itself is political, what do you call that? It's an important question. Strangely enough, I've heard it called "racist," which seems very odd. Islam is not a race.

I've also heard it called "Islamophobia," which is also strange, because it is not a phobia.

It is religious criticism. But it's more than that, because Islam is not merely a religion. Islam is also a political system with political goals. So instead of racism or Islamophobia, we could call it religious or political criticism.

But if you call it that, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with it. In a free society, it is a perfectly legitimate activity to criticize religious doctrines and political systems. It's perfectly all right, for example, to point out that the Catholic church frowns upon birth control, or that communism and free enterprise are incompatible.

So when someone explains the political ideology contained in the Quran, it is a completely legitimate activity, and anyone who calls it racism or Islamophobia either doesn't understand what they're saying, or, more likely, they are trying to censor the person. That kind of censorship is out of line in a free society.

The fact that exponents of pure Islam will not tolerate criticism of Islam is one of the main criticisms of Islam. The fact that the Quran itself is adamant about disallowing any criticism of the Quran (and calls for a death sentence for doing so) is one of the most legitimate things to criticize about the Quran.

If someone doesn't hire a Muslim simply because the applicant is a Muslim, that is discrimination, and that's a different issue. If someone beats up a Muslim because he's a Muslim, that is a hate crime and is illegal, immoral, and should be punished.

But criticism of Islamic doctrine? It can and should be done.

Where it gets tricky is immigration laws. There has to be some selection. If you have a Muslim applying for immigration, what do you do? The person himself may not be in favor of following the violent instructions in the Quran, but how do we know? Because he is a Muslim, and because the Quran contains political goals and ideas, he is more likely to be subversive and ascribe to doctrines that we would consider treasonous than the average applicant.

What do we do about that? If anybody has some answers, let's hear it (in comments). This is, I believe, one of the most important issues that arises out of the study of the Quran and the Sunnah.

One possibility, of course, is to stop Muslim immigration.

It is also possible to give an immigration applicant a lie-detector test and ask about their intentions within our country. In the U.S. they have to learn a little about the country and swear an oath of alleigance, but under taqiyya, a Muslim with the intention of helping to overthrow the government would be allowed by Islamic doctrine to swear the oath without intending to keep it, so that requirement is not enough.

Another possibility is to allow Muslims in, but really crack down on preaching jihad within the country. Most countries have laws against sedition or treason, but so far as I know, no country has enforced those laws against Muslims preaching in mosques. But once the precedent was set, it would be a straightforward matter. (Read more about the relationship between sedition and Sharia here.)

Are there better ideas? Let's compile them here in the comments for easy reading by voters and politicians. We need a solution. It would be foolish for democratic countries to keep importing people who want to overthrow their government. Not all Muslims do, of course. But pure Islam, straight from the Quran and the Sunnah, is very clear about the obligation to wage jihad and establish universal Sharia law. That means overthrowing democratic governments.

The longer we ignore this issue, the bigger the problem will be when we finally tackle it.

The immigration issue is open for discussion. But the freedom to openly discuss and criticize Islamic doctrine is not an issue at all. We have the right to freely discuss it. Period.

How a Tolerant Country Can Avoid Being a Doormat for Intolerant Countries

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 06:34:00 +0000

TOLERANCE AND mutual respect for different cultures and religions is great — as long as it is mutual. When it's not mutual, then tolerance becomes a self-destructive doctrine. When it is not mutual, one side gives and the other side takes. In normal parlance, it is called being a doormat.

Islamic supremacism is religiously-sanctioned intolerance, and many in the West tolerate the intolerance out of a blind multiculturalism. But multiculturalism (respect for other cultures) need not be blind. The addition of one simple distinction is all that is needed.

When I was younger, I lacked the same distinction in my own personal life. I had read the book, How to Win Friends & Influence People by Dale Carnegie, when I was very young, and it had a profound effect on the way I treated people. And for the most part, the effect was good.

The basic approach to Carnegie's book is to give to people, to trust them, to see the best in them, etc. When you do this, people will respond positively, and they'll give back to you and trust you and they'll want to fulfill your trust, etc. This approach has worked great for almost everybody I've ever met, because most people reciprocate. It becomes a mutual thing.

But several times in my life I ran into people who only took advantage of my kindness or generosity. They took, and sometimes not only did they not reciprocate, but sometimes they've even responded to my kindness by stabbing me in the back. They weren't interested in cooperating. They didn't care about good long-term relations.

With those people, I had to figure out a different way of dealing with them. I had to make an extra distinction. My tolerance and goodwill were blind. I did it with everyone indiscriminately, and that's just stupid.

A few years ago, a biography of Dale Carnegie came out, and I found out that Carnegie left out a chapter in his book. He didn't get the chapter to the publisher on time so the book was published without it.

The missing chapter was about what to do with uncooperative, selfish, self-serving people. A small percentage of the population doesn't have normal human empathy. The way you deal with these people must be different or you're just being foolish.

A very similar thing is happening with orthodox Islam and multiculturalism. There is nothing wrong with the multicultural doctrine. Nothing at all. It's wonderful, in fact. One of the reasons democracies are so much more enjoyable countries to live in than non-democratic countries is because we are so tolerant of each other.

But the multiculturalism doctrine is incomplete. It is a great strategy for most people and most cultures and most religions. But it is disastrous when you stick with it blindly.

All that's missing is the added distinction of mutuality. We can simply amend the doctrine to something like this: We respect all religions and cultures who do us the honor of respecting ours as well. All others will be treated with less generosity.

Another characteristic of both selfish people and Islamic supremacists is the use of deception. They pretend to be thoughtful and kind. They pretend to be peaceful, tolerant, and cooperative. They try to fool their victims into keeping their guard down. They pretend in order to gain an advantage.

Over time, most of us have learned to pay attention to what people do and see if it matches what they say. Most of us who have lived long enough to see our 30s do not automatically trust everyone. We give people a chance to earn our trust. That's a sensible way to live.

Orthodox Muslims often try to fool non-Muslims in the same way selfish people do. They mimic peaceful religious people. They try to act as if they believe what we believe (see the principle of religious deception), and this makes it more difficult to determine whether or not these are cooperators or back-stabbers. But we can apply the same principles we use in our personal lives. We can watch what they do and see if it matches what they say. We don't have to automatically trust. Let them earn our trust.

On the DVD, Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West, you can literally watch what they do. You can see Muslim leaders saying one thing to the western media, appearing to be moderate, peaceful, reasonable Muslims, and then you see the same person saying another thing entirely to their own people in Arabic.

If we didn't automatically trust, we could see they are intolerant, uncooperative, and even bloodthirsty, and not the cooperative people they pretend to be.

If we pay attention, we will see some Muslims are not mutually respectful. In fact, they actively exploit our well-ingrained respect for other cultures, and use it against us, considering it a weakness they can exploit.

For years, the Wahhabi Muslims in Saudi Arabia have been spending their oil-enriched billions building mosques all over the western democracies. They then preach hatred of the West in those mosques, and we have been allowing this.

Within Saudi Arabia, no churches or synagogues are allowed to be built.

The western democracies, in other words, are being doormats. We are giving and allowing, respecting and tolerating, and the Islamic supremacists are taking, expressing intolerance, and stabbing us in the back. Being a doormat is not a successful long-term strategy.

TIT FOR TAT

In the 1970's the political scientist Robert Axelrod created a computer "world" using the famous Prisoner's Dilemma as a game computer programs could play against each other. He wanted to find out which computer program would succeed the best.

The Prisoner's Dilemma is a hypothetical situation used to test whether someone will cooperate or compete, and how well the strategies work in the long run.

The game is played by two people. If one cooperates and the other competes, the one who cooperated will lose and the competitive one (the selfish one) will win. If they both compete, they both lose, but not as badly.

If they both cooperate, they both win. That's how the game is set up.

If you were one of the prisoners, what would you do? That's the dilemma. How much can you count on the cooperative nature of the other person?

The game is often played repeatedly with the same two people, each of them choosing to cooperate or take advantage of the other through successive rounds of the game.

The Prisoner's Dilemma game is designed to parallel real life. If two people in real life cooperate with each other, it very often works to their mutual advantage. But if one person cooperates and the other takes advantage, it often works out very well for the selfish one and very poorly for the cooperative one.

On the other hand, if you go around preempting people — trying to take advantage of them before they take advantage of you — you will miss out on the advantages of cooperation, people will resent you, and you might get people working against you.

What is the best long-term strategy? This is the dilemma we are faced with every day, personally as well as culturally.

Robert Axelrod, the man who created the computer world, invited computer programmers to create a program to play the Prisoner's Dilemma with other programs. The question is, which program would succeed the best?

In a game that resembles the real dilemma we all face, what strategy is the most effective?

The program that proved the best was named TIT FOR TAT. It was designed by Anatol Rapoport and it was one of the simplest programs submitted. For the first interaction, it would cooperate. After that, it would repay in kind whatever the other did. That was the whole strategy.

If the other cooperated, TIT FOR TAT benefited. So did the other. If the other took advantage, TIT FOR TAT cut its losses immediately.

As the game went on, TIT FOR TAT gained more (and lost less) than any other program. In The Moral Animal, Robert Wright wrote, "More than the steadily mean, more than the steadily nice, and more than various 'clever' programs whose elaborate rules made them hard for other programs to read, the straightforwardly conditional TIT FOR TAT was, in the long run, self-serving."

And it's the most fair to everyone involved.

I suggest we in the West use the same program when dealing with other countries and other cultures. We should begin with tolerance and cooperation, and then be as tolerant and cooperative as the other is from that point on.

We would be fools to tolerate intolerance — even if that intolerance is hiding behind a cloak of religion. An intolerant culture should be the exception to the principle of universal multicultural tolerance.

For example, if orthodox Islam does not tolerate other religions, it should not be tolerated itself.

Tolerance and cooperation are definitely the best way to go, but only if the other side is tolerant and cooperative also. If they prove to be otherwise, intolerance and competitively cutting our losses is a sane response.

Congressman Allen West Co-Sponsors the Open Fuel Standard Act

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 10:03:00 +0000

The courageous, straight-talking Republican from Florida has co-sponsored the Open Fuel Standard Act. If anyone understands the threat to our national security posed by our continued funding of Wahhabism, it is Congressman Allen West. His understanding of radical Islam is unsurpassed among elected officials.

He understands fully that it is the tremendous wealth of the Saudis that allow them to fund and therefore control ninety percent of the Islamic institutions of the world, to build thousands of mosques, to build madrasses that provide free daily meals to poor Muslim boys so they'll attend and then teach them to hate non-Muslims, to invest in news outlets that promote hatred against the United States, to financially support terrorist training centers, and to pay for the financial support of the families of suicide bombers.

Congressman Allen West fully understands that the Wahhabis are able to do all this because of the tremendous amount of money we give them because so far we have been unwilling to break their monopoly on the transportation sector. And he sees that the Open Fuel Standard would effectively end oil's monopoly and greatly weaken OPEC's power over America's economy and the Wahhabis' influence over the Islamic world.

If Congressman Allen West is your representative, please give him an enthusiastic thank you. And if you know any fans of Rep. West, please let them know he has signed on as a co-sponsor of one of the most important bills to be introduced into the House: The Open Fuel Standard Act of 2011.

Join Rep. West on Facebook here.

Join him on Twitter here.

In This War Against Radical Islam, There Are No Non-Combatants

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 20:26:00 +0000

IN AN ARTICLE entitled, The Other September 11th, you'll find a good description of what happened in Vienna September 11th, 1683.

Islamic warriors had invaded and defeated Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, and Serbia. They plowed their way through Austria to Vienna, and were besieging the city.

But on September 11th, 40,000 soldiers arrived from Poland to save Vienna. That was the beginning of the end of the Islamic military conquest of Europe.

That's why Osama bin Laden chose September 11th to strike his blow against the free world.

But that's not why I'm mentioning this article. The author, Baron Bodissey, quotes Owen Johnson, and I'd like to quote him here too:

In this war there are no noncombatants. Not only are we all military targets in the eyes of our enemies, but we all take part in the fighting. Every opinion we form and express, every conclusion and argument we make, and particularly every vote we cast, influences our enemy and affects our collective will. We need to be aware of this.

That's exactly right. You and I can (and should) fight in this war. We must. How? Start here.

Legislative Action Alert from ACT! for America

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 20:57:00 +0000

The grassroots national security organization, ACT! for America, sent out a recent message about the Open Fuel Standard legislation. Here is the message they sent to their subscribers:

BRIGITTE GABRIEL CAPTIVATES CAPITOL HILL: EDUCATES ABOUT OPEC’S CHOKEHOLD ON OIL AND TERROR FINANCING

Last week, ACT! for America President, Brigitte Gabriel, and Director of Government Relations, Lisa Piraneo, were up on Capitol Hill for various meetings and events designed to educate our federal legislators about the connection between OPEC’s price fixing of world oil prices and how that threatens our national security.

In addition to a full day’s worth of meetings with Members of Congress from both sides of the political aisle, Brigitte participated in an important roundtable discussion about this issue for Hill staff, as well as a press conference with Congressmen John Shimkus (R-IL), and Eliot Engel (D-NY), sponsors of H.R. 1687, the Open Fuel Standard Act.

NASCAR driver Kenny Wallace and President Ronald Reagan’s National Security Advisor, Robert McFarlane, joined Brigitte and Lisa during their day on the Hill. In each of the meetings, Brigitte’s passionate words about the connection between OPEC’s manipulation of the world’s oil market pricing — and its ties to terror financing — captivated the Members of Congress and their staff.

In particular, Brigitte and coalition members spoke with Members of Congress about support for the Open Fuel Standard (OFS) Act (H.R. 1687 in the House and S. 1603 in the Senate) as a commonsense first step in breaking OPEC’s chokehold on oil prices.

Immediate progress has come out of these meetings. Already, one Member of Congress who was a part of the OFS meetings last week — Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN/5th) has “seen the light” and signed on to the legislation as a cosponsor. He joins the growing group of Congressional cosponsors this vital legislation has already attracted.

Contrary to what some believe, Canada does not supply the largest share of America’s imported oil. OPEC does. Even if we could purchase largely from our own domestic supplies and our northern neighbor, it will not destroy OPEC’s monopoly on the worldwide price of oil, nor will it decrease the terrorism that is funded through OPEC oil funds.

Why? Oil is fungible. Fungibility is the property of a good or a commodity whose individual units are capable of mutual substitution, such as crude oil, wheat, precious metals or currencies. For example, if someone lends another person a $10 bill, it does not matter if they are given back the same $10 bill or a different one since currency is fungible. If someone lends another person their car, however, they would not expect to be given back a different car, even of the same make and model, as cars are not fungible.

As long as OPEC controls enough of the worldwide oil market (and they certainly do), when they want the price to rise, they simply cut back slightly on their supply. Only a 2-3% drop in supply will typically create a dramatic rise in price.

Therefore, even if the U.S. and Canadian markets are able to generate a 10 to 15% increase in the overall supply of world oil, OPEC would simply cut back their portion of the supply accordingly for a net zero result in order to maintain the level of current pricing.

The fact is domestic oil suppliers have shown little stomach for increasing supply. Why? They like the prices OPEC’s strategy generates! This is why Governor Palin had to file suit in Alaska just to get movement on additional drilling and production. U.S. oil companies have a tendency for sitting on inventory, especially if it is likely that future pricing will be higher.

The only factor that will fundamentally reduce the price of oil is the wholesale introduction of other competing transportation fuels. This alone will finally force OPEC to its knees — and deliver a massive blow to worldwide Islamic terrorism.

To be clear, this is not about supporting ethanol, methanol, or any other specific alternative transportation fuel source. The beauty of the OFS Act is that it doesn’t support ONE particular transportation fuel — it only opens up the market to competition and finally allows the AMERICAN CONSUMER to choose from a variety of fuels for their cars and trucks. Additionally, there are no subsidies tied to the OFS legislation and there is absolutely NO COST to the Federal Government/taxpayers. New cars would cost approximately $100 more for the alcohol fuel capability, but the resulting projected fuel cost savings would be approximately $1,000 per year per car!

***ACTION ITEM***

Please do your part today to break OPEC’s chokehold on the price of oil — and their funding of terrorism. Contact your Members of Congress through our Capwiz site and ask that they cosponsor this important legislation. We’ve made it easy to do by pre-writing the correspondence. Click HERE to reach our Capwiz site and click on the two Open Fuel Standard Act alerts (one for Representatives and one for Senators) to send your message to the Hill today.

With your support, in as little as seven years we can make our nation and our world safer for our children and our grandchildren by taking the teeth out of OPEC and providing Americans a CHOICE when they fuel their vehicles. Brazil has already reached this point. We can be next. But Congress won’t act unless they hear from you.

Which Emotional Strategies Influence Orthodox Muslims?

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 21:34:00 +0000

AL SIEBERT, author of Survivor Personality, said something interesting in his book, and I've been thinking about it for awhile now. The book is about what personality traits survivors hold in common. Siebert has studied survivors of POW camps, concentration camps, plane crashes, boats sinking, etc. He's made this study his life's work. Here's the quote, and then I'll tell you what I've been thinking:

"Bob Mitchell, a marine who fought first on Bataan and later on Corregidor, told me that many of the POWs who gave up were unable to cope with the cruelty and hostility directed toward them by the guards. He said that many prisoners tried to influence the guards by feeling upset, expressing pain, pleading, or trying to win them over. When this didn't work, they had nothing left. Many gave up and died."

Siebert's main quest with his research is to discover what survivors do that non-survivors do not do. In the case above, the non-survivors didn't change their strategy when they could see it wasn't working.

Now here's what I was thinking: Most people I know who don't want to believe Islam is a political and supremacist ideology are good-hearted people. They believe we should all just get along, that killing is a bad thing, and that even hurting someone is bad and it should never be done. They are kind to dogs. They recycle their trash so as not to make things harder for future generations, etc.

I am overgeneralizing here, but I'm not too far off with this characterization. These good-hearted people don't want to believe there are millions of fundamentalist Muslims in the world who would like nothing better than to cut off their heads. It's unthinkable. Maybe these fundamentalists just need some clean water and enough to eat. Maybe they've been abused in the past. Maybe they just need to be understood.

These are all perfectly good strategies for normal interactions between healthy people within a liberal democracy with a good police force and an overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens.

When you want to work out your differences with someone, and you have a disagreement or anger between you, it's a pretty good strategy to talk and try to come to some kind of mutually-acceptable compromise. That's one kind of strategy and it works very well in a particular context. The problem is, it doesn't work in every context, nor with every person.

One of the traits Siebert found common among survivors is the ability and willingness to change strategies. Siebert discovered it is one of the most universal traits survivors have that non-survivors do not have: They are flexible enough to see the strategy they're using isn't working in a particular situation, and they're able to come up with something else.

Those who can't do that in some situations die.

Flexibility means being able to be kind in some circumstances, and cold-blooded in others if it is necessary. It means being able to be cooperative with some people, and more competitive or even hard-nosed with others if it seems necessary.

A lack of flexibility means you'll run out of options for some situations.

I think that's what is happening with at least some blind multiculturalists. They don't realize that the strategies they might normally employ do not work with someone who is hell-bent on murdering us all for no other reason than we're not Muslims.

That kind of ruthlessness is hard to fathom for most people, I think, and multiculturalists seem even less willing to even entertain the possibility. They think there must be some other explanation. And because they think people can't really be that way, or that a large group of people or a religion can't be that way, they don't understand the why anyone would criticize Muslims.

If you can't understand the strength and intensity of the ruthlessness arrayed against western democracies, then you can't understand the need to defend against it.

Those who can fully grasp the ruthless intentions of orthodox Muslims will recognize how profoundly indifferent they are to pleading, expressing pain, feeling upset, or trying to win them over with appeasements.

We need to use some other strategy if we are to survive. My guess is that in a serious situation such as a concentration camp, the people who are now multiculturalists would be the kind of people who would die first. Peaceful, cooperative strategies don't work against ruthlessness, and those who aren't flexible enough to change their strategies are less likely to survive.

Even with ample flexibility, ruthlessness is almost impossible to deal with successfully. I squirmed while I watched a Frontline program called Target America. It showed the clumsy, incompetent attempts of one American president after another trying to deal with Islamic terrorism.

I said ruthlessness is almost impossible to deal with successfully, but that's not really true. Ruthless terrorists would be easy to deal with if you were willing to be equally ruthless yourself. But it is very difficult to deal with within the parameters of humanity and human rights.

The jihadis, of course, are aware of the West's ethical restraints and so they tailor their strategies for us. Their strategies are carefully designed to put us in double-binds where we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. And where we make a horrible mistake no matter what we do. Orthodox Muslims constantly do their best to give us Sophie's choice.

The most obvious response is against our code of ethics, and any other response is inadequate.

You can watch the Frontline program online. It is painful to watch the presidents try (and fail) to deal with the jihadis' double-binds. The presidents just wanted the problem to go away. They were all seeking a short-term, quick-fix solutions, and refused to see this for what it is: A global, long-term strategy of millions of orthodox Muslims who will do anything to gain a political advantage, with the ultimate aim being something that to most westerners is unthinkable: An Islamic world.

I like Western civilization. I like normal interactions between healthy people within a liberal democracy with a good police force and an overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens. I like not having to settle differences with my fellow citizens with violence. But I hope the island of civilization within which we live our lives doesn't blind too many of us to the fact that there are still people in this world who think differently and that different strategies than we're used to may sometimes be required.

Choke Off Money to Orthodox Islam

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:55:00 +0000

THIS TUESDAY, October 25th, in Washington, D.C. is a roundtable and press event for the Open Fuel Standard Act. You're invited. And we urge you to ask your representative to (at least) send one of their staff members to attend. This is an important, informative hour and a half event that none of our leaders should miss. (Contact information for your Members can be found here and here.)

The event has two parts: A one hour roundtable moderated by Anne Korin, and a half hour press event with Representatives John Shimkus and Eliot Engel.

The roundtable will have several guests for the panel discussion, including Robert McFarlane, Brigitte Gabriel, Bob Dinneen, and Greg Dolan. A special guest — NASCAR driver Kenny Wallace — will also be speaking.

Read, download, or print a flyer for the event here: OFS Roundtable and Press Event Flyer. Get these to anyone you know in the D.C. area, including all the Hill Members who will listen to you.

To RSVP the event or find out more, contact Representative Shimkus' Legislative Director Grant Culp at grant.culp@mail.house.gov.

Peace On Earth

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 21:46:00 +0000

YESTERDAY I HEARD Serge Trifkovic say most of the conflicts in the world involve Muslims, and if you took away conflicts involving Muslims, the world would be a pretty peaceful place.

Muslims, both moderates and extremists, are always quick to point out that Islam is a religion of peace. But this statement by Trifkovic made me curious, so I've been searching on Google for a map of world conflicts, and which ones involve Muslims. I haven't found what I was looking for, but I found two maps (on two different web sites that have nothing to do with each other) that are interesting when you see them together.

The first map is by Freedom House, an organization that tracks democracies around the world. It shows their map of world freedom. The purple countries are the least free:

A few clicks later, I found this map of populations of Muslims. It shows by color where the densest population of Muslims live in the world (the highest population of Muslims is darkest blue):

Pretty interesting, huh? One of the things we've been advocating strongly and repeatedly on CitizenWarrior.com is that we can weaken Islamic supremacists by pushing for women's rights.

In order for women to have rights, the Muslims will have to loosen their tight grip on Islamic law. Those who make fewer of their laws conform to Shari'a have more freedoms, and more rights for women. And in so doing, perhaps some other Koranic instructions (like jihad, for example) might be modified as well. This would make it more difficult for Jihadis to recruit new warriors. And hopefully those young men would find more productive things to do with their time than blowing themselves up.

And all this can be brought about by focusing solely on promoting women's rights. Do you think every woman should have human rights? Yes, so does almost everybody else in the world. This is a place we can join together in a mutual and important purpose.

In the struggle to defeat the third jihad, this is the place the wall can be breached.

An Easy Way To Influence Your Friends

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Sun, 09 Oct 2011 23:08:00 +0000

SHARE DVDs with your friends. When you find a good one, get a couple extra copies. Then let your friends know you saw a really good DVD. If they show any openness or interest, offer to loan them your copy.

Books may contain more information, but most people are more open to the idea of watching a DVD than reading a book. A book is a considerably bigger investment of time.

This is an easy and comfortable way of introducing important information to people you know. Even a good friend might not be willing to listen to you talk nonstop for an hour, educating him on orthodox Islam and its prime directive, but he might be willing to watch a DVD. And the producers have the funds to hire authorities in their fields to share what they know, lending the DVD an influencing power far beyond what you could accomplish in a conversation.

When you mention the DVD, don't say it is the best thing you've ever seen. Say you liked it, but then tell them something you thought was the most interesting part of the film. Or the most intriguing. Or surprising.

For example, when I mention the film, Islam: What the West Needs to Know, I like to mention that one of the people interviewed is an ex-member of the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization). In other words, he used to be an Islamic terrorist. He grew up in Palestine, where they glorify dying in martyrdom on television. He learned stories from his teachers in school of heroic martyrs blowing themselves up for the glory of Islam. He threw rocks at Israeli soldiers. He smuggled a bomb hidden inside a loaf of bread into an Israeli area, but changed his mind at the last minute and threw the bomb up onto a roof, where it blew up. I thought it was really interesting to hear his take on the Islamization of the West.

When you find a good film, watch it several times, so you will be well-acquainted with the facts and ideas later when you're talking to someone about the DVD. And while you watch the film for the second or third time, keep a notepad handy and jot down what you think are some of the most surprising or intriguing tidbits in the film, and use those to pique the curiosity of people when you talk about it.

In other words, don't just mention the film and say you liked it, and assume the person will be interested. Help her become interested. It is a crucial part you can play to help convert people who aren't really that interested in Islam into people who are interested. You can make a small move in that direction by getting this person interested in watching a DVD.

Use this tool actively. It is a practical mission you could accomplish to help do the one thing that needs to be done: Educate your fellow non-Muslims about Islam. As you find things that work and things that don't work, please come back and leave your insights in the comments below.

We've got a growing list of DVDs to recommend. Check them out: Recommended DVDs.

Learn more about influencing your friends:

Webcast: The Global Threat of the Muslim Brotherhood

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 22:48:00 +0000

Join Hillsdale College online, Friday, October 7, for a free webcast featuring Andrew McCarthy speaking about the global threat of the Muslim Brotherhood. Click here to register.

Members of the Muslim Brotherhood operate on a global scale and seek through the primacy of sharia law the supremacy of the Islamic State. McCarthy will discuss how it has shown itself to be successful in the West and how it can be combated.

Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute. For 18 years, he was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the South District of New York, and from 1993-95 he led the terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 11 others in connection with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and a plot to bomb New York City landmarks. Following the 9/11 attacks, he supervised the Justice Department’s command post near Ground Zero. He has also served as a Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense and an adjunct professor at Fordham University’s School of Law and New York Law School. Mr. McCarthy writes widely for newspapers and journals and is the author of two books: Grand Jihad and Willful Blindness.

Muslim 'Moderation' = Patient Strategy

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 21:22:00 +0000

The following was originally posted on The English Defence League Extra, and is reprinted here with permission.

Muslim Groups/Individuals Within a Non-Muslim State

Much is made of how ‘moderate’ Muslims are in the UK and how many moderate Muslims there actually are.

Muslims constitute a minority in the UK. The population of the UK is around 60 million, about three million or more of whom are Muslims. (The estimates vary because accurate stats aren't really kept on religious groupings, only ethnic ones. One maximum has been estimated at as much as five million Muslims.)

Thus, would it make much sense for Muslims or Muslim groups to be radical, or militant, or overly vocal? As a minority, Muslims are well aware of the fact that they cannot demand too much or, indeed, be too Islamic. Overt Islamism or radicalism would quite simply backfire in a country in which Muslims are clearly a minority.

We must ask ourselves this: Exactly what would Muslims need to do to be immoderate, radical or militant (specifically by multiculturalist standards)?

Of course most Muslims can’t introduce full or even extensive sharia law off their own backs. On the whole, they cannot pull their children out of non-Muslim schools. They cannot vocally support terrorism. They cannot admit to accepting violent jihad. And so on.

To do so would be out rightly self-destructive because few of these demands would be met at this moment of time. (But in a few years?) Thus, Muslims have no choice but to be moderate. Not because they believe in Islamic moderation, but because militancy, Islamism and fundamentalism would backfire.

Similarly, Muslims would find it very hard to get away with systemic kinds of Islamic of Muslim intolerance towards others or towards non-Muslim institutions, both legally and in terms of non-Muslim opinion. Thus, if blatant Islamic militancy or intolerance will definitely backfire for most Muslims, what would be the point of displaying such things?

In addition, Muslims as individuals may be militant and intolerant because, as individuals committing individual acts, they can get away with it.

The same is true of fringe groups like Muslim Against Crusades/Anjem Choidary and Hizb ut-Tahrir. These group do not want to be mainstream.

But what about the mainstream groups like Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) and Muslim Council of Britain (MCB)?

Why would they self-destructively become too demanding, too militant or, indeed, too Islamic?

This would ruin things for them. This would put a halt to their long-term plans for the slow but sure Islamification of the UK.

The same with Muslims as a whole, either as communities or as the sum of Muslim communities. They too know that complete Islamification would be impossible at this point of time. They know that excessive militancy would backfire.

So why not wait instead? Why not increase Muslim demographic power and then start being more demanding and militant? Again, to do so now would simply backfire.

Even in the case of Islamic zealots, there is only a limited amount a Muslim, or a Muslim group, can do in a non-Muslim society.

That is why terrorism is so often used.

There is nothing to stop a Muslim from becoming a suicide bomber or a terrorist. That is, he need not accommodate himself to British law and custom because, from the beginning, he is evidently outside that system.

But for Muslims as a whole, as well as Muslim groups, they must work within British law and custom. So by definition their militancy and their Islamism will be curtailed. Curtailed not through Muslim choice, but from facing the fact that Muslims live within non-Muslim states (with their non-Muslim laws and customs).

In the end, then, it is not the case of Muslims and Muslim groups being moderate, as some of them indeed are, but it is more the case that they must be moderate.

They must curtail their demands and their Islamic militancy. If they do not, the Muslims know that the cause that is the Islamification of Britain will take one or more steps back. Why would Muslims or Muslim groups want Islam to take one or more steps back? Thus they play the game. They say the right things and make the right gestures. Sometimes, of course, Muslims or Muslim groups are not that careful. They overstep the mark. They are too Islamic or too demanding. This is to be expected because the boundaries need to be continuously tested. Some Muslims will even be sacrificed by their fellow Muslims on the altar of the slow, but sure, Islamification of the United Kingdom.

Thus

Muslim 'moderation' is actually a sign of Muslim weakness vis-à-vis the larger non-Muslim secular state or society.

Numerical/demographic and political weakness is far from being the same as religious moderation or tolerance. Even a Muslim zealot will bide his time because he knows that any act of zealousness would evidently be self-destructive. And even a Muslim terrorist waits and prepares rather than selects the first target that enters his vision. Muslim periods of quiescence, or relative quiescence, and not, therefore, periods of Muslim or Islamic moderation.

Islamic/Muslim States within a Non-Muslim World

Imagine what would happen if Iran, the Sundan, Somalia, Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, etc. obtained nuclear weapons or had vastly increased military power.

Now it will be interesting to apply the same arguments to the larger scale. Instead of talking about the relative weakness of Muslims or Muslim groups vis-a-vis British society, let us think instead about the relative weakness of Muslim or Islamic states vis-a-vis the world.

Here again we can say that if all Muslims states were stronger, or even if just one were stronger, than the US or the West, what would happen? Think of Iran with nuclear weapons. Think of Saudi Arabia with a vastly increased military? Think indeed of the possible massively increased power of Hezbollah and Hamas relative to Israel.

I can quite confidently say that in one, or indeed in many, of these cases we would now be experiencing massive conflict and even Armageddon. Just think of how many Muslim purists or fanatics wouldn’t think twice about using nuclear weapons against Israel.

But Israel would only be the beginning. After Israel it would be the United States. Then Britain. And then Europe as a whole.

Now let’s move back to the small scale and imagine British Muslims or Islamic groups having much-increased power, both demographically and politically.

Even with twice as much power, if such things can be quantified at all, this country would be radically transformed. So much so that it would be largely unrecognisable. It would be well on the way to being an Islamic state, which is something virtually every Muslim group wants and which very many individual Muslims also desire.

Muslims have not got such power or numbers today. That is why Muslim groups are relatively quiet and relatively undemanding. Given time, and a large increase in Muslim populations and power, things will be radically changed.

No culture and no state in history has experienced long periods of stasis. And this is not going to suddenly change in the case of Great Britain and Europe as a whole - which is not to say that this change will necessarily be Islamic change.

Whether it is Islamic change or not, is up to us. It is up to the non-Muslim citizens of Britain and Europe as a whole. Our destiny lies in our own hands. No one is forcing us to give way to Islam and Islamification. If sharia law and the rest becomes a reality, it is us, Britain’s non-Muslims, who will have allowed this to happen. Muslims, after all, are only being true to their religion.

*) The Muslim population of the UK is rising 10 times faster than the non-Muslim population:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5621482.ece

Ten Years Later

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Sun, 11 Sep 2011 08:43:00 +0000

THE INNOCENT victims of 9/11 — without knowing it, without volunteering — woke up the world to a 1400-year process of cultural usurpation by Islamic believers.

May they rest in peace.

I know some people would say the world has not awakened. But nearly everyone in the counterjihad movement today was jarred awake on that September morning ten years ago, and began to climb out of their ignorance because of 9/11. And most of us have helped others understand what happened and why. The knowledge is spreading.

There is, of course, still much to be done. So let us renew our commitment on this day that the sacrifice of the 9/11 victims was not made in vain. Let us find the strength to reach those who still ardently hope Islam means peace but suspect it might not. Let us find the skill to shatter their cracked and crumbling theories. Let us rededicate ourselves to exposing the ideology that motivated the jihadis of 9/11.

Light up the darkness.

What Does "Radicalization" Mean?

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 19:07:00 +0000

I've always enjoyed Raymond Ibrahim's columns, and his latest is no exception. Entitled, "Muslim Radicalization": In the Eyes of the Beholder, he makes a crucial point: That what we mean by "radical" is simply "normal" by orthodox Islamic standards, and if we don't understand that, any talk of "radicalization" (or what to do about it) will lead exactly nowhere.

Ibrahim has solid credentials for this topic. Born in the United States to Egyptian parents, he was raised in a bilingual environment and is fluent in Arabic, including colloquial dialects. He received a B.A. and M.A. (both in history, focusing on the ancient and medieval Near East) from California State University, Fresno. There he studied closely with noted military-historian and Hoover Senior Fellow, Victor Davis Hanson.

In his latest article, Ibrahim wrote:

The word “radical” — especially in a socio-political context — means “extreme,” “fundamental”; as a noun it means “a person who holds or follows strong convictions or extreme principles; extremist...”

As any anthropologist can attest, there are entire cultures and societies that engage in what we would term “radical” behavior, even though to them such behavior is quite normal. Indeed, if we agree that “radicalization” refers to extreme views or practices, to many cultures, the West — from its gender neutrality to its secular humanism — is “radical.”

Let us agree, then, that radical behavior — to a Muslim, Western normalization of homosexuality, to a Westerner, Muslim killing of apostates — is in the eye of the beholder. Once this view is adopted, the inevitable becomes clear: “Muslim radicalization” is simply another way of saying “distinctly Muslim principles.”

Consider Saudi Arabia. Its entire worldview and culture — from totally veiled women to draconian punishments such as stoning — is “extreme” by Western standards. Yet, to the average Saudi, such behavior, built atop millennium-old Sharia principles, is not only normal but moderate (the late Osama bin Laden used to boast that Sharia is the most “moderate” system). Simultaneously, Saudis look to the Western life style and see it as corrupt, debauched, or, in a word — radical.

Read the whole column here, and please share it widely.

9/11 Day Tribute

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 04:48:00 +0000

Visit 911day.org and join the 9/11 Tribute Movement (and read, see, and watch the tributes others have made). Here's what it says on the web site: "Please join the 9/11 Tribute Movement by briefly describing what you will do this year — a good deed, charitable activity, or other plans — to honor the 9/11 victims, survivors, and those that rose in service in response to the attacks."

Here's how it is done on the site:

1. Enter what your tribute will be. For example: I will honor my local firefighters by bringing them food.

2. Upload a video, photo, or simply fill out the 9/11 Tribute card.

3. Dedicate your tribute to an individual lost on 9/11, or another person, such as a first responder, recovery worker, or a member of the military.

If you'd like to participate, go to 911day.org. Or go to their Facebook page here: Facebook.com/911day.

What do you think is the most appropriate way to honor the victims of 9/11?

Normal by Islamic Standards

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 18:09:00 +0000

We've gotten some good comments on How Did September 11 Change You? I'd like to share one with you:

Like all Americans I could not understand why we were attacked, after all America is a democratic society that has helped numerous other countries in their time of need and fought wars to protect liberty. Following 9-11 I read the Qur'an and several books on the life of Muhammed and discovered that Islam is not a set of simple religious beliefs but rather an ideology based upon thousands of edicts all directed by a doctrine of domination and subjugation. One of the largest fundamental principles of Islam is the Kafir, the non-Muslim. Allah cursed the Kafirs and Mohammed annihilated the Kafirs whenever possible.

The 9-11 attack on the World Trade Center was not extremism as many Americans think, it is considered normal by Islam standards, all Americans have to do is study Islam (the Qur'an and the life of Muhammed) to understand this. Unfortunately the liberals and the politically correct blame extremist for current worldwide terrorism, they need to educate themselves and stop living in la la land.

- Proud to be non-politically correct

If you haven't made a comment or a video, I invite you to answer the question, "How did September 11th change you?" If you want to leave a comment, click here or email it to us and we'll post it for you.

How Did September 11 Change You?

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 08:04:00 +0000

YouTube and the New York Times have invited you to make a video of yourself answering one of three questions. The video doesn't need to be professional or well-edited. It doesn't need to be filmed by a good camera. They just want to hear you answering one of the questions. Watch their 54-second invitation here:

YouTube.com/September11

One of the questions is: "How did September 11th change you?"

If you don't want to make a video, we would love to hear your answer. You can leave your comment, or email us and we'll post it for you. How did September 11th change you?

Courage

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 22:54:00 +0000

"Fear is the first adversary we have to get past when we set out to battle for freedom, and it is the one that remains until the very end," said Aung San Suu Kyi.

But people fighting for freedom don't need to be completely free of fear to do what must be done. She says her fellow freedom fighters "pretend to be unafraid as they go about their duties and pretend not to see that their comrades are also pretending."

"This is not hypocrisy," she says. "This is courage that has to be renewed consciously from day to day and moment to moment. This is how the battle for freedom has to be fought until such time as we have the right to be free from the fear imposed by brutality and injustice."

How Should We Treat the Muslims in Our Midst?

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 21:28:00 +0000

LIVING AMONG US, we have many Muslims who are undoubtedly as innocent of terrorism, political subversion, and Islamic supremacism as we are. But we have a problem, don't we? These innocent fellow countrymen — and the terrorists, subversives, and supremacists — all call themselves "Muslims."

Many non-Muslims explain the situation to themselves that "there are extremists in every religion" and let it go at that. But those of us who have studied Islamic doctrine and Islamic history have discovered that "letting it go at that" would be a big mistake. And of course, those who simply look at the news can see that there must be something about Islam that produces more "extremists" than other religions.

In fact, the "extremists" are not any more "extreme" than the many devout followers of other religions. The difference is that the teachings devout Muslims follow are more definitively hostile toward non-followers than any other mainstream religion's teachings.

So we are in a quandary, and so are the innocents who call themselves Muslims (but who ignore or are unaware of Islam's intolerant teachings). We don't want to make the mistake of overgeneralizing and becoming hostile to someone just because he says he's a Muslim. But we don't want to support or encourage or befriend a Muslim who is following the teachings of the Koran because it says it's okay to pretend to be a non-Muslim's friend, but to never actually be their friend, and it says "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them." These are not the beliefs or motivations we want in a friend, or in someone we invite home to dinner, or even in someone we speak freely with.

We know how to deal with orthodox Muslims who are actively pushing for concessions from the West, but what about in our personal lives? Should we live in suspicion of all Muslims? Should we automatically hate someone we know is a Muslim? Would you want to live that way? No, probably not. Should you ignore what you know about Islamic doctrine and treat everyone the same? That doesn't seem sensible either.

We're in a real quandary, and so are heterodox Muslims who have rejected the worst of Muhammad's teachings.

Our difficulty can be resolved with a simple change in our personal policy. We can consistently treat the Muslims among us a particular way and it will solve our problem and hopefully bring this issue into the light of day where we can reasonably deal with it like adults.

Before I describe the personal policy I advocate, I need to clarify something. An "innocent Muslim," or what has often been called a "moderate Muslim" would necessarily have to reject jihad except in the sense of a "personal inner struggle." That would be a Muslim who rejects (or is unaware of) 97 percent of the references to jihad in the Hadith. For a Muslim to be truly innocent, she or he must reject (or be ignorant of) much of the "sacred" example of Muhammad, which means rejecting (or being unaware of) the 91 passages in the Koran that tell Muslims to follow Muhammad's example.

An innocent Muslim must also reject (or is unaware of) the intolerance, hatred, and violence toward non-Muslims in the Koran. And an innocent Muslim would reject (or be ignorant of) the subordinated position of women in Islamic doctrine.

For any non-Muslim who has studied Islamic doctrine, the above description is a reasonable starting point for a Muslim we can welcome in our midst.

What brought this up was reflecting over the last ten years. We started citizenwarrior.com in 2001, about a month after 9/11. And in that time, we've heard from hundreds of Muslims, all of them arguing that we don't know what we're talking about because "true Islam" is peaceful and tolerant.

In all that time, we have never heard from a Muslim — not once — that acknowledged the existence of the immense number of passages in the Koran that non-Muslims find disagreeable — passages that anyone with an IQ over 70 could understand are disagreeable to non-Muslims. And not once have any these Muslims acknowledged the existence of the egregious example of Muhammad — an example anyone with the slightest amount of human empathy would understand might be offensive or even frightening to non-Muslims.

What we've heard again and again was that it's all taken out of context, and that the terrorists have it all wrong and nobody else except the terrorists believe in or follow such teachings, or the teachings don't exist.

Over the years we've come across a very small number of genuinely jihad-rejecting Muslims, like Tawfik Hamid. And of course, if someone genuinely rejects the hatred, political ambition and calls to violence in Islamic doctrine, they don't complain to us about what we write here on Citizen Warrior. They don't have a problem with criticism of Islamic doctrine (they are strong critics of the doctrine themselves).

But after rejecting so much of Islam (given our definition of an "innocent Muslim" above), even Muslims have a hard time understanding why such a person would call himself a "Muslim," but who are we to say how any person should define himself?

THE RECOMMENDED POLICY

Okay, so our situation is that we don't know how to treat the Muslims in our midst, and the "innocent Muslims" don't know how to identify themselves as "jihad-rejecting Muslims." Here is the solution: We should stop coddling the innocent Muslims and start being very matter-of-fact about our situation. We need to stop talking around this issue. We need to stop avoiding the source of the problem. We need to deal with Muslims forthrightly with this attitude: "You either firmly reject jihad or we must assume you embrace it. It is counterproductive for everyone for us to bend over backwards trying to prove how tolerant we are."

If Muslims want to be welcomed into this society, they need to start standing up and making their voices heard. They must openly acknowledge and unambiguously and categorically reject the hatred, misogyny, and violence in their core doctrines, or we must assume they don't.

Many of us are reading their source books. We know the doctrine. We would be foolish not to assume a Muslim believes in Islamic doctrine. So it is up to Muslims to tell us they do not believe in that doctrine, and to say specifically which parts of the doctrine they do not endorse.

What got me thinking about this was an article by Christopher Hitchens who said that Governor Mitt Romney (a Mormon) firmly stated "that he did not regard the prophet, or head of the Mormon church, as having ultimate moral and spiritual authority on all matters. Nothing, he swore, could override the U.S. Constitution."

Why did Romney feel he needed to say that? Because many of us are aware of Mormon doctrine. So he openly reassured us as to where his loyalties lay.

Have you ever heard a Muslim do this? And yet Muslims are in a worse situation. They experience far more suspicion and hostility in our society than Mormons. But rather than doing what Romney did, what do Muslims do? Usually they blame us for the suspicion and hostility, and imply the problem is our lack of "tolerance."

So here's the situation: We've become aware of Islamic doctrine and we don't like it, so we naturally wonder where the Muslims among us stand, and instead of saying, "We acknowledge the intolerance and violence of our core doctrines, and we reject them totally," they tend to open up with hostility, and so deepen our suspicions. The hostility and finger-pointing and the avoidance of honesty are exactly what we would expect from someone who believes in the supremacist, intolerant teachings of Islam.

And weak, vague assurances are not good enough. "We reject the killing of innocents" doesn't work any more because too many of us know already that nowhere in the Koran does it imply non-Muslims are innocent. It implies just the opposite.

Muslims need to be clear and explicit, and we need to demand that of them without apology. From a non-Muslim's perspective, our open demand for honesty is a rational response to the facts, and nothing to be embarrassed about.

We need to make it clear what someone must do to be welcome in this society if they call themselves a Muslim. And we need to be clear that our "tough-love" attitude toward them is a sane response to what we know of their ideology.

ISLAMIC BELIEVERS

Imagine you were putting an avowed communist in charge of the Federal Reserve. You wouldn't do it without very firm assurances from him that he completely rejects the economic model of communism. You have to demand that assurance because you are familiar with the basic tenets of the communist ideology.

You have to assume when someone says he's a communist that he believes in the communist ideology. It's an assumption we can take for granted. Otherwise, what does it mean to say you're a communist?

That's what it means: That you believe in the communist ideology.

Same with Islam: You say you're a Muslim. That means you believe in Islam's ideology. Fine. I am familiar with Islam's teachings. And no, I don't want you running the country or involved in law enforcement or teaching my children or writing textbooks or working in counterterrorism or joining the military, unless you can assure me about what parts of that ideology you reject. This should be plain common sense, but of course, it only makes sense to someone who is familiar with the Islamic ideology.

If you assume it is impossible for a religion to advocate intolerance, supremacism, mysogyny and violence to non-believers, this policy and this attitude would not make sense. If you assume the teachings of any religion could be used to justify anything, it would not make sense to you either. But if you are a non-Muslim and you've read the Koran, you know what I'm talking about.

Others are coming to the same conclusion, and I've seen many more direct challenges to Muslims who say they are moderate. They are being asked pointed questions like, "Do you repudiate what Hamas is doing?" and "I am a Buddhist; do you consider me a kafir?" and they're asked to sign the Freedom Pledge and if they won't sign it, they are asked why they won't. These are steps in the right direction.

But more interviewers need to become educated enough about Islam that they can ask stronger, more specific questions. And this challenge needs to become incessant from all of us, everywhere. Muslims must be made to face the discomfort. They must realize they have to come right out and say, "Yes, there is a political agenda in Islam, and I completely reject it" or they will not be welcomed or trusted (or invited to any "interfaith dialogs for peace and understanding").

For someone who is unfamiliar with Islamic doctrine, all this would sound terrible and unfair, but we would do the same for any person who openly declared their endorsement of a seditious or treasonous or intolerant or violent ideology and who wanted to live among us as equals.

WHY THE TOUGH LOVE ATTITUDE IS NECESSARY

There are three reasons Muslims are reluctant to say what parts of Islamic doctrine they reject:

1. It says in the Islamic doctrine they can't reject any part of the Islamic doctrine.

2. They fear for their lives. According to Islamic doctrine, the penalty for apostasy is death. They might also merely fear to be ostracized by their community. Heterodoxy, even if not accompanied by the death penalty, can be socially penalized severely in Muslim communities.

3. They don't reject it. They are going along with the Western society program until Muslims have greater political strength, at which time, they will start applying the political, supremacist teachings of Islam. This approach must be fairly common, given the patterns of modern Islamization.

It would take a very brave person, even if he was truly a jihad rejector, to volunteer an admission of apostasy. We must, in a sense, force their hand and then help protect jihad rejectors from reprisals.

This issue must be forced into the open or we will continue to suffer in a confused and paralyzed limbo while orthodox Muslims paint all of us into a corner (the non-Muslims and jihad-rejecting Muslims alike) by continuing their Islamization of the West.

IDEOLOGY COUNTS

In a video profiling three American Muslims, who all presented themselves as regular American citizens, the Muslims seemed baffled as to why non-Muslims might look at them suspiciously, but they also seemed equally self-righteous about how silly and misguided that is, and not one of these American Muslims mentioned the supremacism and intolerance at the core of their doctrines. Worse, they acted as if no such doctrines exist. They acted as if such a notion was preposterous.

One of the women in the video even pointed out that believers of other religions don't get this kind of scrutiny or prejudice. I wanted to tell her, "That's right. It's been a long time since anyone worried about the Amish rioting, beheading people, infiltrating governments, threatening violence to silence their critics, changing the contents of public school textbooks, or blowing up buses. Ideology actually counts."

We don't have a situation where religions are all the same but one is being picked on unfairly. We have a situation where most religions share many principles about universal love and kindness, but Islam does not. According to Islamic doctrine, Muslims are the best of people and non-Muslims are the worst of people and deserve to suffer in this life and burn in the afterlife.

One Muslim man in the video implied that if only people could get to know him and his family, their suspicions would disappear. I wanted to tell him, "Whether or not your family members are personable is not what concerns us. We wonder whether you believe in jihad in any form. We wonder if you pay your zakat and thus potentially fund suicide bombers. We wonder if you participate in CAIR or ISNA or any of the other Muslim organizations under the umbrella of the Muslim Brotherhood and we wonder if you've aligned yourself with the Brotherhood's goal to sabotage and undermine our government. We wonder if you believe in reverse integration and if you're striving in the way of Allah to Islamize America. We wonder if you follow the Koranic teachings to never make friends with non-Muslims — to go ahead and fake it, but never actually befriend them or like them."

If he is actively working toward Islam's prime directive, no amount of "getting to know him and his family" will matter. What might matter is if he acknowledged those teachings and told us he rejected them. That would at least be a start. But in the video, which would make any PR hack proud, you hear nothing that even approaches that level of honesty.

If these American Muslims are really so baffled, they should read their own doctrines. And if they have read them, their "bafflement" is a deceit because anyone reading the Koran or Muhammad's words and deeds would not be baffled in the slightest. It would be obvious what non-Muslims don't like about it.

Why does it matter? These Muslims are not a threat to national security, are they? Why not let them continue in their innocence? Because they are having children, and in a recent study in Britain, researchers found that second-generation Muslims are more "radical" than their immigrant parents. That is, they hold more orthodox views. In other words, they believe in Islam's prime directive. They are more committed to jihad than their first-generation parents.

Why would this be? Because of what I'm harping on: All these "perfectly nice Muslims" in the video are raising their children without ever telling them that supremacist and intolerant teachings are strewn throughout the Koran and Sunna, and without saying, "but we completely reject those teachings." No, they say nothing of the sort. They do just the opposite. They tell them being a Muslim is wonderful, that the Koran is the word of the Almighty, and that Muslims are being unfairly persecuted by non-Muslims around the world.

So our young Muslim grows up alienated from his surrounding culture and ignorant of Islamic doctrine and yet considering it an elemental foundation of his identity that he is a Muslim. This makes him fairly easy to recruit by devout Muslims who simply tell the kid to read the Koran and discover his obligations as a Muslim. The teenager is only too eager to see his parents as hypocrites, and becomes a devout Muslim, committed to jihad like it says in the Koran he is supposed to be. The result: Second-generation Muslims are more radical than their immigrant parents.

Another video, this one produced by teenaged American Muslims, who clearly have no clue about the doctrines of their own religion, yet feel self-righteously justified in vilifying non-Muslims who know more about their own religious doctrines than they do: The End of Islamophobia.

NOT GOOD ENOUGH

In an article entitled, Why 'Islamophobia' is Less Thinly Veiled in Europe, the author, Robert Marquand, writes, "In university settings and among some Muslim moderates, frank reappraisals of the Koran are under way, which includes a tougher look at its calls for militancy." He presented this fact as if it should put all our worries to rest.

Some Muslims are taking a tougher look? That is not a big relief. Islamic doctrines are clear, straightforward, and easy to find. They don't need to be "looked at" — they have been looked at, studied, memorized, clarified, and analyzed for 1400 years. And they were pretty clear and straightforward to begin with. They don't need to be looked at. They need to be vociferously repudiated, explicitly and forcefully.

Violent and intolerant teachings in Islamic doctrine are not superfluous addendum that can be easily discarded; they are embedded deep in the core of Islam throughout its doctrine and throughout its history. And orthodox Muslims are acting on these passages all over the world, killing people, destroying property, wrecking lives, and worming their way into positions of power. They're doing it right now, today.

Someone will die today because of these doctrines. By any definition, the situation is urgent. A "tougher look" doesn't cut it. Not even close. Does Marquand really think we can all relax now because some Muslim intellectuals at a few universities are taking a "tougher look?" He must be joking.

Marquand quotes Ahmet Mahamat, an immigrant from Chad who lives in France. Mahamat said, "Immigrants are linked to criminality or delinquency or fanaticism." He meant "linked in peoples' prejudiced minds." Poor Mahamat. We are supposed to feel sorry for him. But I wanted to tell him to suck it up and prove people wrong, just like every immigrant group before him has had to do.

Almost everywhere, when immigrants arrive on foreign shores, they face prejudice. And if they work hard and prove themselves loyal members of that society, they are eventually accepted and embraced.

That's how it works. You want to be on our team? Then prove yourself worthy. We don't owe you anything. We've already let you move here — the rest is up to you. If anything, you owe us.

But Mahamat is pursuing the example of Muhammad the Whiner. "I look in the eyes of so many people," he says, "and what I see does not correspond to who I am. They see another me."

I want to tell him, "Look, Mahamat, we know the ideology you supposedly believe in. You say you're a Muslim. We naturally assume you believe in Islam. We assume you are an adherent of Islamic doctrine, which would mean you believe in the supremacism and intolerance inherent in your ideology. Either stop calling yourself a Muslim or explicitly say, 'I reject jihad, I reject Muhammad's political, supremacist model, and I embrace Western values of freedom, women's rights, religious equality, etc.' It took me all of ten seconds to say that, so what's the problem? If you can't honestly say those things, then our suspicions are correct, so quit your whining and get used to permanent rejection because you do not belong in this society."

YOUR PUBLIC DECLARATION OF YOUR IDEOLOGY SHOULD INFLUENCE MY BEHAVIOR

When you know something about an ideology, you treat the person differently, and you should. You don't feed a Jain a steak dinner when they come to your house (Jains believe you should not kill any living creature). You don't invite a Buddhist with you on a deer hunt (Buddhists refrain from harming living beings).

If you know about someone's ideology, you usually will (and definitely should) treat them differently.

And in the same way, if someone's ideology calls for unrelenting jihad against non-Muslims until the whole world submits to Islamic law, generally speaking, you don't invite them to come live in your country and bring their wives. And if they are already in your country, you usually will (and definitely should) be wary of them until they prove their devotion and loyalty to your country and the principles your society is founded on.

This should be common sense. If it doesn't make sense to you, your first step should be to take the pledge and read the Koran.

For those who unevasively reject jihad in their speech and action, we should treat them like anyone else. No better, no worse.

I know many will think, "I don't care what they say. They could be lying." And of course that's true. But this is the place to start. The next step is to see if their actions match their words. This is true with anyone. If someone says they are on your team, you don't automatically trust them with your children. You get to know them. If their behavior doesn't match what they say, you stop trusting them, just as you should.

But the point is, none of us should be at all shy about speaking frankly about the principles in Islamic doctrine. Speak openly about it, and ask Muslims directly where they stand.

This policy will be hard on everyone in the short run but ultimately it will solve a huge problem we now face, which is that heterodox Muslims are reluctant to speak up about what they really believe, and that leaves us not knowing how to treat them. Who is committed to jihad and who isn't? We don't know who to trust or how to treat them. We are collectively filled with an awkward uncertainty about Islam.

Meanwhile, true believers in jihad are busy Islamizing the West while we hesitate, paralyzed by our uncertainty. This has got to stop immediately.

We call on all non-Muslims in the free world to join us in this stand — to put the onus on each individual Muslim (not just "Muslim organizations"). We must make this clear to every person who calls himself a Muslim: If you do not openly reject the doctrine of jihad when given an opportunity to do so, we must assume you abide by it and believe in it since it is a central part of your religious doctrine.

The result will be an openness and clarity that will allow us to move forward, stopping the orthodox Muslims from proceeding with their Islamization project, freeing the heterodox Muslims from their prison of silence, and freeing ourselves from having to live with uncertainty, suspiciousness, or hatred in our day-to-day lives.