Citizen Warrior

What is Our Goal in the Counterjihad Movement?

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Fri, 24 May 2013 22:44:00 +0000

Clearly something is wrong. Orthodox Islam is spreading, and great numbers of non-Muslims around the world are ignorant, confused, or blinded by an indiscriminate multiculturalism, which is allowing orthodox Islam to spread relatively unimpeded.

Those of us who have discovered the disturbing nature of Islamic doctrine (and the growing threat of its spread) want to do something about it. But what? The emotions provoked by this are intense, of course. Many of us are frightened or horrified or angry or frustrated — and some of us feel all of these and feel them strongly. We want to stop this madness we see spreading over the world. But what can we do? What should we aim at? What is our goal?

We've been at this a long time. We started Citizen Warrior about a month after 9/11. Our comments on this site are "moderated," which means we read every comment before publishing it, and we've been doing so since the beginning. We also have a Facebook page, and we read every comment there, too. So we've heard many emotionally aroused counterjihadists saying things like "we should nuke the Middle East" or "send them all back where they came from" or "ban Islam." Understandably upset, people want to do something about Islam's growing threat. But of course, nuking the Middle East is not possible, not acceptable, and wouldn't solve the problem anyway. You can't nuke an ideology. We can't "send them back" either because many of them were born in our countries. These kinds of solutions are impotent; full of sound and fury, signifying nothing but frustration.

What kind of language should we use to describe the counterjihadist's goal? On Citizen Warrior here we have characterized it a number of ways over the years: Defeating the third jihad, thwarting Islam's prime directive, stopping orthodox Islam's relentless encroachment, reversing jihad, etc. None of these are really adequate either.

After thinking about it for awhile, we've come up with the language we'd like to use, and we want to know what you think of it. Either email us or leave it as a comment below. This is our goal:

To marginalize, discredit, and disempower
orthodox Islam.

We can't really get rid of Islam. But we can make it so weak and maligned, so cut off from resources and shunned that it no longer poses a serious threat to the free world.

The Ku Klux Klan was once a growing movement in the U.S. They had millions of members, some of whom were in high places. They had a massive demonstration in Washington DC in 1925. Fifty thousand Klansmen were in the parade, dressed in their white robes. Just as an aside, did you know the Klan had a Kloran? I kid you not. Here's a PDF version of it.

What happened to the KKK? Why didn't they grow into a national party or take over the country? They were marginalized, discredited, and disempowered, and remain so to this day. They are still around. It's an ideology. You can't really get rid of an ideology. But you can make it something that few people want to be associated with.

How can we do that with orthodox Islam? There are many ways:

1. The first and most important is getting more people to understand that Islam is unlike other religions in important ways and that the "extremists" are not doing anything but following the written creeds of their religion. They're not "picking and choosing" passages from their texts to justify what they're doing. They're not "taking things out of context" or "misunderstanding" the Koran. It is the Koran itself and the example of Muhammad that is incompatible with modern society. We need to effectively reach people. Once enough people understand the situation accurately, the rest of this list will be relatively easy.

2. Prevent Sharia law from worming its way into our legal system — passing legislation that explicitly forbids it.

3. Stop Muslim immigration into free societies, or at least limit it for Muslims, limit it from Muslim countries, test Muslim immigrants for their level of orthodoxy, or something along these lines.

4. Prevent the construction of mosques inside our borders.

5. Cut off oil money to OPEC, which is the main power behind Islam's current expansion in the world.

6. Stop the oppression of women in Muslim lands (and everywhere else, including Muslim enclaves in free nations). The more power and freedom and rights women have in Muslim countries, the less orthodox those Muslims will become.

You've learned about the terrifying brilliance of Islam and you want to do something about it. Excellent. Here's what to aim for: To marginalize, discredit, and disempower orthodox Islam everywhere in the world. Each one of the actions on the list has a link. Follow the link to find out how you can begin to make this goal a reality.

Stop the Oppression of Women in Muslim Countries

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Fri, 24 May 2013 22:12:00 +0000

The following are articles about the oppression of women in orthodox Islam and what we can do to stop it:

As Women Rise, Orthodox Islam Diminishes

Women More Than Abused in Islamic Theocracies

The Rebellion of Muslim Women May Defeat the Third Jihad

The World's a Mess (But We Can Fix It)

Why Girls Are the Key

Why We Will Win

Islamic Sharia Law Applied to Women

Not Without My Daughter

Conversation Pieces

Europe Shariatized: The Beating of Women Legitimized By German Court

Bulletin of the Oppression of Women in Islam

Women's Rights and Political Islam

International Women's Day and the Counterjihad Movement

Cut Off Oil Money to Orthodox Islam

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Fri, 24 May 2013 21:42:00 +0000

Here are some articles about how the modern global rise of orthodox Islam is fueled by oil money, and what we can do about it:

The Key to Jihad is Money

How to Stop the Modern Rise of Islamic Fundamentalism

How to Stop Lavishing Our Enemies With Money

Support An Open Fuel Standard

Strike the Heart of Jihad

Cut Off the Jihad Money Supply

If You Have a Gas-Only Car, You're Already Paying Jizya

How to Boost the Economy of the Free World While Cutting Off Funds to Orthodox Islam

"Focus Your Operations On Oil"

How to Achieve Energy Security and Fair Gas Prices

Breaking OPEC's Grip

Stop Putting Gas in the Islamists' Tank

Keeping the Saudis Wealthy

Why Stop Mosques?

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Fri, 24 May 2013 21:23:00 +0000

Here are articles about mosques:

What's the Big Deal About Mosques?

A Concession That Should Not Be Granted

Gavin Boby: The Mosquebuster

Answers to this objection: "Mosques and Synagogues and Churches Have Stood Side-By-Side in Peace in the Middle East for a Thousand Years"

Of Mosques and Men: Reflections on the Ground Zero Mosque

Undercover at London Mosque

Mapping Sharia

The Wahhabi Invasion of America

Indiscriminate Multiculturalism

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Fri, 24 May 2013 20:52:00 +0000

Here are links to articles about multiculturalism:

Definition of Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism and the Defense of Liberty

Intelligent Multiculturalism — Survival and the Beauty of Openness

Multiculturalism Has Failed

What We Do

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Wed, 22 May 2013 21:56:00 +0000

Someone recently wrote to us and said, basically, "this is all just talk. If you aren't organizing local grassroots action, you're wasting everyone's time." And we realized for those who are new subscribers or visitors to Citizen Warrior, we should provide an overview of this site.

We are providing only one small part of a larger campaign. Local grassroots action is a vital element. Without it, this would, in fact, be nothing but hot air. Organizing local grassroots activity is not our forte here on Citizen Warrior, but fortunately, there are plenty of effective organizations doing just that. We refer you to ACT! for America in the U.S., the Q Society in Australia, ACT! for Canada, etc. (Find the ACT! chapter in your country here.)

We have a list of practical actions you can take if you'd like to do something about orthodox Islam's relentless encroachment into free societies:

WhatYouCanDoAboutIslam.com

At the top of our list is joining a local grassroots action group. What we provide on this site is mostly the human relations element for the counterjihad movement because we all need to be effective in reaching and influencing people in power, even at the local level. And we all need to be able to reach and educate our fellow non-Muslims and get them participating in this cause, but, of course, if you've tried this, you know it is sometimes very difficult to say anything to people about Islam. Communication and psychology happen to be our specialties (the two of us who run this site).

So we've written articles on how to approach a conversation about Islam. We've got methods you can use to influence people other than a back-and-forth argument. And we've created a list of answers to common objections that we all run into when we try to broach this subject.

We've created some other tools for counterjihadists. For example, we created a place where we can talk to each other about what works and doesn't work in trying to reach people: Talk About Islam Among Non-Muslims. And a site you can share with your not-yet-informed friends — a site with good information but without any embedded judgment about the information (so it's easier for an uninitiated reader to take in): Inquiry Into Islam.

We believe all of us have at least one skill that can contribute to the counterjihad movement. Whatever it is, we should find out what it is, and use it to marginalize and disempower orthodox Islam.

New Leaflet: Wanted For Crimes Against Humanity

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Sat, 18 May 2013 21:53:00 +0000

A fourth leaflet has been created by an excellent writer who wishes to remain anonymous. You can read about how he uses these leaflets to educate the public by clicking here. The new leaflet is entitled: "Wanted For Crimes Against Humanity." You can download the PDF here:

PDF of Wanted For Crimes Against Humanity

Print it out and use it freely. Ideally you would print on both sides of the paper and cut it in half, giving you two small leaflets per page. The front has the picture shown here (wanted poster) and this is what it says on the back side:

In March 627 AD, the tribe known as the Banu Qurayzah were besieged and isolated by their Muslim attackers led by Muhammad. They twice offered to leave their stronghold but Muhammad refused their request. He insisted they surrender unconditionally and subject themselves to his judgment. Compelled to surrender, the Qurayzah were led to Medina. A third (and final) appeal for leniency was made to Muhammad by their tribal allies, the Aus. Again Muhammad refused. Instead he orchestrated a sentence of death to be placed on the Banu Qurayzah by appointing a man with a grudge against them to pass judgement.

About 800 men were led to trenches dug in the Market of Medina and there they were beheaded, their decapitated bodies buried in the trenches while Muhammad watched. Male youths who had not reached puberty were spared. Women and children were sold into slavery, some being distributed as gifts among Muhammad’s companions. Muhammad himself took the most beautiful as his sex slave.

These actions are shocking enough in themselves but that Muslims should revere this man as their prophet is truly chilling. It goes a long way to explaining the typically awful treatment of non-Muslims by Muslims around the world today and ever since the dark dawn of Muhammad’s religion, Islam.

Nor was this the only atrocity carried out by Muhammad and his followers. Opponents and critics were assassinated, tortured, and torn limb from limb by camels. Yet even today, Muhammad’s example of conduct is viewed by Muslims as the one that should be followed by all Muslims. How scary is that!

Here’s a little challenge for you, do something brave today: look up the Banu Qurayzah on Google and read about what happened. Look up Muslim persecution of Christians. This is persecution of some of the most defenseless people in the world today; small communities living in a sea of Muslim hostility, in places like Pakistan, Yemen, Nigeria, Egypt, Iraq, Somalia. Places where non-Muslims show enormous courage. Out of respect for their courage show a little of your own.

Informed and Determined

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Thu, 16 May 2013 07:18:00 +0000

I'm re-reading the book, Terrorist Hunter by Rita Katz, a Jewish woman who grew up in Iraq (and speaks fluent Arabic) and became a researcher for The Investigative Project, dressing like a Muslim woman to infiltrate orthodox Islamic groups operating in America. You can read more about her fascinating story here.

A passage from the book illustrates both the blatant boldness of Islamic groups in the West and the pathetic ignorance of Western media about basic Islamic principles and history. Katz was participating in a rally (dressed as a Muslim) in front of the Israeli embassy in Washington, DC. Two thousand protesters showed up. Journalists showed up too, of course.

Katz listened to hate speeches and "exhortations to violence against Jews." Not Israelis, mind you. Jews. One of the speakers at the rally was Dr. Ayman Sirajuldeen, a member of the Muslim American Society, who led the crowd in chanting, "Death to Jews!" and "Khaibar, Khaibar!"

"Did the journalists gathered here know how chilling this was?" asks Katz in her book. "Obviously not," she answers. "In the next day's papers it got written up as a 'peaceful pro-Palestinian rally.'"

"Kaibar, Khaibar" was chanted at that rally and "many others," writes Katz. "It echoed all over the country, as Israeli flags burned in the background, from Florida to Texas, New York to California, and back to Washington, DC. To an outsider, this chant, 'Khaibar, Khaibar, Ya Yahud, Jaish Muhammad Safayood,' sounded perhaps like a cheerful freedom song. Many journalists told me that this was what they thought they were hearing. But its meaning is somewhat different: 'Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews, the army of Muhammad is coming for you.' This song originates in a tale from the days of the Prophet Muhammad. As part of his campaign to conquer the Arabian peninsula, Muhammad laid siege to the city of Khaibar, which was inhabited by Jews. After losing several battles to the city's powerful army, Muhammad decided to try a new tactic. He sent emissaries to Khaibar's leaders with a message of peace. As soon as a peace treaty was signed and the gates of the city were opened, Jaish Muhammad, Muhammad's army, stormed the city and butchered every last one of its inhabitants. 'Khaibar, Khaibar' means, 'Let's trick the Jews into making peace with us, and when they accept our offer, let's go ahead and kill them all.'"

Do the journalists know this bit of Islamic history? Do they know that it says 91 times in the Koran that Muslims are required to follow Muhammad's example in every particular? I doubt if one in a thousand knows even that much.

Those of us who have been awakened to the terrifying brilliance of Islam need to step up our game. Our educational campaign needs to be effective and unrelenting. We're in a race against time. Orthodox Muslims are infiltrating and multiplying. The only thing that can put a stop to them is an informed and determined population of non-Muslims. And the only way our fellow non-Muslims are going to be informed is by hearing it from those who already know. That's us. They're not going to hear it at school, in the media, or from politicians. It's just us.

But we've got to be smart about this, not simply passionate. We have to think in terms of small bits and long campaigns. We have to gain and maintain rapport. And we should use the effective tools we have at our disposal. If we do this, we can win.

How You Can Fight

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Sat, 11 May 2013 20:03:00 +0000

This site is called "Citizen Warrior" because the fight to stop the spread of orthodox Islam is something we cannot leave to military and intelligence agencies. We need them, of course, and they play a vital role in dealing with physical threats, but this is an ideological battle as well. That is, part of the battle — maybe even most of the battle — is taking place in our own heads. We will win or lose depending on what is in the minds of most of our fellow citizens.

If most non-Muslims believe Islam is peaceful or that all religions are basically the same, we will be vulnerable to the relentless Islamic pressure to yield concessions, orthodox Muslims will exploit our Achilles' heel, and we will lose. If enough non-Muslims know what it says in core Islamic texts, the relentless drive of orthodox Muslims to gain political power will be thwarted at every turn and the threat will be contained. We will consistently win those battles.

But so far, schools, politicians, and media are all failing to fight this battle. That leaves ordinary citizens to do what needs to be done. You and me.

So the biggest task ahead of us is educational. No, it's more than education. It's persuasion. It's influence. People need to be reached. People need to be informed about Islam's basic principles. But many resist and reject the information. That's why this is not a simple educational project for most people. We need to find ways around the resistance. We need to get through.

The first and most important principle of influence is to gain and maintain rapport. When you lose rapport, you lose the ability to influence.

In a communication discipline called Neuro-Linguistic Programming, otherwise known as NLP, you can find lots of good books, DVDs, seminars, and audio programs about gaining rapport.

"Try a brief experiment to demonstrate the importance of rapport for yourself," wrote Andreas and Faulkner in their book, NLP. "Think of a communication situation in your life where you were unsuccessful at getting what you wanted with another person — whether it was characterized by conflict or just frustration. Now think of another communication situation where you did get what you wanted — both you and the other person were satisfied with the result of the interaction. Now compare the two for the presence or absence of rapport. When people make this comparison repeatedly, they find that their communication successes are characterized by rapport and their failures by a lack of rapport. Rapport is a fundamental prerequisite for all effective communication. If you don't have rapport, you simply will not be effective with other people."

As citizen warriors, our number one task is to get more people to accept the facts about Islamic texts. This is how you can fight. We must be effective with people. So the first skill to master is gaining and maintaining rapport. Start here:

Gain Rapport to Help Get Through to Them
Rapport Comes Before Influence
The Magic of Rapport

When you are good at keeping rapport with people while talking about Islam, please share with us what works. Help other counterjihadists succeed in this vital task. Share your discoveries here: Talk About Islam Among Non-Muslims.

To Follow Religious Teachings

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Thu, 09 May 2013 22:24:00 +0000

Young Mohandas Gandhi

Gandhi read the Sermon on the Mount while he was in England studying law, and he was profoundly impressed by it. Gandhi was a Hindu and they don't have anything like it in the Hindu texts. Gandhi talked to Christians about the sermon because he was inspired by its implications, but many of the Christians gave him a lukewarm response. They seemed to feel that the idea of turning the other cheek or forgiving enemies wasn't something to be applied in "the real world."

Gandhi thought otherwise. He applied it and made history. Gandhi took that principle and made it the cornerstone of his successful nonviolent resistance movement in South Africa and then in India. And when women in America were struggling to get the vote, they followed Gandhi's example and succeeded too. Martin Luther King was also inspired by Gandhi's example.

Gandhi's earnest endorsement of the religious teachings found in a religious text and then sharing it with believers of the religion is similar to what is happening all over the Muslim world today. Muslims are reading the Koran and going to their fellow Muslims saying, "Did you know we're supposed to be covering our women, striving to seize political power, deceiving and terrorizing infidels, and waging war against them until the whole world follows the law of Allah?"

Often (fortunately), they also get a lukewarm response. But, of course, many of them are reading and following those teachings, and they, too, are making history. More people now die annually in the name of Islam than died in the 350 years of the Inquisition (source). More people have been killed in the name of Islam than have been killed by any other ideology or religion by far (source).

Like Gandhi, these enthusiastic Muslims are following the teachings of a religious book but, of course, the teachings of each religion can be quite different. A devout Jain doesn't eat meat. A devout Buddhist follows the Five Precepts (abstains from killing, lying, stealing, sexual misconduct, and becoming intoxicated). A devout Christian forgives enemies. A devout Muslim tries to make Islam the dominant religion on earth, by peaceful means if possible, by force if necessary.

I don't see how this problem will ever go away. I hope I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem possible to eradicate all Korans and Hadiths from the face of the earth. And as long as these texts exist, it seems likely that somebody will find them and follow them.

But the destructive impact of Islamic teachings can certainly be restricted and restrained. And you can help. The more of us involved, the more successful we will be. Here are thirty things an ordinary non-Muslim citizen can do to help contain the embedded danger in Islamic texts: What Non-Muslims Can Do About Islam.

Islam Coexists?

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Wed, 08 May 2013 20:20:00 +0000

There is an enormous irony contained in the Boston Marathon bombing. When the jihadi Tsarnaev brothers car jacked a Mercedes, it had a "Coexist" bumper sticker.

The Coexist bumper sticker is the religious symbol of the multicultural crowd — you know — all religions are the same. Well, the leading symbol of those who want to Coexist is the star and crescent Islam. And exactly how well has Islam coexisted with all of the others? What kind of neighbor has Islam been over history?

Start with Mohammed. We know an enormous amount about Mohammed as a neighbor to Kafirs (non-Muslims), pagans, Jews and Christians.

When Mohammed was in Mecca before he became a Muslim, he was a good neighbor who was prosperous and helped to settle disputes. But, that all changed when he became the prophet of Allah. Once he became a public preacher of Islam, he became an irritant to his neighbors. You see, not only did Mohammed know what was right, he demanded that everybody do everything his way, Allah’s way. He was a neighbor who was always right and you were always wrong. Not only were you wrong, but your parents and grandparents were wrong. Mohammed no longer settled arguments; he created arguments. After 13 years of this, the Meccans told Mohammed to leave Mecca.

So he went to the town of Medina, which was half Jewish. And what kind of neighbor was Mohammed to the Jews? Put briefly, two years later, Medina was Judenrein (cleansed of Jews). When he arrived, there were three tribes of Jews. In rapid order, the first tribe was driven out of town, bereft of their goods. Then the second tribe of Jews was exiled. They were lucky. The last of the Jewish tribes suffered the most. The women were enslaved and sold wholesale for money to purchase horses and arms for jihad. For the rest of his life, Mohammed used slavery to help finance his jihad. The children were kidnapped and adopted into Muslim families to be raised as Muslims. Then the 800 male Jews were all beheaded.

But wait. Mohammed was not through coexisting with the Jews. Later he left Medina and went to Khaybar and attacked them. Mohammed crushed them, took their wealth and put them to work under the Sharia to work as dhimmis and give him half of what they earned.

That was how Mohammed coexisted with the Jews.

But Mohammed was not through with coexisting with the Arabians. He attacked the Meccan caravans. His jihadists killed, kidnapped, stole, assassinated and fought the pagan Arabs at every turn. Mohammed’s coexistence policy with the Arabs was jihad. This went on until every Arab became a Muslim.

After Mohammed has made every soul in Arabia convert to Islam, he turned his coexistence policy to the Christians north of Arabia in Syria. He attacked the Christians the losers became dhimmis just like the Jews.

Dhimmis are the way that the Sharia allows Kafirs to coexist within a Muslim society. The dhimmi is a third class non-citizen who pays special taxes and has no real civil rights. A dhimmi could not testify against a Muslim in court, for instance.

Look at how Islam coexisted with Africa. A coexistence clue is that Arabic has one word, “abd”, that means both black slave and African. Context must supply which meaning is used. Islam ran the slave trade on the West coast, East coast and Mediterranean coasts of Africa. Islam sold every slave that was brought to the Americas. Conservative estimates are that 120 million Africans were killed in the jihad that produced all of the slaves in Africa.

How did Islam coexist with the Buddhists in what is now Afghanistan? Jihad annihilated every single Buddhist and their libraries and monasteries.

There is a massive data base of the coexistence between Islam and the rest of the world at thereligionofpeace.com. It catalogs more than 20,000 jihad attacks around the world since 9/11 2001. Here is a chart of the data of the top 4 nations as victims of jihad:

Put another way, this is how Islam coexists today with Jews, Buddhists, Christians and Hindus. It practices jihad against all non-Muslims, Kafirs.

The idea of coexist has a social ring to it, we’re all one big happy family. But how do we talk about all religions and not get into which one is right or best? Well, there is an easy way to do it. If you are not a member of a religion, the only thing you care about is how you are treated by those who belong to that religion. In short, you only care about the ethics and character of the adherent.

All of the world’s religions have an ethical code that is rooted in the Golden Rule. Islam does not have a Golden Rule. Mohammed’s life is the perfect example of how not to be a good neighbor. How do you coexist with a neighbor who has the ethical choice of jihad of murder and deceit?

What do religious leaders in American think about coexisting with Islam? They love it. Coexist is the mental mush that fills the heads of the useful idiots that go to the Family of Abraham religious dialogues. The ministers and rabbis who go to these dialogs know as much about Islam as what is found on the Coexist bumper sticker. Really, their ignorance is astounding. They are there to coexist and the imam is there to dominate. Dhimmi Christians and Jews want to tie, the Muslim wants to win.

But the mental mush of coexistence is not just in the heads of the dhimmi religious leaders, it also fills the heads of law enforcement and military. Under Bush and Obama, all of those who actually know something about Islam inside the military and law enforcement have been eliminated. FBI and military training files have been purged to satisfy the Muslim Brotherhood. So our protectors are forbidden to study the war doctrine of political Islam. They are prevented from naming the enemy and studying them.

There is only one way to coexist with Islam over time. Islam must submit to Kafir civilization and we must never submit to Islam, not even in the smallest detail. This means we must all know the smallest details of Islam and that begins with the knowledge of Mohammed and his wars against all Kafirs.

First published in American Thinker:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/04/islam_coexists.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink: http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/islam-coexists/
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com
Use as needed, just give credit and do not edit.
www.politicalislam.com

Why Orthodox Muslims Like to Blow People Up

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 00:55:00 +0000

The more orthodox the Muslim — that is, the more devout, the more committed to the teachings of the Koran and Hadith and the example of Muhammad — the more motivated the Muslim will be to kill non-Muslims. Why?

There are several reasons. The selfish one is because it's the only way to guarantee passage to Paradise. A Muslim can be devout, pray five times a day, make the pilgrimage to Mecca, etc., and still have to face judgment (with a chance of not making it to Paradise). But if he or she dies while killing non-Muslims, there is no judgment. The Muslim who dies in jihad goes straight to Paradise.

Another (less selfish) reason is that any Muslim who dies in jihad gets to intercede with Allah on behalf of seventy of his relatives. That's a big motivation for a would-be Muslim martyr. He will be able to help his mother, father, brothers, cousins, etc., get into Paradise. This also at least partly explains the assistance jihadis get from their less-courageous relatives.

The goal of orthodox Islam is to bring the whole world under the rule of the law of Allah, by peaceful means if possible, but by war if necessary. The Islamic system of law is so abhorrent to anyone not raised with it, it has become clear down through the centuries that war is necessary for the goal to be accomplished.

By blowing up non-Muslim civilians, the jihadi has created a double-bind. It is a no-lose situation for an orthodox Muslim — some non-Muslims were killed and that's a good thing, and if the jihadi dies doing it, that's fine too. If the non-Muslims don't do anything in response, it will encourage other Muslims to become jihadis because no consequences followed. If the non-Muslims make a strong response, at least some other Muslims will see this as "war against Islam" and will take up arms to join their brothers in the fight.

With all this in its favor, why not blow people up?

Losing Our Sons, the Film

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 19:51:00 +0000

The following was written by Bill Warner, Director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam. We couldn't agree more with him about the DVD, Losing Our Sons.

the fathers of the sons

There is a marvelous film — a true story about real people that can awaken our friends and neighbors to the reality we all face in a most dramatic, convincing way. It's an excellent teaching tool.

Losing Our Sons is a personal story of two fathers: Melvin Bledsoe is a small business owner from Memphis, Tennessee, whose son, Carlos, converted to Islam and murdered US Army Recruiter Andy Long in Little Rock in 2009. Daris Long, a retired Marine from Conway, Arkansas, is Andy's father. Both fathers, as you can see from the two minute trailer, are extraordinarily powerful, eloquent men.

Take a look at the trailer at www.losingoursons.com and then consider buying the film. This is a good, quick and effective way to convince Americans that we indeed have a problem in this country that urgently needs to be addressed.

Here's what the experts say about Losing Our Sons:

"Riveting, powerful, educational and a must see for every American"
BRIGITTE GABRIEL, Founder President of ACT! For America

"The film stands as a warning to Americans about the consequences of a failing civic leadership."
DANIEL PIPES, Founder and director of the Middle East Forum

"A must watch for Washington policy makers, too many of whom refuse to acknowledge the obvious threats"
FRANK J. GAFFNEY, JR. Reagan Pentagon official, President, Center for Security Policy

"A wrenching wake-up call."
ANDREW C. MCCARTHY, Former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York

Losing Our Sons was produced by Americans for Peace and Tolerance, a Boston-based organization that exposes Islamic extremists across the country and empowers local citizens to fight radical Islam in their own communities. You can see their work and sign up to receive their updates at www.peaceandtolerance.org.

Cadbury Goes Halal

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 17:21:00 +0000

Kraft now certifies its Cadbury products to be halal. This means that the candy is certified to be manufactured according to Islamic dietary standards. This is one more way products that conform to Sharia law are inserted into our stores. All the lamb from Australia and New Zealand sold in Costco stores is halal. It is a stealthy compliance with Sharia law.

Sharia law's prime directive is that Islamic norms dominate all other cultures. Sharia law aims to be the sole law governing all human beings on earth.

Below is a list of the products, directly from Cadbury’s web page, that comply with Sharia’s halal practice.

Halal Products at Cadbury

Orthodox Muslims don’t even recognize Easter or Christmas. If you buy Cadbury products, you will be supporting the creeping insertion of Sharia law. Islam is a ratchet. It only goes one way.

Read more:

Concessions to Orthodox Islam are the Establishment of Sharia Law

Eleven Reasons to Reject Sharia Law in Any Form

Waging Jihad By Gaining Concessions

The Universal Imprisonment of Women in Saudi Arabia

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 20:40:00 +0000

Rebel with a cause.

Please read and share the following Wall Street Journal article about a woman who dared to drive in Saudi Arabia. Her story illustrates Islamic fundamentals in a low-key and mainstream way — in a way that is shareable with just about anybody.

And her story also demonstrates that the power to keep every woman in Saudi Arabia under house arrest is held in place by oil money. This is something everyone in the free world needs to grasp.

We can undermine the power bestowed on Islamic fundamentalists by oil money and simultaneously strengthen the free world's economy and national security by introducing fuel competition.

The article: The Woman Who Dared to Drive.

How to Stop the Modern Rise of Islamic Fundamentalism

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 20:47:00 +0000

War requires money. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism is being funded by OPEC oil money — the Muslim Brotherhood is funded by Saudi oil money, the Muslim Students Association is funded by Saudi oil money, the Taliban is funded by Saudi oil money, the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) is funded by Saudi oil money, etc.

The members of the worldwide army of Islamic fundamentalists are able to work full time advancing the orthodox Islamic agenda while you and I have to go to work and can only defend ourselves part time. Their bills are paid by Saudi oil money, so they can devote themselves to it and they have all the resources they need to push it forward.

Saudi Arabia is the most influential member of OPEC, and OPEC keeps raising the world price of oil, reaping the Saudi princes excessive profits. Saudi Arabia produces more oil per year than any other country.

And they're using their oil revenue to help Islamic fundamentalism take over the Muslim institutions of the world. With less than two percent of the Muslim population, the Saudis own or control ninety percent of all Islamic institutions of the world. The Saudis are Wahhabis, which is an Islamic "back to the texts" movement. They are believers in the terrifying brilliance of Islamic texts and are working to make the principles universal. They intend to achieve the Islamic texts' prime directive — the spread of Islam to every corner of the earth by any means necessary.

The Saudi Wahhabis are building or taking over mosques all over the world. They do it with oil money. And they've built an estimated 20,000 madrassas worldwide with oil money — schools that teach Muslim boys only Islamic fundamentalism.

CUTTING OFF JIHAD AT THE SOURCE

War is expensive. The first two jihads were paid for with jizya since most of the conquered lands were occupied by Jews and Christians, many of whom did not give up their religion and paid the jizya tax instead.

When that source of money dried up (as the Jews and Christians were killed, converted or fled), Islam went into a kind of dormancy because jihad requires money and backward Islamic countries didn't have much money.

With the creation of OPEC, we have seen an escalating increase in Islamic jihad around the world. Saudi Arabia saw their income climb dramatically as oil prices have risen since OPEC first flexed its power in the 1973 oil embargo. Nine of the twelve OPEC nations are Islamic, including Iran, which has the money to pursue nuclear weapons and plenty left over to support insurgencies in Syria, Palestine, and Iraq.

The free world is being infiltrated and attacked in many different ways: Textbooks, campus influence, dismantling free speech, building mosques and madrassas, printing and distributing fundamentalist literature, influencing the media, sleeper cells, lobbyists in Washington, DC (Saudi Arabia has 100 lobbyists), the OIC's influence over the United Nations, and the list goes on and on.

This is all being paid for with oil money.

Obviously, we need to do something about this. We need to curtail the flow of money to OPEC countries. Drilling more oil in our own countries cannot solve it (here's why). Using less oil can't solve it either (for the same reason: OPEC responds by reducing its output and thus raising the world price of oil). Something much bigger and bolder is needed.

We need to strip oil of its strategic status.

Orthodox Muslims may be spending more money on this war than we are, but many times in history a weaker force defeated a stronger force by concentrating its forces at the decisive point. There are many places to concentrate our forces, many places orthodox Islam is infiltrating and undermining. But there is only one decisive point; only one place that can cause the rest to collapse: Oil money.

Oil's strategic status is held in place by its monopoly on transportation fuel. Its singular status as the most important commodity on earth could be lost if the fuel market gained real competition. And the only way to do that is to make the cars themselves capable of burning multiple fuels, which fortunately is easy to do from an engineering standpoint. In fact, according to Robert Zubrin, it doesn't require any more engineering at all; the cars are already capable. They only need the fuels to be legalized as fuel (in the case of methanol), which the Fuel Freedom Foundation is working on. Or the cars need to be warranted to burn those fuels, which the Open Fuel Standard Coalition is working on.

What we can do as citizen warriors is what we do best — educate our fellow citizens of the vital necessity and urgency of this goal: To create a condition where fuels can compete with each other in an open market. When that happens, it will force oil prices down to compete, cutting off money to OPEC and drying up the power behind the third jihad.

21 Interviews in 21 Days With the Best of the Counterjihad

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Sun, 17 Mar 2013 06:32:00 +0000

Elsa Schieder is making her interviews available again, starting Monday, March 18. These are interviews with 21 people who care about what is happening with Islam in the West and are doing their best to wake people up about the dangers.

You will hear the personal stories of famous people like Robert Spencer, Bill Warner and Nonie Darwish — and of less famous people who are also doing important work, like Chris Knowles, Andy Miller, and the interviewer herself, Elsa Schieder.

What got people to be awake to what is happening?

What have they learned?

What keeps them going?

What have they found most effective in reaching people?

What are their hopes and fears?

Note: these are reruns. Starting in late April, Elsa will be doing new interviews.

Click here to register: http://worldtruthsummit.com/.

What Part of Our Culture is Worth Preserving?

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 08:25:00 +0000

I WAS TALKING to an educated woman last night and she said something that struck me. I was explaining how Islam tries to undermine our culture, and she said, "We don't really have a culture in America."

Just by coincidence, when I got home, my wife had been reading the book, Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and she was sharing parts of the book with me that described what things are like in Somalia. It's very different in many ways, of course. For example, in Somalia, everyone knows their family's history back about 800 years! Every child memorizes all the names of their ancestors. It's a cultural characteristic known as "ancestor worship."

Here's another difference: They're very tribal in Somalia. In other words, people look out for their own clan over everyone else, and if your third cousin needs help, you help him, even if you've never met him before. Another aspect of tribalism and ancestor worship is that anything you do that is shameful dishonors your whole clan. In that culture, you could be shunned by people because of something your great grandfather did a hundred years ago.

As my wife was sharing this with me, I thought, "Here's a way we can discover the outlines of our own culture, which we don't see because it's like water to a fish — we can do it by looking at another culture."

When we find something that seems alien or foreign or when it seems hard to understand why anyone would be that way — we've found something different from our culture, which means we have noticed something characteristic of our culture that is not characteristic of the other culture.

So here are some characteristics I was thinking about that define American culture: We are not tribal. We are individualistic, and part of that individualism is the lack of responsibility (or shame or dishonor) for people related to us. So if my great grandfather was an adulterer, people don't remember that, they don't care, and they don't think less of me because of it.

We do not worship our ancestors, which might be considered another aspect of individualism.

In America, we believe in pluralism — that is, we believe there is not one right way or one right religion or one right culture. We believe everyone has the right to worship however they choose, and to believe what they want. We expect people to have different philosophies of life.

What I've said so far as a definition of American culture is so different from almost any group of human beings anywhere on the planet in the history of humanity as to be revolutionary. Any tribal people who exist now or have ever existed would probably look at our lack of tribalism as a complete lack of humanity or honor. They would probably think our culture isn't a culture. And they would be frightened at our lack of unity or similarity with each other.

But here's another thing that makes us even more strikingly different than any other culture that has ever walked the earth: Women here have rights, freedom, and power — to such an extend as would be shocking and offensive not only in present day China, many places in Africa, and everywhere in the Middle East (except Israel), but in every other time and culture back through history.

When most men in America talk to women, and women answer, men actually listen, even if they don't like what the woman is saying. Men don't dismiss women, for the most part. Men don't beat women. They don't lock women up for being uppity. Here, women have the right to speak their minds, even to men.

Of course, some men do, in fact, dismiss women, and even beat them. But it is rare and frowned upon by an overwhelming majority of our citizens. It is considered to be shameful and offensive by most Americans. And beating and locking up women for being uppity is against the law — and that law is enforced.

Americans are also can-do, inventive people. We will find a way. I remember reading a book of sayings from around the world — sayings that characterized the culture of the different countries, and I really liked the one for America: The harder you fall, the higher you bounce. That kind of optimism is characteristic of American culture.

So here are four characteristics that are part of "American culture." Individualism, pluralism, women's rights, and optimism. These characteristics are shared by other countries and cultures, but they are definitely signature parts of our own culture.

The reason I bring this up is because Islam is a culture. It is an aggressive culture that is not pluralistic — that is, it wants to be the only culture. It wants to subjugate or eliminate all other cultures, and it is incumbent upon each Muslim to strive mightily to make it so. Wherever Islam takes hold, it eventually replaces the existing culture.

How can we defend our culture from Islam's relentless aggression? Well, the first step would be to know we have a culture! And ideally, we should know what is unique about our culture, and we should know what parts of our culture are worth protecting and defending.

Our clarity about the unique, valuable characteristics of Western culture is a kind of immune-system — it's a strength that gives us the will to protect and defend the liberty and equality we have taken for granted our whole lives.

What part of your culture would you be willing to defend?

IQ al-Rassooli on the Radio

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 22:23:00 +0000

Yesterday, we told you about Elsa's new interviews. One of her interviewees is IQ al-Rassooli.

We thought you'd want to know that IQ al-Rassooli is a guest the 2nd and 4th Friday of every month on The Gathering Storm Radio Show. Check it out.

More Interviews This Week From the Heart of the Counterjihad

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 09:36:00 +0000

Elsa Schieder is going to be making five more personally-revealing interviews available this week. Follow this link to register and you can listen to the interviews for free. Every evening, 8 pm EST (New York time), Monday to Friday, January 28 - February 1, a new interview will become available, and will stay available until Sunday midnight EST. This week she has a great lineup:

Andy Miller is founder and chair of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition. He lost over 100 friends in 9/11. For the next month, he basically sat watching the TV and crying. It took him a long time to find a way of acting. He thought of becoming a sniper — until he decided the army did not need a 40-year-old sniper. He studied Islamic texts to understand what lay behind 9/11. And then, 3 years ago, he founded the Tennessee Freedom Coalition. A recent eye-opener: visiting areas of European cities where non-Muslims are blatantly unwelcome, areas which are even menacing toward non-Muslims.

Majed El Shafie was born in Egypt to a prominent Muslim family of judges and lawyers. Then he converted to Christianity. This led to arrest, torture and a death sentence. Now he lives in Canada, where he is a Christian minister. His experiences prompted him to establish One Free World International, a human rights organization committed to religious freedom. He pressures governments and challenges spiritual leaders on behalf of persecuted people worldwide.

Alain Wagner, from France, is the new director of ICLA, the International Civil Liberties Alliance — which is dedicated to democracy, freedom of speech, and stopping sharia. The goal: to protect and strengthen legal rights that are being challenged throughout the European Union.

Freedom Annie is the local hero of the month — in this case, an internet heroine. She boosts anti-Islam Facebook pages and sites with "breadcrumbs". One site went from hardly any Likes to 5000.

The final person is I.Q. al-Rassooli, who has dedicated 30 years of his life to proving what is the content of the Qur'an, so that no one can disprove his claims. One product: the YouTube series, Idiots Guide to the Qur'an, where hundreds of passages from Islamic religious texts are critiqued — shredded, actually.

Follow this link to register.

Intelligent Multiculturalism – Survival and the Beauty of Openness

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 03:45:00 +0000

Blind multiculturalism and political correctness seem to be the only things standing in the way of simply adopting what should be commonsense self-defense: Arresting or deporting those who propose the overthrow of our government (which is apparently happening in the majority of mosques) and stopping all concessions to this relentless band of interlopers (orthodox Muslims).

If you've got someone pushing for special concessions regardless of fairness, and who have stated their intentions to usurp the legitimate government, you would think it a no-brainer to stop them.

The two things that prevent most Westerners from even knowing about this issue are political correctness and blind multiculturalism. These two cultural blots prevent politicians from speaking openly and directly about orthodox Islam. They prevent newspapers and television reporters from reporting openly and honestly about it, and they even prevent individual people talking about it among themselves out of fear of making a social blunder and being considered racist or bigoted.

Of the two, I would say blind multiculturalism is the more important one. If that's true, it means the single biggest barrier to being heard by a significant portion of the population of non-Muslims — the one thing stopping a widespread public education about Islam — is blind multiculturalism, so let's deal with it right now.

I thought William Bennett made a good point in Why We Fight: Multiculturalism simply says we might have something to learn from other cultures. For several centuries, Westerners have taken up multiculturalism with a passion, often driven by a reaction to the self-righteous snobbery of Europeans and Americans when they came into contact with "primitive" people.

The openness and willingness to look for value in other cultures is good, and the willingness to consider people from other cultures just as human as people in your own culture — that's good too.

But over time, this idea has streamlined. It simplified into merely: "My own culture stinks. Other cultures are worth respecting and appreciating. Except mine."

Maybe multiculturalism combined with the natural teenage rebellion against the "establishment," I don't know.

But however it morphed from something completely legitimate to something self-destructive, there is no doubt it has morphed, and this simplified, dumbed-down multicultural ethos has permeated two very influential positions: School teachers and journalists. The vast majority of teachers, from kindergarten to graduate school, are dyed-in-the-wool blind multiculturalists. And so are the majority of journalists in the mainstream media.

It's not really multiculturalism that is bad. The original idea is very good. But blind, oversimplified multiculturalism could be our downfall.

Trying to oppose one extreme position (ours is the only culture worth appreciating) with the opposite extreme position (ours is the only culture not worth appreciating) still misses the reality of the situation, which is that not all cultures are equal, not all cultures are the same, not all cultures allow equal amounts of freedom or human rights, not all cultures allow equal amounts of free speech and rights for women, and not all cultures allow for equal opportunity for economic abundance and creative pursuits.

Some cultures are better, in some respects, than others. We should appreciate and be open to other cultures, and here in the West, we are — and we are more open than probably any society has ever been in history, and that's one of the reasons this culture, our own culture, is superior to any other culture in at least this one respect (and there are others).

To take an example, do you think Saudi Arabian culture is more open to other cultural influences than we are?

No, they aren't. Not even close. Which means we are more open than they are. Which means when it comes to this particular value — openness to influence by other cultures — we measure higher. Our own culture is better. (Gasp!)

Our Western culture is not perfect, and we should never become so arrogant as to think so, but it has many fine qualities. So whenever multiculturalism devolves into hating Western culture, it is as limited and ignorant as loving Western culture and willfully finding nothing good in any other culture.

But even here, we have at least two variations within our own culture: One that hates its own culture but is open to other cultures, and one that loves its own culture but is not open to other cultures.

These two variations can also be judged. On the criteria for openness, the first one is better. But what about survival in the face of an aggressive competing culture? Islam is aggressively trying to encroach and ultimately replace our culture. Which of our two variations is better at surviving that kind of encroachment?

In other words, if you have two equal cultures and one hated itself but was open to other cultures, but the other culture loved itself but was closed to other cultures, wouldn't the self-loving culture be more likely to survive if they clashed? I think so.

That means that those who have adopted blind multiculturalism (and spread it in schools and the media) are accidentally (or not) making our culture — and all the freedom that goes along with it — vulnerable to invasion and subversion by orthodox Muslims.

Blind multiculturalists must be converted to multiculturalists who appreciate their own culture.

A culture (like ours) that is open to other cultures but also appreciates its own strengths and fine qualities would be the best one to live in and it would survive an invasion by orthodox Islam.

Are There Many Islams? Or Just One?

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 22:30:00 +0000

The following was written by Traeh Lledew, creator of the two excellent resources, A Chronological Qur'an and Quoting Islam:

Many media discussions nowadays seem to hinge on the answer to the above question.

To support the idea that there is no single Islam, some point to the varied behavior of Muslims and the contradictory aspects of the Qur'an (tolerant verses as against totalitarian verses). Other analysts claim such contradictions are resolved by the Qur'an itself, and point to the Qur'an's own doctrine of abrogation (Qur'an 2:106 and 16:101). Thus many Muslim scholars of Islam teach that the militant and totalitarian verses produced later in Muhammad's career abrogate (cancel) the tolerant verses produced earlier in his career. From that point of view, there are no real contradictions and in the end only one Islam, the totalitarian, final, perfected Islam.

However, Bill Warner, who runs the Center for the Study of Political Islam, balances against the doctrine of abrogation a contrary perspective: many Muslims take everything in the Qur’an as eternally true. Warner concludes that Islam is dualistic, not logically consistent. A Muslim can believe two contradictory things at once, so long as the contradiction is present in the Qur’an. From that point of view, while the doctrine of abrogation does to some extent resolve contradictions, it is simultaneously true that it doesn’t — that the whole Qur'an, including both sides of any contradictions in it, is considered by Muslims eternally true. Allah is so dictatorially all powerful that he is not bound by anything, not even logic.

But having found the Qur'an at least somewhat contradictory and dualistic, does Warner stop there? Does he claim there is no single Islam? No. That would be too imprecise an answer. Warner comes out of a scientific background, and tries to drill down into the details. He takes a statistical approach, and looks at the trilogy of core Islamic texts — Qur'an, Hadith, Sira — quantitatively, asking how much of the trilogy is tolerant and peaceful, versus how much is totalitarian and violent. He finds that the percentage of tolerant statements is quite small, of totalitarian statements quite large. So although he doesn’t say there is one Islam, he does find an overwhelmingly predominant form of Islam. For example, in the most canonical hadith collection, Sahih al-Bukhari, Warner finds that over 98% of jihad hadiths refer to violent jihad. This confirms historian Bernard Lewis’ similar contention that in the core Islamic texts, “jihad” almost always means military jihad to defend or expand Muslim power.

So Warner's view, by getting into specifics, really goes beyond the imprecise alternatives: Islam is One/Islam is Many.

Another perspective that influences the debate about this question is what might be called the "decontructionist" view. Even if you don't know what the philosophy of "deconstruction" is, there's a good chance its claims have seeped to some extent into your consciousness by a sort of cultural osmosis. The deconstructionist viewpoint is that a text can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways and can mean just about anything.

The more one thinks about that claim, however, the more it seems a gross exaggeration. While texts have elasticity of meaning to varying degrees, such elasticity is hardly infinite, and that is even more true with texts that are not largely poetic or mythical in content. The Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira are full of quite literal statements and commands. Because of that, Islam's texts and past history have virtually always steered most interpretation into fairly similar and fairly definite grooves. Islam is not whatever one wants it to be. It is a rather definite historical reality. Many years ago, the eminent historian Bernard Lewis wrote of Islam's inherent totalitarianism.

So we should not go to the deconstructionist extreme of suggesting that anything can mean anything. While Lewis Carroll or some other fantasist might be able to treat Islam's core texts as almost a blank slate on which one could write just about any meaning whatever, the people who most seriously and religiously approach Islam's texts generally go by what the texts actually say. Minor ambiguities of meaning dispersed throughout those texts do not erase their clear overall thrust.

So is there one Islam? Are there many Islams? The answer is much closer to the first alternative, though the second has some validity. The bottom line is that, despite real diversity among Muslims globally, there are also overwhelming commonalities of interpretation worldwide, as numerous international polls of Muslim opinion have shown. While there are many liberal Muslims, totalitarianism, to one degree or another, is and always has been the majority interpretation. It is no accident that the core Islamic region of the world has the worst human rights record of any region on the globe: Islam's core texts, despite some vagaries, at bottom teach an expansionist theocratic totalitarian program.

Raising Public Awareness of Islam Using Art

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 01:47:00 +0000

We thought this was an interesting and, at least under certain conditions, possibly an effective way to get through to people without saying a word. An artist travels around Germany to photograph beautiful public statues of women, then veils them and photographs them again. This creates a simple and elegant communication.

We found it sad and disturbing to see these beautiful statues veiled. And something else: When the statue is veiled it becomes painfully clear that it obliterates the individuality of the woman. It blanks her out. She becomes a cipher. So much of our unique personalities is revealed in our faces. The veil hides it from the world.

Follow the links below to watch Rosato's two videos (slide shows really):

Rosato - Part 1

Rosato - Part 2

You can also see Rosato's photographs on Facebook here. In a short post about this, LastDaysNews writes:

Repression leads to resistance. Censoring speech leads to more covert forms of messaging. Political correctness gives birth to more sophisticated forms of protest. A mysterious German artist calling himself Rosato has begun putting Burkas over the heads of female statues in the park to warn about the impact of Islamization on Europe.

A picture says a thousand words and these pictures communicate even more than that without violating a single law.

One of the qualities free people have in more abundance than those enslaved by restrictive ideologies is creativity. Let's use it to our advantage. Think now: What creative action can you take to get people to take a second look at Islam and stop blindly accepting the comforting lie that Islam is really a religion of peace?

The Penalty For Creating Open Conversations is Death

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 23:40:00 +0000

the Saudi blogger

Follow the link below and read and participate in an open conversation about a Saudi blogger facing the death penalty for trying to create open conversations:

Saudi Blogger Faces Death

Many people are having a lively conversation on that post. Please add your comments. Here's what the post says:

Saudi blogger faces death penalty for creating web site where people can have open conversations.

The creator of a Saudi Arabian web site called Free Saudi Liberals faces a charge of "apostasy," which comes with an automatic death sentence.

The charge stems from comments made on his site by users that criticized senior Saudi religious leaders.

He had initially been charged with "insulting Islam through electronic channels," but that charge was upgraded to apostasy by a judge.

Peace On Earth

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 21:43:00 +0000

Serge Trifkovic said 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 orthodox and heterodox, are always quick to point out that Islam is a religion of peace. But this statement by Trifkovic made me curious, so I searched Google for a map of world conflicts, and which ones involved Muslims. I didn't find 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 the map below 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):

There isn't much of a difference between the two maps. The only big difference is that China is not Islamic but still ranks low on the freedom scale.

So a practical way to attain more peace on earth is to work to awaken the non-Muslims of the world to the reality that Islam is not a religion of peace. When that is clear to a large number of people, we will no longer be bamboozled by their rhetoric, no longer allow the concessions they push for, no longer lavish Islamic regimes with money, and no longer trust orthodox Muslims in negotiations. The result will be more peace on earth.