Citizen Warrior

A Less Disturbing Way to Talk About the Disturbing Nature of Islam

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Fri, 25 May 2012 20:06:00 +0000

Terrorism works. Islam is the bully of planet Earth. They say we must either join their gang or pay them money and if we don’t do what they say, they'll hurt us or even kill us. They mean business. Jihadists will commit suicide to terrorize the world into submission. Sharia law seeks to destroy our democracy and take away our freedom of speech and thought and religion. They mutilate the genitals of their little girls, kill their own wives and daughters to retain their “honor” and their women are second class, subordinated sex slaves. Sharia law says it’s okay for a man to have sex with girls as young as nine as long as he marries her first. They are taking over the world, infiltrating governments and the U.N., willing to die and kill for Allah, and they've been at it for 1400 years.

Okay, stop for a moment. How do you feel having read that? It’s upsetting for non-Muslims to hear about Islam. The information makes us angry because orthodox Islam is encroaching into our lives. This kind of information can make you feel afraid because you see what's happening in places like Europe and see the same thing beginning in the U.S. The facts can overwhelm people and leave them depressed and defeated and wanting to give up.

This is my point: When you tell someone a disturbing truth about Islam, you will make them feel bad. This is not good for your relationship. And if you’re not careful about how you share this information, you will harm the bonds you have with your family and friends. It happens all the time.

This is the real problem: People need to know what’s happening, but we can’t count on the media or the government to keep us informed — so we need to connect in other ways. We need our relationships. We need to be joined together to make strong organizations to battle the aggressive encroachment of orthodox Islam.

But talking about Islam is upsetting, so people avoid bringing it up, and when they do, it often leads to upsets. We end up arguing with each other or avoiding each other or lying to keep the peace. And all these ways of coping with the upset strain and drain your relationships. Islam drains your time and your relationships just because it is so terribly hard to discuss without getting upset.

But we need to keep talking about it. Everyone must know what is happening. So we keep trying to get through to them even though it keeps causing upsets. Sometimes people actually listen, but often it’s just too much for them and if you keep trying, they will stop talking to you altogether. When you're upset, you prevent the transfer of information.

Jihadis not only blow up buildings, but talking about jihad can cause your relationship to blow up. So what can you do?

First, don’t try to share the truth when you’re upset. It needs to be shared, but not while you feel bad. Nobody likes being around you when you’re upset. You need a change of attitude and a better strategy for sharing what you know. You can accomplish both with one thing: When you feel bad, do some good.

If you want to talk about Islam and share what you know, you first must get busy doing something about it. You can’t let yourself just absorb information. You can’t let yourself just watch orthodox Islam’s war on the free world unfold. If you don’t find something to do, the knowledge alone will destroy your happiness, your dreams, and your relationships.

You must become a citizen warrior and do something productive to fight for freedom. Why? Because only in taking an action will you grow strong. Only in doing something can you improve your mood. But it doesn't have to be a big thing. It doesn’t matter much how big of a step you take on. It only matters that you are moving forward.

Go to WhatYouCanDoAboutIslam.com and find something you can do. You could join ACT! for America or even start a chapter. You could get a conversion kit for your car so you can burn ethanol and stop sending money to OPEC and into the bank accounts of those who fund the global jihad. You could write one letter or send an email asking your members of Congress to co-sponsor the Open Fuel Standard and break oil’s monopoly over transportation. You could find out what your child’s textbooks say about Islam. It almost doesn’t matter what you decide to do. It only matters that you are taking action.

Taking action does two important things. First it makes you feel better. Action takes you out of the state of being a victim where this terrible thing is happening to you, and psychologically puts you into the state of being a cause, an initiator — acting upon rather than being acted upon.

This shift from victim to cause makes a big difference emotionally. Every time you're upset, find a small step you can take. It will bring relief. It will strengthen you. A terrible thing is happening in the world, but there are hundreds of ways to do something about it. You could support women’s rights. You could volunteer time to a leader who is fighting the good fight. Look around your world. Look at your family, your kids. What would you do to save the world for them?

The instant you begin, your attitude will shift. You are doing your part. You will feel satisfaction. You will feel good about yourself. Doing something about orthodox Islam's relentless encroachment will strengthen you and make you feel better.

But the second benefit of taking action is to give you a way to talk about Islam indirectly. Now you can tell people what you’re doing. People love to hear stories about what people are doing. They will turn toward you, not away from you. Then, as you tell them what you’re doing, you can tell them why you’re doing it.

For example: We bought a kit for our car that was pretty easy to install, making our car capable of burning E85. Now we’re trying to get more sources of ethanol here locally. When people want to know why we’re doing this, we tell them how OPEC controls the price of oil and one fourth of all gas dollars go to nations who hate freedom and repress and abuse women. And we don't want to lavish money on them any more.

When you share what you're doing, it is easy to talk about why you’re doing it. And you're sharing it as a story about what you are doing and why. This is a much easier conversation to have. Even if they don't agree with you (or even like what you’re doing) it makes for a much less upsetting interaction.

Then, make sure when you talk about Islam that you always couple information with possible actions they could take. Knowledge and action must go together.

So this is the easy way to talk to people about the disturbing nature of Islam: When the truth upsets you, take an action to do some good. When you do something good, share that with people and let them know why you’re doing it. When you tell them why, suggest ways they could help. Ask them to join you. Always nudge people toward taking action. Help them take a small step forward. If it makes them feel upset when they hear about the disturbing nature of Islam, encourage them to do a bit of good so they will feel better and, in turn, encourage them to share what they are doing and why they are doing it.

Hesiod wrote: "If thou shouldst lay up even a little upon a little, and shouldst do this often, soon would even this become great."

Summary:

Don’t share while you’re upset.
Take a small action to do some good and you will feel better.
Share what you’re doing and why you’re doing it.
Encourage others to help you or join you. They can share with others and tell those people why they are doing what they’re doing and suggest ways those people could help.

Is it Racist to Criticize Islam?

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Sun, 20 May 2012 20:02:00 +0000

Is Ayaan Hirsi Ali a racist? She was born in Somalia, from which she escaped to avoid an arranged marriage, and she eventually became a member of Parliament in the Netherlands.

She helped produce a film with Theo Van Gogh which criticized Islam's treatment of women. Van Gogh was shot to death by a Muslim in retaliation, and a note was pinned to his chest with a knife — a note that threatened Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

She made her way to the United States, and has since written two books critical of Islam: Infidel and Nomad: From Islam to America: A Personal Journey Through the Clash of Civilizations.

Is Wafa Sultan a racist? She was born and raised in Syria, and was trained as a psychiatrist.

On February 21, 2006, she took part in an Al Jazeera discussion program, arguing with the hosts about Samuel P. Huntington's Clash of Civilizations theory. A six-minute composite video of her response was widely circulated on blogs and through email. The New York Times estimated it was seen at least one million times. In the video she criticized Muslims for treating non-Muslims differently, and for not recognizing the accomplishments of Jews and other non-Muslims. The video was the most-discussed video of all time with over 260,000 comments on YouTube.

Is Ibn Warraq a racist? Warraq was born in India to Muslim parents who migrated to Pakistan after the partitioning of British Indian Empire.

Warraq founded the Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society. He is a senior research fellow at the Center for Inquiry, focusing on Quranic criticism.
Warraq is the author of seven books, including Why I Am Not a Muslim and Leaving Islam. He has spoken at the United Nations "Victims of Jihad" conference organized by the International Humanist and Ethical Union alongside speakers such as Bat Ye'or, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Simon Deng.

Is Tapan Ghosh a racist? The president of Hindu Samhati, he speaks all over India and the United States about the ongoing Islamic invasion of West Bengal.

In an article about him, a correspondent wrote, "A life of 25 years of relentless service has strengthened the resolve of Tapan Ghosh to unite Hindu masses to fight against injustice and the oppressive attitude of the authorities in the face of ever-increasing Islamist aggression."

Ghosh said, "As someone who has suffered enormously from the Islamist onslaught in eastern India, both after the partition of India as well as the partition of erstwhile Pakistan to form Bangladesh, Islamic terrorism has deeply affected my life and the life of millions in the Indian subcontinent. The horrific events of 1971 where nearly 3 million Bengalis, mostly Hindus were exterminated by the Pakistani military regime left an everlasting impression on me. Since then, I have worked relentlessly for the service and upliftment of people reeling under the scourge of radical Islam."

Is Seyran Ates a racist? Born in Turkey of Kurdish parents, and now working as a lawyer in Germany, Atest is highly critical of an immigrant Muslim society that is often more orthodox than its counterpart in Turkey, and her criticisms have put her at risk.

Her book, "Islam Needs a Sexual Revolution," was scheduled for publication in Germany in 2009. In an interview in January 2008 on National Public Radio, Ates stated that she was in hiding and would not be working on Muslim women's behalf publicly (including in court) due to the threats against her.

Ates is the author of the article, Human Rights Before Religion: Have we forgotten to protect women in our bid to accommodate practices carried out in the name of Islam?

Is Francis Bok a racist? Francis Piol Bol Bok, born in Sudan, was a slave for ten years but is now an abolitionist and author living in the United States.

On May 15, 1986, Bok was captured and enslaved at age seven during an Islamic militia raid on the village of Nymlal. Slavery is a standard feature of orthodox Islam. Bok lived in bondage for ten years before escaping imprisonment in Kurdufan, followed by a journey to the United States by way of Cairo, Egypt. Read more of his story here.

Bok's autobiography, Escape from Slavery, chronicles his life from his early youth and his years in captivity, to his work in the United States as an abolitionist.

Is Nonie Darwish a racist? Now an American, she grew up a Muslim in Egypt, the daughter of an Egyptian general whose family was part of President Nasser’s inner circle.

Darwish founded Former Muslims United with Ibn Warraq, an organization dedicated, in part, to helping Muslims reject the inherent intolerance, violence, and supremacism in their doctrine.

Darwish is the author of two books critical of Islam, Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law, and Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror.

And she is an outspoken critic of Sharia law.

Is Brigitte Gabriel a racist? She's an Arab, born in Lebanon. Gabriel watched her country become an Islamic state. Lebanon was a Christian country and "the jewel of the Middle East" when she was young. But the Muslims in Lebanon, supported by Syria and Iran, slowly became more militant until they turned the country into a war zone.

She made her way to America only to find, to her horror, the Muslim Brotherhood here in her newly adopted country, going down the same road. She decided to warn her fellow Americans about the dire results you can expect from appeasing orthodox Muslims, so she founded ACT! for America, a grassroots organization dedicated to educating the public about Islam's prime directive.

Gabriel is the author of two books, They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It, and Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America.

Is Mark Gabriel a racist? Born in Egypt, he became an Islamic scholar in the Muslim world's most prestigious university. Early fears by relatives that Gabriel would grow up a Christian because he had been breastfed by a Christian woman resulted in him being given a thorough Islamic education. So he grew up immersed in Islamic culture and was sent to Al Azhar school at the age of six.

By the time Gabriel was twelve years old he had memorized the Quran completely. After graduating from Al-Azhar University with a Master's degree, he was offered a position as a lecturer at the university. During his research, which involved travel to Eastern and Western countries, Gabriel became more distant from Islam, finding its history, "from its commencement to date, to be filled with violence and bloodshed without any worthwhile ideology or sense of decency. I asked myself 'What religion would condone such destruction of human life?' Based on that, I began to see that the Muslim people and their leaders were perpetrators of violence."

On hearing that Gabriel had "forsaken Islamic teachings" the authorities of Al Azhar expelled him from the University on 17 December, 1991 and asked for him to be released from the post of Imam in the mosque of Amas Ebn Malek in Giza city. The Egyptian secret police then seized Gabriel and placed him in a cell without food and water for three days, after which he was tortured and interrogated for four days before being transferred to Calipha prison in Cairo and released without charge a week later. He escaped Egypt and has since written several books, including, Islam and Terrorism.

Is Walid Shoebat a racist? He's a Palestinian immigrant to the United States and a former PLO militant. Shoebat was born in Bethlehem, the grandson of the Mukhtar of Beit Sahour, an associate of Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. In 1993, Shoebat converted to Christianity after studying the Jewish Bible for six months in response to a challenge from his wife, initially trying to persuade her to convert to Islam.

After the September 11 attacks in 2001, Shoebat began to criticize Islam publicly. He has appeared on mainstream media around the world and has been an expert witness on a number of documentaries on orthodox Islam.

Shoebat argues that parallels exist between radical Islam and Nazism. He says, "Secular dogma like Nazism is less dangerous than Islamofascism that we see today...because Islamofascism has a religious twist to it; it says 'God the Almighty ordered you to do this'...It is trying to grow itself in fifty-five Muslim states. So potentially, you could have a success rate of several Nazi Germanys, if these people get their way."

Is Simon Deng a racist? He was born in southern Sudan. His village of Tonga was a peaceful farming community, despite frequent raids by the Islamic Sudanese army where they burned huts and scattered livestock. "One of the first things I was told as a child — if the Arab men come, just run for your life," Deng recalls. The history of Arab colonization of Africa is one of Islamization, wholesale slave trading, and genocide. One day the Muslims came, and Deng was captured and enslaved.

At the age of 12, he noticed a man from his village due to the man's "shilluk" — a series of raised welts across the forehead. It's a tribal marking Deng has also. The man summoned a distant relative of Deng's who happened to be nearby. With his kinsman's help, the boy was able to escape.

Having escaped slavery and emigrated to the United States, Deng travels the country addressing audiences which range from the United Nations to middle school students. His speeches focus on education and the anti-slavery movement. Deng is now a warner of the horrors of unchecked Islam and Sharia. "I was victimized in the name of Islam," he says.

Is Babu Suseelan a racist? Born in India, Professor Babu Suseelan is a Hindu leader, a human rights activist, a university professor, and a psychologist. He is also the Director of Indian American Intellectuals Forum, New York.

Suseelan is the author of several published articles on jihadi terrorism and cognitive psychology. He has been an invited speaker at international conferences on Islamic militancy.

He speaks around the world, trying to educate people about orthodox Islam and the danger it poses to the free world.

Is Walid Phares a racist? Phares was born in Lebanon, where he earned degrees in law, political science and sociology. He then earned a Master's degree in International Law from the Université de Lyon in France and a Ph.D. in international relations and strategic studies from the University of Miami. He emigrated to the United States in 1990.

Phares has testified before committees of the U.S. State, Justice, Defense and Homeland Security Departments, the United States Congress, the European Parliament, the United Nations Security Council.

His writings expose the political nature embedded in Islamic doctrine, and seeks to find solutions to the problems that presents the West. His books include, The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad, and The War of Ideas: Jihadism against Democracy.

Is Zeyno Baran a racist? Baran is a Turkish-American scholar and Director of the Center for Eurasian Policy.

One of Baran's key areas of specialization is countering the spread of radical Turkish Islamist ideology in Europe and Eurasia.

Baran has criticized European and American governments for working too closely with groups or individuals that espouse an Islamist ideology. She argues that such engagement actually works against U.S. and European interests.

Baran recently wrote an article for The Weekly Standard on this very subject. In it, she advocates a kind of "litmus test" for deciding who and what type of Muslim groups the U.S. government should engage with. Baran argues that "the deciding factor must be ideology: Is the group Islamist or not?" She believes that the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizbullah, and Hizb ut-Tahrir fail her test.

Is M. Zuhdi Jasser a racist? He's the President and Founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. A devout Muslim, Jasser founded AIFD in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on the United States as an effort to provide an American Muslim voice advocating for the preservation of the founding principles of the United States Consitution, liberty and freedom, and the separation of mosque and state.

A former Lieutenant Commander in the United States Navy, Jasser served 11 years as a medical officer. He is a nationally recognized expert in the contest of ideas against Political Islam and American Islamist organizations. On October 1, 2009, Jasser briefed members of Congress on the threat of Political Islam. He regularly briefs members of the House and Senate congressional anti-terror caucuses.

Is Magdi Allam a racist? Allam was born in Egypt and raised by Muslim parents. His mother Safeya was a believing and practicing Muslim, whereas his father Muhammad was "completely secular." He became a journalist and outspoken critic of "Islamic extremism."

In 2005, Allam published an article calling for a ban on building mosques in Italy. In a piece accusing mosques of fostering hate, he claimed Italy is suffering from "mosque-mania."

In a public letter to the editor, Allam stated that Islam was inseparable from Islamic extremism. Criticising Islam itself, rather than Islamic extremism, Allam argued: "I asked myself how it was possible that those who, like me, sincerely and boldly called for a 'moderate Islam,' assuming the responsibility of exposing themselves in the first person in denouncing Islamic extremism and terrorism, ended up being sentenced to death in the name of Islam on the basis of the Quran. I was forced to see that, beyond the contingency of the phenomenon of Islamic extremism and terrorism that has appeared on a global level, the root of evil is inherent in an Islam that is physiologically violent and historically conflictive."

Is Farshad Kholghi a racist? Born in Iran, he remembers the time before the Islamic Revolution, when Shah Reza Palahvi reigned supreme and the country was on a staunch Western direction, with extensive developments in infrastructure, industry, education, and health care.

Farshad Kholghi is a well known figure from public debates in Denmark. As is the case for most everyone debating Islam, he has been accused of racism (which, given his ethnicity, is ironic), and of presenting "right-wing" political views. Farshad rhetorically inquired: "Is it 'right-wing' to stand for womens' rights? Is it 'right-wing' to criticize religion? Is it 'right-wing' to defend freedom of expression? Is it 'right-wing' to defend the right of the individual over that of the ideology? If so, then yes, I present right-wing political views.

Farshad strongly encourages participating in public debate, to not fear religious fanaticism, but rather to ridicule them and their abuse of power through the application of the best of Western values, including open discussion, scrutiny of Islamic organizations and the healthy tradition of satire and ridicule of hypocritical, corrupt and exploitative religious leaders.

Is Bassam Tibi a racist? Born in Syria, Tibi is now a German citizen. He is a Muslim and a political scientist and Professor of International Relations. Tibi is a staunch critic of Islamism and an advocate of reforming Islam itself. In academia, he is known for his analysis of international relations and the introduction of Islam to the study of international conflict and of civilization.

Tibi had eighteen visiting professorships in all continents. Tibi was visiting senior fellow at Yale University when he retired in 2009. The same year, he published his life's work, a book entitled, Islam's Predicament with Cultural Modernity.

Is Khaled Abu Toameh a racist? Toameh was born in the West Bank in 1963 to an Israeli Arab father and a Palestinian Arab mother. He received his BA in English Literature from the Hebrew University and lives in Jerusalem with his wife and three children.

Toameh was formerly a senior reporter for The Jerusalem Report, and a correspondent for Al-Fajr, which he describes as a mouthpiece for the PLO. He has produced several documentaries on the Palestinians for the BBC, Channel 4, Australian, Danish and Swedish TV, including ones that exposed the connection between Arafat and payments to the armed wing of Fatah, as well as the financial corruption within the Palestinian Authority.

He was the first journalist to report about the sex scandal that rocked the Palestinian Authority in early 2010 and which led to the firing of Rafiq Husseini, Chief of Staff for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. The scandal was revealed by former Palestinian intelligence official Fahmi Shabaneh in an exclusive interview with Toameh in The Jerusalem Post. One of Toameh's more famous articles is, Where Are the Voices of "Moderate" Muslims?

Is Tawfik Hamid a racist? He was born in Egypt and became a member of the militant Islamic organization, al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya. After a change of heart, Hamid started to preach in mosques to promote a message of peace, which made him a target of Islamic militants who threatened his life. Hamid then migrated to the West where he has lectured at UCLA, Stanford University, University of Miami and Georgetown University against Islamic fundamentalism.

In a 2009 Wall Street Journal article, Hamid said that Islam should prove it's a religion of peace, and called Islamic scholars and clerics, "to produce a Shariah book that will be accepted in the Islamic world and that teaches that Jews are not pigs and monkeys, that declaring war to spread Islam is unacceptable, and that killing apostates is a crime."

Hamid has written opinion pieces for The Wall Street Journal, including Islam Needs To Prove It's A Religion Of Peace, How to End Islamophobia and The Trouble with Islam.

Okay, this list of prominent critics of Islam could go on indefinitely. If you think criticizing Islam is racist, can you tell me exactly what race they are all criticizing? Of course not. Calling criticism of Islam "racist" is a manipulative, underhanded slander. The accurate name is "critic." All the people above are engaged in religious criticism, criticism of an ideology, and political commentary, all of which are desirable, necessary, vital components of a free society.

Some people who criticize Islam are racists. That does not mean criticizing Islam is racism. It's also true that some people who criticize Islam are socialists, but it would be foolish to say criticizing Islam is socialism.

Islam is not a race. There are Muslims of every race. The largest Muslim country is Indonesia. There are more non-Arab Muslims than Arab Muslims. Criticism of Islam is not racism.

Most people trying to silence criticism of Islam know full well Islam is not a race. But the slander is effective in the free world. The mere implication can ruin a political career or get someone fired. So while it's not true — and most people saying it know it's not true — it is an effective weapon of censorship nontheless.

I hope this list, once and for all, will make anyone who says "criticizing Islam is racist" look ridiculous. I hope this removes that absurd slur from public conversation forevermore. Am I hoping for too much? Every time you read or hear anyone using "racism" to silence criticism of Islam, respond with this list and see what happens.

How To Get Past Someone's Multiculturalist Defenses

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Thu, 17 May 2012 19:09:00 +0000

WHEN YOU begin talking about Islam with a multiculturalist, you will immediately run headlong into a wall of resistance. But you can soften their defenses if you immediately make the following perfectly clear:

1. You are against racism, and if people understood more about Islam, it would prevent racism.

2. You are not criticizing Muslims, you are criticizing the political and religious doctrine of Islam.

3. Until your listener has read the Koran for herself, she really doesn't know what's going on. And if you have read the Koran, make it a point to mention that relevant fact.

Work these into the early part of your conversation and you will have a much more willing listener. Listen to me: Multiculturalists are the people we most need to reach. Please do not write them off. These are the people we are not reaching, and there are millions of them. They could be our allies, but their wall must be penetrated. Hammer those three points adamantly up front, and you may well find yourself with an open mind to talk to.

You Must Accept My Religion

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Fri, 11 May 2012 23:00:00 +0000

The following is the text of the newest flyer (read more about the flyer here).

I may have been dead for over 1000 years but I am still very much alive.

I told my people I was a prophet — in fact, not just any prophet but the last one. Posing as a prophet is really very simple. First and foremost you have to believe in yourself. Then people will start to believe in you. The more people who believe in you, the more others can be persuaded to believe in you. It snowballs. Today I still live through my followers and the rules I gave them to live by.

What is my religion? My religion is my ambition.

My ambition was to dominate all the peoples of the world and to have them all living by my rules. I wanted total obedience. I wanted to be praised and revered by everyone on earth. I was careful to cover my ambition in the cloak of religion so that my authority had the backing of the Almighty. Who would dare disobey me then?

The cloak of religion has served me very well. It has inspired my credulous followers to kill and be killed in the service of my ambition; it has allowed them to cast their bloodshed in the light of holiness.

My religion only demands one thing: TOTAL OBEDIENCE. Obey my rules and serve my ambition and you will be rewarded, in this life and the next.

My followers are busy working to enforce my rules across the whole world today. They call this their religion. They do this in all manner of ways: by persuading, persecuting, cajoling, threatening, soothing, confusing, bullying, terrorising, silencing, migrating, breeding — whatever it takes to spread my religion and ensure it becomes dominant.

The main purpose of my religion is to destroy all other religions.

“So what are your rules?” I hear you ask. Very well, here are my life or death rules:

1) If you reject my religion, then you must be fought — to the death.

2) If you leave my religion, you must be killed.

3) If you mock, insult, or work against my religion you must be killed.

4) If you die fighting for my religion you will go straight to paradise.

Remember that total obedience is the only measure of devotion to me. If you follow my rules without question you will be rewarded. Even when my rules demand cruelty or ferocity, you must obey. In fact, your willingness to do what you would rather not do is the best sign that you are obedient and thus truly devoted to my religion.

Everything you do must proclaim the same message: “Accept my religion or else!” This is my message and this is the message of my followers. Watch them carefully; they always bear the same message.

Today my ambition is enjoying remarkable success. Everywhere my followers go they simply have to say they must be allowed to do this or that because it is their religion and the unbelievers fall over themselves to allow it — even when it secretly disgusts them.

For all the technical wizardry of these modern unbelievers, I must say they are the greatest fools I have ever seen. Their biggest weakness is that they want peace. This makes them easy people to conquer. My followers just have to threaten disorder and the unbelievers find a sneaky way to concede defeat. The violence of my followers terrifies the unbelievers into paralysis and submission. There are a few among the unbelievers who have become alarmed but they are ignored or vilified.

In fact, when my followers murder some unbelievers due to some trivial insult, these foolish cowards come to them with grovelling apologies and promises to punish anyone else who offends my religion: my religion, which hangs over them like a death sentence! They truly are the most ridiculous people. I think they will sell their own children into slavery for the sake of a little more “peace”.

My soldiers only have to use words like “justice”, “liberation”, “freedom” and the unbelievers will send their armies to help them. But my followers have no intention of creating “liberty”, it’s against my religion. Nor do the unbelievers understand what I mean by “justice”. They are too lazy to find out!

I have nothing but contempt for these people. They are weak and cowardly and stupid.

These fools think that by tolerating my religion they are accepting it. This will do for now because it allows my followers to gather strength, but in the long run it will not suffice. To accept my religion is to obey my rules and just tolerating my religion is not obeying my rules. If they refuse to obey my rules, they are rejecting my religion and must be fought — to the death. That is rule number one.

America's First Encounter With Jihad

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Fri, 04 May 2012 22:15:00 +0000

The following is an excerpt from Richard Hobbs' new book, Death By a Thousand Cuts:

After declaring our independence from England, our merchant ships lost the protection of the Royal Navy. The Turkish Ottoman Empire had lost control of North Africa and Barbary Pirates seized our ships, enslaved our crews, and demanded tribute. Nearly a million white slaves had been taken over the years.

Our representatives in Europe at the time were John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson. The Barbary Pirates became a serious concern and Adams and Jefferson met with the ambassador from the Bey of Algiers. Ambassador Abdul al-Rahman told them that Allah directed in the Qur'an that all unbelievers were sinners and, if they did not convert, they should be made slaves. Ever the scholar, Jefferson obtained a Qur'an to better understand the foe.

"The Muslims never called their naval raiders 'Barbary Pirates.' They called them 'ghazis,' sacred raiders...actually jihad by the army of Muhammad." - Bill Warner

The navy we had established during the War for Independence had been disbanded so we had no force to take on the pirates. We were paying large sums in tribute, eventually exceeding 10 percent of the country's budget and increasing. At that time we were developing our constitution since the Articles of Confederation had proven inadequate. One of the arguments for a strong federal government was that we needed a federal navy. The US Navy was formed in 1794.

When Thomas Jefferson became president, one of his early acts was to send the navy to deal with the Barbary Pirates.

The Embedded Assumption that Islam is a Religion of Peace

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Wed, 02 May 2012 20:42:00 +0000

In an article entitled A Rare Look at Secretive Brotherhood in America, the author said:

"Many Muslims believe that the Brotherhood is a noble international movement that supports the true teachings of Islam and unwaveringly defends Muslims who have come under attack around the world, from Chechens to Palestinians to Iraqis. But others view it as an extreme organization that breeds intolerance and militancy."

I had to read those two sentences again. The problem is, those are the same sentences. It's like someone writing, "Some people believe Mohammad was violent. But others think he merely tortured and killed people."

It's like, "What?"

Of course, the embedded assumption here is that the "true teachings of Islam" cannot possibly breed "intolerance and militancy." And yet the true teachings of Islam — if you mean by "true" the teachings written in the Koran and Hadith — breed exactly that: Intolerance toward non-Muslims (and Muslims insufficiently Islamic) and militancy.

In that Enormous Silence, Tiny and Unafraid

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 08:25:00 +0000

The following was written by Henry Rochejaquelein, a community organizer based in the Vendée region of France. It is one of the best pieces of writing we've ever read at Citizen Warrior.

Anders Breivik

THE WORLD'S long wake for Norway has been hard for every friend of freedom. We should avoid self-pity by remembering those who suffer much more than we: the family members of those unarmed civilians murdered by a drug-addled, video-game obsessed plagiarist who still lived at home with his mother. There are a few sick souls out there who have expressed admiration for Anders Breivik; some racialists at the anti-Semitic site Occidental Dissent have taken to comparing Breivik to Batman — a self-made millionaire who bravely took action to save Gotham City. The fact that these people, like Breivik, take their inspiration from comic books speaks for itself. Like him, these cranks raise their sedentary pulses through boyish revenge and power fantasies. Like him, they should stick to dressing up like Jedi knights and dueling with plastic light sabers. They should leave questions of life and death, culture and the future, to those whose emotional age has at some point exceeded sixteen.

But once we have prayed for the dead, and grieved with the living, we have every reason to consider the implications of this slaughter — not so much for ourselves, since most of us are doing fine, but for the next generation of Europeans and Americans who will have to face a continuous escalation of Islamic self-assertion. The signs are clear: In just one day, the New York Times reported that (as columnists here had glumly predicted) politicized, intolerant Muslims now dominate the Egyptian revolution, and that the last batch of secular officers had resigned from the Turkish military, freeing its pro-Sharia president to remake that NATO member (and would-be EU member) as a militant Muslim state. Two countries which the U.S. had counted on bastions of moderation and allies in the “war against terror” are now being transformed in the image of Saudi Arabia and Iran. Syria, whose despotism for self-serving reasons has long protected some religious minorities, is sliding toward the brink of collapse, whose outcome will be a Sunni sharia state. Terror attacks continue to escalate throughout the world, from Nigeria to Pakistan, while radical clerics exploit Western liberties to remain at large.

Meanwhile, the peaceful efforts of patriotic citizens of Western countries to limit the assertiveness of orthodox Muslims who favor sharia have come under a terrible, blood-red cloud thanks to the actions of a single, vain pseudo-intellectual, who was willing to kill in order to draw attention to himself and happy to tarnish the reputations of dozens of non-violent writers and activists, whose ideas he shoplifted to provide himself with a manifesto. Just as Nat Turner's (much more justified) rebellion set back by decades the cause of anti-slavery activists in the South, so Breivik's murders have for the moment threatened to smear us all with his gore.

Robert Spencer has shown by example the right response: Express honest horror at the attacks, point out how they were in no way grounded in anything any reputable counter-jihad scholar or activist has ever written, and refuse to play the game of media hacks who are trying to silence us. Just as Martin Luther King did not fold up his non-violent movement when some black nationalists shot at cops, so we will not shelve our pens because some sociopath took up his gun.

Does the fact that some maniacs will murder for a cause spoil it? Think back to John Brown, who butchered pro-slavery activists in their beds; to the U.S. soldiers who as they crushed the army that raped Nanking collected human skulls as souvenirs; to the anti-Communist death squads funded by the CIA; to the city-busting thermonuclear missiles that targeted hundreds of millions of Russian civilians, preventing Soviet conquest and deterring World War III. Men have used dubious means to promote every cause in human history; was every cause thus unjust?

One of the things we so object to about Islam is that its own sacred scriptures endorse, even enjoin, the use of such evil means. To reject them for a Muslim is to make himself a heretic. That simple, ugly truth is so shocking to Western sensibilities that slothful citizens and cowardly politicians find it more convenient to pretend it isn't so — to claim that when freedom-fighters like Robert Spencer, Bat Ye'or, and Geert Wilders simply report on acts of violence or their origins, they are inciting similar violence. Afraid of the mortal message, dhimmis would kill the messengers. In fact, they know perfectly well that real counter-jihadists aren't dangerous. (No editor lives under 24-hour guard for publishing a Robert Spencer cartoon.) We are, in cold fact, a religion of peace — and we won't kill you for saying otherwise.

I have seen some men on our side slide close to despair, or calculate that they must save their skins in the current purge by denouncing innocent allies. Some commenters on this site (Jihad Watch, where this article first appeared) have openly wondered if Islam might not be doomed in fact to win. So Whittaker Chambers feared of Communism during the Cold War. When our own society is fractured and unsure of itself, and its elites are dominated by those who seem sympathetic to the enemy, it is easy to conclude that the totalitarians will prevail. They are so much more disciplined and motivated. They are willing to die for their cause; on our side, men are frightened to write a letter.

But consider how hopeless the following good men's causes seemed at various low points:

William Wilberforce, as he fought entrenched financial interests, attempting to end the British slave trade, only to be slapped down again and again in parliament and find himself vilified as the enemy of his country's prosperity.
Ludwig von Mises, who had demolished socialism intellectually in the 1920s — as he watched the Soviet Union expand, and new forms of collectivism rise to power all across Europe, while “planned economics” became the new orthodoxy in the democracies.
Charles de Gaulle when France surrendered, and Britain sank its fleet in 1940.
Cardinal Mindzenty, after the Soviets crushed the Hungarian revolution, who sat for decades watching Communist tanks from the windows of the U.S. Embassy.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, as he wrote little scraps of The Gulag Archipelago in a Soviet labor camp.
Lech Walesa, when the Polish army cracked down on Solidarity.
Ronald Reagan, who began fighting Communism among the Hollywood labor unions in the late 1940s—and was ridiculed, blackballed, and shunned for his efforts without ceasing, right up through the second term of his presidency. (Remember how “mainstream” analysts denounced his “Evil Empire” speech as a piece of warmongering madness?)

The strength of totalitarians is always much more brittle than it seems. Also, and this is central to remember: Our goal is not to persecute Muslims or drive them out of their faith. If demolishing a 1.5 billion man world religion were our goal, we might indeed be right to throw down our arms. By contrast with Islam, Communist ideology was always a fragile fantasy. Marx's messianic dream was incompatible with our species. In its promises to blow up the cornerstones of human society—private property, religion, the family, the nation and the state — it wrote its own epitaph. Islam is a profoundly corrupt theological compromise with the vices of Wrath, Vanity, Greed, and Lust — all of which it “baptizes” and directs against unbelievers, promising jihadists rewards for conquest, subjugation, looting, and the taking of sex slaves. In this sense, it is far less delusional than Communism, and more resembles the Nazi ideology — which promised its adherents not an earthly utopia but piles of loot and peasants to plunder. The Communist ideal demanded that man (at the point of a bayonet) remake himself as an angel. Islam reaches down to groom and congratulate the thuggish primate inside each one of us. It will likely prove as stubborn as slavery.

But our success does not depend on reforming Islam from the outside, or winning Muslims for Christ or Richard Dawkins. We simply seek to contain it, in the hope that its adherents in the West will somehow make their peace with pluralism and learn how to live in our midst as non-aggressors.

What we fight is something much more bizarre, unnatural and fragile than Islam: We are fighting Western dhimmitude, and the multiculturalism that enables it. It is not in fact natural for men of one race and religion to surrender their country to another. It is profoundly uncharacteristic of Frenchmen, Germans, Englishmen, Dutchmen, etc., to pervert their legal systems to suit the crude mores of alien colonists. It is not typical of Christians to water down their creed to the point where they imagine real common ground with intolerant, apostate-murdering Muslims. It does not come naturally to feminists to cooperate with wife-beating, honor-killing polygamists, nor for Jews to apologize for defending themselves from mobs intent on pogroms. The psychological games such people are playing on themselves are surely exhausting — as wearisome, finally, as denying Stalin's terror famines and defending his purge trials proved to Western Communists. As pessimistic as Orwell's 1984 was, doublethink is not sustainable for the masses over the long haul. It cannot even endure forever among elites. Just as so many liberals “mugged by reality” turned into neo (or even real) conservatives, and so many Communists hit the breaking point and “flipped,” so we will keep on reaping a steady stream of educated defectors to freedom's cause. Meanwhile, the voters in one Western country after another will get their fill of national masochism, and rally for faith and fatherland.

We must soldier on, keeping our hands clean and our hearts pure. We must preserve and pass along a sane and humane movement of Western self-defense that can channel popular feeling in peaceful directions that honor the rule of law. When madmen (or simply bad men) arise and do evil acts, allegedly in our name, we must simply denounce them and keep marching forward. We should treat the smears as what they are: psychological warfare. The sheer baroque complexity of the lies required to believe the dhimmi viewpoint metastasizes with every jihad attack, every “hijacking” of a “democratic revolution” by sharia. In the long run, it will prove as impossible for honest men to accept as the fabrications of Holocaust deniers, or the economics of Karl Marx. And as each such man wakes up, we will be waiting, to welcome him home.

This article has also been posted on Inquiry Into Islam for your sharing pleasure: In That Enormous Silence, Tiny and Unafraid.

Jack Rainbow's Leaflets

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 22:24:00 +0000

A citizen warrior using the name Jack Rainbow wrote today to say, "My leaflets are illustrated and use advertising techniques to hold readers' attention. Please put them up on your site for all to use."

Some are PDF documents, some are Jpegs, and some are Word documents. Check them out:

http://4freedoms.ning.com/group/leafleting

Why Are There Peaceful Muslims?

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:27:00 +0000

A READER asked this question: "If the Koran was arranged out of chronological order and Mohammed started out a nice guy and then turned into a "Psycho-Killer," why don't some of his earlier, more peaceful teachings contradict his later, more violent teachings and consequently prevail?"

It's a good question. As you probably know, Mohammad's chapters (called "Suras") are not in chronological order in most versions of the Koran. It is traditional to have them arranged in the order of the Suras' length. But when two passages conflict, the mullahs decide which passage overwrites which by looking back to the chronological order rather than the traditional order.

They know with certainty what order the chapters were written in. But the chapters are arranged from the longest to the shortest chapter (except for the first chapter), and that has become the traditional way to arrange them.

Unfortunately, the most intolerant, violent passages in the Koran are chronologically later. So they abrogate (supersede or overwrite) the earlier, more tolerant passages.

So then the question is, "Then why are there any peaceful Muslims?"

Peaceful Muslims come about for three reasons:

1. Muslims are, of course, human beings and most people do not want to be violent. Mohammad anticipated this and told Muslims they had to be intolerant and even violent whether they liked it or not (and as a test of their faith), but people do their best to ignore these very direct Islamic teachings. And they tend to ignore the teachings rather than speak out against them because it can be dangerous to contradict or criticize the Koran. More devout believers can become quite violent and intolerant when a fellow Muslim criticizes any Islamic teaching.

2. If the Muslim is living in a non-Muslim majority country and violence (or even intolerance) would impede the ultimate victory of Islam, then peaceful behavior is called for, at least for the moment. Mohammad anticipated this too (the possibility of a Muslim living in a Muslim-minority country) and provided ideas for many other ways to work toward eventually gaining control of the laws of the country (Islam's prime directive) — by having lots of children, trying to convert others, giving money to Muslim organizations, etc. I'm sure many Muslims are quite happy to avoid living a life of political agitation, and this way they get to satisfy their Islamic obligations while enjoying a peaceful life in a free country.

3. And of course, a Muslim can always pretend to be peaceful while actively working toward violent goals. Apparently nice people have occasionally been known to be intolerant and even violent.

Condescending Arrogance Combined With Ignorance

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Sat, 14 Apr 2012 08:38:00 +0000

IN AN ARTICLE in the Huffington Post, Nancy Graham Holm wrote one of the most idiotic articles I've seen in awhile, and she did it with an appalling degree of arrogance. The article is entitled, Three Questions to Ask Geert Wilders About Anti-Islam Hate Speech. Her point is that when Geert Wilders talks about Islam, he only causes problems and doesn't help anything.

Holm takes it for granted that limiting (or God forbid, STOPPING) Muslim immigration to a Western nation is such a ridiculous notion it is not even worth arguing about. Wilders has suggested in many times, and with good reason, but she dismisses it as an idea unworthy of consideration.

She first says that some Muslims out there are so "short-fused" that they "would rather kill and be killed than tolerate Wilders' brutal humiliation." When I read that, it startled me. I am in the middle of reading Unbroken right now, the true story of an American captured by the Japanese in World War II. He was deliberately starved for years, tortured, brutally beaten almost every day, and intentionally humiliated. THAT was brutal humiliation. A politician talking about the hate-filled passages of Islamic texts may be insulting, but "brutal humiliation" goes way overboard. That was in her first paragraph.

It gets worse.

Her grasp of Islamic doctrine is basically non-existent, and yet she writes about the issue with a condescending arrogance that defies comprehension. She mentions an opinion piece Wilders wrote wherein he suggests outlawing the Koran in the Netherlands. "Mein Kampf" is outlawed, says Wilders, because of its Jew hatred. If the Dutch are to be consistent, then, the Koran should be outlawed.

Nancy Graham Holm, of course, thinks this is "provocative" and clearly believes the allegations are preposterous. Of course, she doesn't have a clue about the work of Bill Warner, who simply counted up how many incidents of Jew hatred are in Islamic texts and Mein Kampf. What did he find? There is far MORE Jew hatred in Islamic texts than Mein Kampf, so Wilders has a point and Holm should be embarrassed. Check out the proportions:

Another provocative thing Wilders said was that Muhammad was a "barbarian, a mass murderer and a pedophile." According to Islamic history, and using our modern definitions of barbarism, mass murder, and pedophilia, Wilders is simply stating a fact. She is assuming it can't possibly be true (or that facts that some would consider provocative should not be spoken in public, in which case Holm should be silent because she is definitely provoking me).

I agree with her about one thing, though. It would be a terrible thing to say if it weren't true. However, she could easily discover for herself that Wilders is speaking accurately. The information is available in every bookstore. The information is not difficult to find at all. It is not a secret. And it can be found in Islamic texts themselves, not mean non-Muslims writing about Islam in order to denigrate it.

It sometimes feels as if I'm in a crazy world where someone can write an article ABOUT Islam without knowing the first thing about Islam, all the while criticizing someone who knows a lot about Islam, and criticizing what he says about Islam! And all this published in a well-known, well-respected, mainstream magazine, who no doubt have fact-checkers on staff. How does this happen? How is it possible? Have I fallen into a rabbit hole and don't know it?

Holm writes, "Geert Wilders does not acknowledge the profound reform movement that is under way in contemporary Islam." I have been studying and writing about Islam for ten years. While I am aware of some Islamic reformers, characterizing it as a "profound reform movement" is stretching it. The problem, which Holm is apparently unaware of, is that "reforming" Islam means to deny or reject a substantial amount of basic Islamic doctrine such as the 527 unabrogated passages in the Koran advocating intolerance or violence toward non-Muslims, or the 91 passages telling Muslims they must take Muhammad as an example (a "beautiful pattern of conduct"), which means a reformer who would wish to create an Islam that is no longer a threat to non-Muslims would have to seriously edit the Koran or seriously edit the Sunnah and Hadith, which are mostly about Muhammad's egregious example. And such editing is strictly forbidden since the Koran is the word of Allah.

In her final two paragraphs, she asks four questions of Wilders. I will answer them here. Wilders can probably answer them better and I hope he does, but here's mine:

1. Does your hate speech produce physical or mental suffering or does it increase safety and quality of life? By the way, she asks these questions with a self-satisfaction which I'm sure makes her feel as if she "won her case."

There is a presupposition in her question, sort of like asking, "Do you still beat your wife?" I have listened to many speeches by Wilders and he doesn't do "hate speech." And in his first movie, Fitna, which created so much controversy, all the "hate speech" in the movie is done by Islamic doctrine and Muslims themselves.

But let's set that aside and answer her question, put in my language: Do Geert Wilders' speeches produce suffering or does it increase safety and quality of life? Answer: If he was heeded, it would increase safety.

2. Have you considered the available alternatives and compared them in terms of benefit to harm ratio? Yes.

3. Which alternative produces the best ratio? Making accurate knowledge widespread.

4. What good can come of Wilders saying the things he does? If people listened to him, they would have a better grasp of the real situation (rather than the situation we might wish for), and if there is a problem to be solved (and there is) a good place to start is with the facts.

New Leaflet: You Must Accept My Religion

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 23:46:00 +0000

ONE OF OUR allies sent us a new idea for raising awareness. And we have a new leaflet. It's really good and different than the first two. (Read more about the first two and get links to them here.) It is entitled, "You Must Accept My Religion." This new one never mentions the words "Islam" or "Mohammad." Why not? Here's how the author explained it:

I have tried to reveal the essential thrust of Islam without once using those words. It’s like a gestalt. I think Islam is uniquely defined by its rules and the character of its founder that, hopefully, people will focus on those instead of being inoculated against the message by the hot trigger words that seem to numb so many peoples' brains. I would also like to think that someone trying to challenge what the leaflet says would be forced to admit that we all know it’s about Islam precisely because it sets out some of its defining features.

What a great idea! The author of these leaflets is very innovative about doing the most important thing we can do: Educate our fellow non-Muslims about Islam. Download a PDF or print the leaflet here: You Must Accept My Religion.

For the previous leaflets we used Google Docs, but so many people had problems with it, we've switched over to Scribd. Please let us know if it works better.

In a letter to us, another of our allies talked about a few other things he does to help raise awareness. Here's what he said:

I just wanted to share some things with you that I do to make a stand. I find these things empowering and I think a lot of your readers would also. They are small things but they make a difference. One of the things that really annoys me about living near Muslims is that their standpoint is written all over them and you’re just left feeling like a cipher. Isn’t there a way of saying “I reject your way of life” without getting arrested or beaten black and blue?

One thing I do is to wear a lapel badge of the Israeli flag — I live in an area where there are a lot of Muslims and (almost as bad) left wingers. I wear it in such a way that when my collar is turned up it doesn’t show so if there are some particularly aggressive people about I turn it inwards. When I’m in a public space where there are lots of security cameras, I show it more. Because Israel and Jews are such objects of loathing to Muslims, by wearing this badge I am implicitly rejecting Islam and its virulent anti-Semitism. Israel is on the front line in this worldwide struggle (though I realise in a sense we all are now) and supporting Israel is a way to rebuff some of the madness and evil. No-one can accuse you of a “hate crime” or “Islamophobia” (I don’t accept the validity of these but they are forced upon us) but you can still make a statement. Israel is a beacon of western civilisation and it is good to show our solidarity with her.

I also have an IDF cap with a Star of David and “Israel” boldly stitched across the front. I wear this when I go to the supermarkets or department stores as I think I would actually be very quickly assaulted if I wore it anywhere else. It’s a good bold statement of support for a great country taking a lot of flak from the Jihad and the wretched left-wing fools. You can easily get badges from suppliers on ebay and I got my cap from a company in Israel. It’s good to support Israeli companies too.

I think by wearing these things it also brings it into the awareness of less partial people too. It puts another dimension into the public space. If more people did it, it would have a much greater impact. If people challenge you about Israel, it opens up an opportunity to dispel some of the malicious mythology that has been built up over the last few decades. I must say no-one has said anything to me yet but a lot have noticed the badge and been made to wonder a little.

Shareable Antisemitism Video Link

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 20:26:00 +0000

Yesterday I posted a link to video (see the post here), and I thought it might be more shareable for some people if it was on the Inquiry Into Islam blog. For some people, as you probably know, when you share a link to a site with the word "warrior" in it, they dismiss it automatically.

The video is something everyone should see. So here's the link to the Inquiry post:

Koran's Antisemitism Still Alive

Video: New Trends in Arabic Antisemitism

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 22:46:00 +0000

FOLLOW THE LINK below to watch a remarkable video. This MEMRI production shows examples of antisemitism in modern-day Arab media. It was originally presented to the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva. The video is 23 minutes long. It is amazing. Ugly. Hideous. You should get everyone you know to watch it.

Click here to watch the video on Vimeo: New Trends in Arabic Anti-Semitism.

And here it is on YouTube: Muslim Antisemitism Compilation.

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) explores the Middle East through the region’s media. MEMRI bridges the language gap which exists between the West and the Middle East, providing timely translations of Arabic, Persian, Urdu-Pashtu, and Turkish media, as well as original analysis of political, ideological, intellectual, social, cultural, and religious trends in the Middle East.

Founded in February 1998 to inform the debate over U.S. policy in the Middle East, MEMRI is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit, 501(c)3 organization. MEMRI’s headquarters is located in Washington, DC with branch offices in London, Rome, Jerusalem, Baghdad, Shanghai and Tokyo. MEMRI research is translated to English, French, Spanish, German, Italian, Polish, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, and Hebrew.

Click here to visit MEMRI's site.

Let's Give "Giving Up On Peace" a Chance

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 08:37:00 +0000

I WAS READING an article by Barry Rubin called A Middle East Strategy for the West, when I read this sentence: "The problem is not just that cynical rulers (in the Middle East) mislead the masses through demagoguery — though that's true; it's that the masses embrace extremist world views."

I had to do a doubletake. If the masses are embracing it, then it's not extremist, right? It's mainstream. By the term, "extremist world views" he is really saying "following classic, mainstream Islamic teachings." But what a politically-correct, double-talk way of saying it!

Rubin did say something worthwhile in the article, however. He wrote:

Obtaining Israel-Palestinian or Arab-Israeli peace is a useless strategy, distracting from real issues. It isn't going to happen; Islamists would use any such peace to portray those signing it as traitors; and even many Arab nationalists would denounce it to raise their credibility as tough, unyielding fighters. Violence and unrest would increase, not lessen, as a result.

Absolutely. All this talk of "peace in the Middle East" is ridiculous. It's not going to happen. EVER! Get over it. Orthodox Muslims will not ever give up trying to "drive the Jews into the sea," and the Israelis will not ever give up trying to survive. The world needs to embrace this reality and aim for something actually attainable: An Israeli population that is relatively safe from Jihadis.

I'm not a Jew, by the way. I don't have any special attachment to the Jewish religion or Israel, except that it's a democracy, and by far the best democracy in the Middle East. As Glen Reinsford wrote in his article Understanding the Arab-Israeli Conflict, "Perhaps the greatest of all ironies in the present-day Middle East, as David Horowitz has pointed out, is that Arab Israelis enjoy more social, legal and political freedom than do Arabs in any one of the fifty-three Muslim countries." Ironic because so many Arabs are hell-bent on destroying Israel.

But Israel needs to embrace this reality too and quit bending over backwards to "make peace." They keep being lured into making deals with the ruling Jihadis of the day in order to finally have "peace." They should be able to look at their own history in the Middle East, or look at easily-obtained Islamic teachings and see that "peace agreements" with Jihadis are worse than a waste of time (for example, Qur'an 9:1-17).

One particular Islamic principle the Israelis might discover within fifteen minutes of perusing Islamic texts is that no peace agreements between Muslims and non-Muslims can last longer than ten years, and the only Islamic purpose for a peace agreement is to get the enemy to stop attacking Muslims while the Muslims regroup and strengthen their position, allowing them to take up the fight again at a time of their choice from a position of strength (read more about this). As Robert Spencer says in the DVD, Islam: What the West Needs to Know:

"It's unfortunate, but there's no negotiating with the Jihadists. There is no striking a deal with them. Islamic law is very clear on that...Islamic law does not allow for treaties. It does not allow for negotiated settlements between Muslim states and non-Muslim states.

"All it allows for is a temporary period of up to ten years of 'hudna' or what is commonly translated as 'truce' to allow the Islamic forces to gather their strength. But that's not the same as peace as we know it. That's not the same as the absence of a state of war. That's only a temporary lull in a war that the Jihadists consider has gone on for 14 centuries, and are willing to fight for 14 more." (Read more about the Islamic way of war here.)

Another very basic Islamic principle nobody in Israel or the U.N. seems to be aware of is the principle of taqiyya. That is, the allowance and even encouragement by Islamic teachings for Muslims to deceive non-Muslims in order to further the political goal of Islam, which is dominance over all other governments and religions.

These are very basic Islamic teachings anyone can discover with very little effort. They are not obscure, hard-to-decipher teachings.

But here is Israel, having been duped and tricked and lied to again and again by people who are quite open about their dedication to fundamental Islamic teachings, making more "peace agreements" with Jihadis! It's absolutely crazy. They should give "giving up on peace" a chance.

It's not that peace isn't a worthy goal, of course. But the idea of peace as in "living together in harmony" is something to throw out the window when it comes to Israel and the Muslim world. It's kind of like having breast cancer and saying, "Okay, cancer, I'll give you one breast, and then we can live in peace together."

No, you can't. If you don't stop it, the cancer will metastasize. That's its nature. That's what it does.

And the orthodox Muslim world will continue to undermine, fight, and try to destroy Israel. That's its nature. That's what it does. Which means if Israel wants to survive, it had better quit trying to appease Muslims and accommodate Islam's demands and concede to the Muslims' wishes and start drawing the line, and saying "no further."

And not just Israel. The U.N. has pressured Israel to appease and accommodate and concede. Why? Because there are lots of Muslim countries in the U.N. who have used taqiyya successfully.

What the world has been doing about the Israeli-Palistian conflict has not worked. Let's try something different. We could change what we mean by "peace." Peace might mean "the good guys have the upper hand." It might mean the good guys have enough power to hold Islam's relentless encroachment at bay so the rest of us can live in harmony with each other.

How do we decide who is the "good guy?" Whoever is promoting liberty and equality, not just in words but in fact. And anyone promoting Shari'a or jihad does not promote liberty and equality.

"Kafir911," an occasional commenter on Citizen Warrior said: "I think it's sad but telling that the man who started that whole movement (the 'let's give peace a chance' movement), John Lennon, with his Make Love not War and his love-ins with Yoko Ono, got shot by an idiot with a gun. So apparently its not true that 'all you need is love.' You need protection as well."

Let's just give up on the idea of peace. Let's give up on the idea that somehow everyone can just get along. And let's aim at international security. There is no "getting along" with an organized, relentless group of people who spend their every waking moment seeking your destruction. But it is possible to contain them and limit them and weaken them. Let's be realistic and aim for those. Let's aim for the protection of liberty and equality.

Jihad Kills

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 06:40:00 +0000

Killed by the Ku Klux Klan: 1500

Killed by Nazi Germany: 40 million

Killed by jihad: 270 million

Jihad kills more people per year than were killed in 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition. (source)

Jihad kills more people every day than the Ku Klux Klan has killed in the last 50 years. (source)

Source for 270 million number here.

Source for 40 million number here.

Source of graphic above here.

Stop Putting Gas in the Islamist Tank

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 20:14:00 +0000

By Clifford D. May in The National Review Online:

Islamists are a diverse lot. Some are what diplomats like to call “violent extremists.” They want to kill you. Others are less eager to shed blood, more confident that by mastering electoral politics, manipulating international organizations, and designing effective public-relations campaigns, they can achieve their objectives. What are those objectives? Islamism implies a commitment to the imperative of Islamic power. Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, articulated the basic idea succinctly:

It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.

If those championing Islamism were only stateless terrorist groups and tin-pot dictators, their geostrategic significance would be minimal. But the regime that rules Iran is dedicated to waging what it calls a global Islamic revolution. And in Saudi Arabia, the state religion is Wahhabism, a strain of Islam that preaches the inferiority of infidels and the rejection of Muslims who do not share Wahhabi ideals.

These regimes float atop an ocean of oil, a commodity that is valuable thanks to those the Islamists despise. It was the Western mind that figured out how to pump oil out of the ground and refine it into a variety of fuels, including those used in internal-combustion engines, another history-bending Western invention.

Imagine you are one of the rulers of Iran or Saudi Arabia: Fabulous wealth is yours due to no intellectual or physical labors on your part. If you invest that wealth wisely, you’ll make even more, but if not, so what? Wealth will flow to you every single day as surely as rivers run to the sea. To sell rugs, olives, or computers requires salesmanship. But oil sells itself: Those who depend on it for their cars, ships, and planes have no other options. Well, theoretically, they do: They could take it by force. But you need not worry about that because, as you are well aware, modern Western ethics prohibit such behavior.

If there were even one oil-rich, Muslim-majority nation solidly committed to liberal democratic values, to freedom of religion and speech, to tolerance and minority rights, the challenges of the 21st century would not be so formidable. But there is no such nation.

Almost 80 percent of global oil reserves are controlled by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), a cartel, a conspiracy in restraint of trade. Most OPEC countries are autocracies. Many are hostile toward America and other free nations. From the income produced by OPEC oil comes most of the money used to train and arm terrorists around the world, and to build nuclear-weapons facilities in Iran.

That makes the price of oil and the West’s dependence on it national-security problems of the first order. What can be done? Robert C. McFarlane, who served as then-president Reagan’s national-security adviser, wrote last week that we can and should be producing more of our own oil, but “that is not enough. To outmaneuver OPEC we need to eliminate oil’s monopoly as the only transportation fuel.”

The most promising possibility: Natural gas is a resource America has in abundance. Cutting-edge American technology — e.g., horizontal drilling and fracking — has made natural gas easier and cheaper to extract. As McFarlane points out, natural gas “can be used in various forms to fuel vehicles. Compressed natural gas (CNG) is well-suited to drive long-haul and other fleet vehicles” but for “light trucks or automobiles, a better approach lies in using natural gas to make the liquid-fuel methanol, a high-octane, clean and safe fuel . . . ”

He notes that the Methanol Institute, a private industry group, estimates that producers can, right now, deliver an amount of fuel equivalent to the energy in a gallon of gasoline for approximately $3. The cars we drive would require only minimal and inexpensive modifications in order to run on methanol — as race cars already do.

Let me emphasize: McFarlane is not proposing that we stop using gasoline and other petroleum products. He is not proposing government subsidies for natural gas, methanol, or other fuels. On the contrary, he is making the case for eliminating subsidies and government favoritism of one fuel over another. He and others are arguing for breaking the monopoly that oil currently enjoys and encouraging the creation of a competitive fuel market.

If, for any reason, that does not happen, only those who invested their own money would suffer. If it does happen, however, having a larger fuel supply from more than one source would provide multiple benefits: It would reduce the funds available to Islamists (strengthening national security), bring down the cost at the pump and reduce price volatility (easing the burden on families, commuters, truckers, etc.), and keep more money and jobs in the United States, thereby reinvigorating the domestic economy (good for those who live, work, and invest in America). The downside? There is no downside.

“Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman stressed that the foremost economic duty of government is to eliminate cartel pricing,” McFarlane notes. At the moment, however, government is not doing its economic duty. Nor is it doing its national-security duty: It should not require a Clausewitz to grasp that transferring unprecedented amounts of wealth to your enemy in a time of war is counterproductive. Yet, at the moment we are knowingly funding the “violent extremists” who want to kill us, as well as the more moderate Islamists who merely want to dominate us.

From time to time, Islamists of both stripes must gaze at Westerners and wonder: “How can people so technologically smart be so strategically stupid? Like the oil under the desert sands, this must be a gift from Heaven.”

— Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.

Should Christians Kill Mark Thompson?

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 03:03:00 +0000

Mark Thompson, the head of the BBC, admitted in a public interview that his fear of Muslim retaliation causes him to treat Muslim stories with far more sensitivity than Christian stories.

In his most telling comment, Thompson said: "Without question, 'I complain in the strongest possible terms,' is different from, 'I complain in the strongest possible terms and I am loading my AK47 as I write.' This definitely raises the stakes."

He says he knows his fear creates censorship.

We applaud Thompson for his honesty. But his censorship creates more problems than it solves. A recent Spectator article goes into detail about some of the problems this kind of censorship can cause. Read the article here (and then share it with your friends, especially those friends who are fans of the BBC).

Watch Thompson's half-hour interview here.

Islam Had an Unusual Historical Window of Opportunity

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 21:46:00 +0000

SIMPLY STATING facts about Islam can be interesting, but some facts are more interesting than others, and we want to hold peoples' attention when we're talking to them. I have found that the following fact is interesting to people and also helps them see Islam in a new light, and in a memorable way. It helps them think of Islam as not just another religion like any other, but as something unique. When you're talking about Islam, try to work this in somewhere:

Islam is different from other religions in at least one important way: It began at a time and in a place where no empire constrained its spread. In other words, if you start a religion within the Roman Empire, you're going to have certain limitations. The Romans would see any new religion — especially a militant or political religion — as a threat to its power and would make sure you stayed peaceful. A religion that preached tolerance and goodwill toward others might survive, but a violent or militant or political new religion would be quashed immediately.

But Islam had no such restriction when it began, so it could incorporate "conversion by warfare" into its memeplex, and it did. As Aaron Lynch wrote, "The faith provides for a jihad or holy war, which historically led to Islamic rule over whole societies."

Once a country has been attained by war, pagans were often given the choice: convert to Islam or die. That is written into Islamic law. If any members of the newly acquired country are Christian or Jewish, they are required to pay special taxes and become a second-class citizen, unless they want to convert.

The Surest Way to Reach People

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 07:14:00 +0000

HOW CAN you reach someone? That's the basic question, isn't it? You want to share what you know about Islam with people you love, and you want them to listen to you. What can you do to make them more likely to listen to you?

One of the most successful, effective, and enjoyable books to read on the subject of dealing with people is How to Win Friends and Influence People, originally published in 1937 and still on store shelves today. One of the principles from the book is to talk in terms of the other person's interests. Is that obvious? Perhaps. Do you do it? Probably not nearly as much as you could. But if you want to reach people, this principle is a good place to start. The book is full of true stories. Here's one:

Take Henry G. Duvernoy of Duvemoy and Sons, a wholesale baking firm in New York.

Mr. Duvernoy had been trying to sell bread to a certain New York hotel. He had called on the manager every week for four years. He went to the same social affairs the manager attended. He even took rooms in the hotel and lived there in order to get the business. But he failed. "Then," said Mr. Duvernoy, "after studying human relations, I resolved to change my tactics. I decided to find out what interested this man — what caught his enthusiasm.

"I discovered he belonged to a society of hotel executives called the Hotel Greeters of America. He not only belonged, but his bubbling enthusiasm had made him president of the organization, and president of the International Greeters. No matter where its conventions were held, he would be there.

"So when I saw him the next day, I began talking about the Greeters. What a response I got. What a response! He talked to me for half an hour about the Greeters, his tones vibrant with enthusiasm. I could plainly see that this society was not only his hobby, it was the passion of his life. Before I left his office, he had 'sold' me a membership in his organization.

"In the meantime, I had said nothing about bread. But a few days later, the steward of his hotel phoned me to come over with samples and prices.

"'I don't know what you did to the old boy,' the steward greeted me, 'but he sure is sold on you!' "Think of it! I had been drumming at that man for four years — trying to get his business — and I'd still be drumming at him if I hadn't finally taken the trouble to find out what he was interested in, and what he enjoyed talking about."

If you want people to listen to you, if you want to reach people, if you want to influence people, start by talking to people about what they really care about. It will not only transform your ability to persuade, it will vastly improve the feelings of connection you have with each other.

Once Non-Muslims Have Awakened, Then What?

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 02:34:00 +0000

AWHILE BACK, in an article entitled, What Would Happen?, I challenged you to think past our biggest barrier to a time when the majority of people in free nations understood the disturbing nature of Islamic doctrine. Once that happens, then what? What would we do? What laws would be passed? How would our national policies change?

The idea was to clarify where we're going, because this could lay the groundwork for how we are proceeding at the moment. What are we aiming at? What needs to be changed once the political will exists to do it?

One of the best answers was the very first one, by Damien. He wrote:

For one thing, it would be much harder for the stealth jihad to operate. In fact it would be almost impossible, and that's why Jihadists don't want non-Muslims to know about these things, (at least the smarter ones anyway).

Also, it would make it almost impossible for Islam to gain new converts, because people in general wouldn't want to be part of a religion that encourages hatred for anyone who doesn't blindly accept it, including their friends and family. It would also make it harder for them believe Muhammad was a good person, or that books like the Koran are the inspired word of God. That alone would make the religion much less appealing to people who were not born into it.

As far as foreign policy, almost no non-Muslim would support endorsing constitutions that recognize sharia law, unless they somehow thought that they could take advantage of an Islamic dictatorship somehow, despite what they knew. But the idea that sharia or Islam is compatible with democratic government would be unthinkable.

The only downside might be that some heterodox Muslims as you call them, (liberal secularized Muslims as I've called them) might be more likely to be wrongfully attacked. Of course, in such a world it might be much harder for them to stay Muslims, if everyone else around them knew the truth about what their religious texts actually teach.

As for exactly what new policies would be enacted, I'm not sure, but the answer would largely depend on how long most of the non-Muslims knew this. If they had known this for well over a hundred years or more, much of what's going on right now wouldn't even be happening, so some of the policies you might think of wouldn't be necessary at all.

If, on the other hand, all other non-Muslims just found out today, it would be a different story.

Another frequent commenter, Ben, wrote: At best, we can hope for immigration bans, stepped up surveillance and constitutional action to prevent imposition of Shari'ah.

Kingsley Beattie emailed this comment: It could result in termination of all unnecessary contacts with Muslims, and Islamic nations and societies. Islamic schools and mosques could be made illegal and closed. Diplomatic and commercial exchanges could be restricted to neutral territory. Muslims living in Dar al Harb could be "encouraged" to migrate to Dar al Islam. In other words the kaffir would strive to establish reciprocity with the Islamic heartland, Saudi Arabia.

Someone emailed this comment: What would happen? Islam would lose its status as a religion. I have always felt that if a movie showing the true life of Muhammad were to be made and shown around the world, that would mean the end of Islam as a religion.

Someone emailed this: What if everyone knew that political action to establish Sharia law is a religious duty for all able-bodied Muslims? Then there would be a national Sharia ban in place. Unlike Jewish or Ecclesiastical law, Sharia seeks to undermine and overthrow secular state law.

As such, all its supporters should be treated as enemies, stripped of citizenship, and deported to Saudi Arabia.

The same person also said: What do I think would happen? We would have a strong sense of community identification as non-Muslims.

Then I asked the same question in a different way: Right now it seems clear that very little can be done politically without more people knowing more about Islam, or at least making fewer mistaken assumptions about Islam. It will probably never happen that "everybody" knows about Islam, and it isn't even necessary.

But the question is, "Then what?"

Then what will we do? What do you envision as our next steps? If someone became president who had a great deal of popular support and who knew all about Islam's prime directive, what do you think she or he would do?

Damien stepped in again with this: If someone who knew all about Islam's prime directive become president, what would he or she do? I can't tell you exactly what he or she would do because I'm not that person, but if I were, I can tell you what I would do.

I would try to enact laws that would at the very least put severe restrictions on immigration from Islamic countries to America, at least until those societies voluntarily abandon Jihad and Sharia, and I would encourage other western leaders to do the same. Plus I would argue that Turkey should not be allowed into the EU.

In addition to that I would try to convince congress to actually enforce our current immigration laws and tighten border security so it would be harder for terrorists to sneak in. I would get either the National Security Agency or some other secret government organization to monitor mosques in this country.

Technically Islam is a religion, so I don't see how we could realistically say it was not, but we don't have to deny that Islam is a religion to do what needs to be done. Unlike what a lot of people think, religions are not inherently benign. Many of the religions in South America prior to Columbus practiced ritualized murder to appease their gods, for example.

Remember that the constitution is not a suicide pact. Besides, your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins. I don't think the Founding Fathers intended freedom of religion to include violating other people's rights based on your religion. They also would have found the idea that people have a right to try to use their religion to commit treason against a legitimate, democratically elected government to be absurd.

In addition, I would encourage schools to adopt non-politically-correct text books that devote at least one chapter to the early and later history of Islam. Ones that were not filled with pro-Islam propaganda and don't leave important things out just because Muslims complain.

I would demand that any group that receives money from Saudi Arabia or any other Islamic state register under the foreign agents act. (At least I think that's what its called.)

Speaking of the Constitution, I would try to get an amendment passed that would forbid judges from considering foreign law, including Sharia, when it came to deciding constitutional matters. I know that we already have the First Amendment that forbids the state from officially recognizing a religion, or enacting purely religious laws, but it would make it harder for U.S judges to justify even considering Sharia, for politically correct reasons. I would also argue that we should pass the anti-foreign law, anti-sharia amendment to reinforce what's already in the First Amendment.

I would do everything in my power, including war if necessary, to eliminate the Jihadist threat, with the ultimate goal of sending them the message that their attempts to destroy us and/or subjugate us are futile.

I can think of more, much more. Citizen Warrior, what would you do if you were president of the United States knowing what you know?

I wrote: I really like your answer, Damien. And my answer would be very similar. If I were president, curbing Muslim immigration would be my first move, too. And making the borders secure.

And I would begin a program that would ongoingly monitor mosques in America. Those found to promote jihad would be shut down. Those imams promoting jihad would be arrested for sedition or deported. I would do the same with Islamic schools in the U.S.

I would instigate a national law similar to what Louisiana and Oklahoma have done that explicitly outlaws Sharia.

I would order the investigation of history textbooks and remove those that have falsely whitewashed Islam's image. And I would call for textbooks that taught an accurate and detailed history of Islam and the Crusades.

I would immediately encourage, in every way possible, to end oil's status as a strategic commodity, and encourage all other countries to do the same.

I would stop all foreign investments in this country for mosques or madrassas. I would allow U.S. security agents to call our enemies by their accurate names. I would stop Muslims from being able to come to America to be educated. I would stop allowing visas for imams to come here from Muslim countries. I would prevent foreign Muslims from donating to colleges here in the U.S.

All Muslim chaplins in prisons and the military would be monitored and any hint of jihad or Sharia would disqualify them. And then I would get a good night's sleep because that first day in office was a long one!

I also asked the question on a Citizen Warrior Facebook post, and got quite a few more responses. One woman wrote: Let women know especially how all the freedoms we take for granted would be ripped away under sharia law. Females become non-persons and property. Any decision that has to be made about a woman will be made by a man. The koran urges every man to take 4 wives. Polygamy is outlawed in the US but our government is turning a blind eye to everything muslim to the point of allowing muslims to break our laws. When in Rome, so muslims who come to the US (and immigration to the US from muslim countries should be outlawed as they do not assimilate into our society and have no intention of living by our rules and laws) have to abide by our way of life. We will NOT accommodate them and their culture.

For the most part, I wasn't getting the kind of answers I was looking for — people seemed focused on the impossiblity of getting people to understand the danger of Islam. So I clarified the question: Let's imagine that somehow it happened. I'm sure at some point it would have seemed impossible for people to stop smoking, and yet our whole culture's orientation to tobacco has changed in my lifetime, from something totally acceptable and commonplace to something that is banned in more and more places and done by fewer and fewer people.

So imagine that a huge change like that happened to a majority of people in the free world. Somehow a majority of people really understood what Islamic doctrine is all about. What kinds of policies would we vote in? What kinds of new laws would we make? What do you think we would do once we all knew about it?

Someone wrote: In my opinion I see Islamic doctrine in the same way I view slavery. The laws wouldn't be able to paint the doctrine with a broad brush, but by taking parts of it and dealing with them individually. What CAIR is trying to do is make this a religious issue and that we also have to accept it because of free speech. Therefore sharia should be allowed because it is a religious belief. That is how we have to attack it. We don't allow sharia because it is against the laws and Constitution of this country, regardless of their religious beliefs.

Someone else wrote: The biggest problem we face is that there are too many of them in this country. Who would pay to deport them all? We would first have to say we do not recognize Islam as a religion. We would take away their tax exempt status. We would use undercover people to monitor what is going on inside mosques and what is being taught there. Any mention of terrorism would be closely watched. Sharia law in ANY form would NOT be tolerated. We would not allow ANY type of worship by them in our schools. No Muslim would be permitted to be employed or do volunteer work in any state, Federal or local governments.

Someone else wrote: I think if everyone knew the truth about Islam they would not bow down to it and would not appease those extremists who throw temper tantrums to get their way. They would not let Islam creep into their judicial systems and social systems the way it is, just like a cancer, starting slowly but over time taking over and destroying. They would put a stop to it eradicate it!

Someone else wrote: It would have a profound affect on the behavior of Muslims. If the West would stand up to Islam and lose the politically correct facade, I think that many would leave Islam. They are held hostage, so to speak, by their fear of being persecuted or harmed for apostasy. If we can convince them that we are not a bunch of pussies and offer protection, they would leave in droves.

Someone else wrote: Immigration reform regarding Islamic countries should be the 1st thing after outlawing political correctness. We should find some way to make allowances for true asylum seekers. They do exist. They need to end the student/clerical visa "exchanges", especially since they do not vet them well & there is no "exchange" of other religious clerics to them, just reception of them to us.

Get the Supreme Court to rule definitively that Sharia Law is totally impermissible in American courts, period. Also, that there are no laws to give Islam protected status either. It should not be exempt from critical examination any more than any belief system should be. There should be no thought-police-type crime laws for Islam either. (I am not a believer in "hate crimes" laws, I believe ALL crimes deserve the same treatment, regardless of who/what the victim is or the motivation of the perpetrator, murder is murder — whether the perp hates me or not, I'm still dead!)

Also, do not allow fawning presentations in history classes for Islam without even mentioning the dark side. I know all about how many of the educators feel about the dark periods of Christianity but, according to some of them, they did NOTHING right & Islamic countries were the perfect, just, tolerant societies. Balance & truth, no need to sugarcoat.

Someone else wrote: We are going to have to outlaw islam as a religion first. This way, they don't get to run and seek protection under our own religious persecution laws. Is anyone aware that this is what they are doing? Using our own laws against us. Islam=nazi's. Same thing.

Someone else wrote: We would demand a loyalty oath as a condition to stay in this country. If they cannot swear allegiance to our Constitution, before anything else, they will be deported. Immigration is going to be what bites us on the ass. The second generation will be the problem.

Someone else wrote: A Palestinian immigrant I know told me she lied when taking the oath to become an American citizen.

If people knew the truth about Islam, they (some wouldn't care one way or the other because they're too apathetic/distracted) would want laws stopping all Muslims from immigrating to the US and demand all construction of mosques be halted.

Also, if the truth were accepted, then Islam might possibly be considered seditious, but since communist doctrine seems to be tolerated under freedom of speech, I won't hold my breath.

Also, every time there's an article in my local rag or on the news regarding terrorism, it tilts in the direction of the 'hijacking' of a peaceful religion and they always have 'professors from coast to coast telling the interviewer jihad really means "inner struggle" and the same tired mantra, "islam is peaceful."

Even if the majority of muslims in the West want to live sharia-free, the dedicated agitators promoting Islam's political advancement are organized and focused. I liken it to the mafia where you have a small number of people willing to be violent to intimidate the majority to maintain control and power.

Martel Sobieskey (an occasional contributor to Citizen Warrior) sent me a section of an interchange he had with someone else, and it was along the lines of our conversation here, I'm including. The other person sent Sobieskey an article. And Sobieskey responded:

This is a very excellent and insightful article exposing the Islamic invasion. My highest respect, appreciation and admiration for your wisdom in this regard. Like a wise physician you have accurately diagnosed the "patients illness" Now we need the cures, the remedies.

What remedies do you prescribe to cure the patient?

The other person responded:

Martel, Thanks for the complement, As for the remedies:

1. First, we must awaken more Americans to the nature of the illness. ACT! for America and its chapters are pushing this forward. I think the Report of Team "B"II - Shariah, the Threat to America may be an effective tool. Hope you've read it. I understand it is going to be distributed to members of Congress, and major movers and players in our government, education, and the judiciary. Tragically, it seems that it has taken major terrorist acts inside the U.S., like the Ft. Hood massacre, to wake Americans up. Maybe we are simply going to need to have more 9/11s as horrible as that may seem.

2. Once we gotten enough voters awakened, then there are many things that can and must be done, such as:

Ending the State Department's Refugee Resettlement Program's ability to bring Muslims here as
refugees from Muslim terror.

No more religious visas for Imams to come and fundamentalize our secular Muslims.

Curtail Muslim immigration.

Seal our borders

Stop educating Muslim students from abroad — especially in sensitive technologies.

End welfare benefits to non-citizens and illegals — particularly Muslims.

No aid-to-dependent Muslim moms. Make them prove they are/were legally married
in registered monogamous marriages.

Excise the political ideologies out of Islam here in the U.S.

Forbid Shariah as Oklahoma recently did.

Stop caving in to Muslim demands for "accommodations" of any type.

Stop allowing U.S. universities/colleges from accept grants or endowments from Muslim countries.

Monitor activities in all U.S. mosques.

End the construction of new mosques in the U.S.

Stop providing Muslim chaplains in our prisons and armed forces.

Stop allowing and funding Muslim Student Associations/groups on our campuses.

Locate and deport Muslims who are not here illegally.

Amend our Constitution, if necessary, to declare Islam a seditious alien ideology, outlawed in
the U.S. and ineligible for First Amendment protection.

End tax-exempt status for Muslim organizations.

Forbid Muslims from holding elective office.

Well, there's a few for starters.

Then Martel Sobieskey wrote this response:

1. I have very little confidence that the majority of Americans will ever awaken as you state in your item #1. My reasoning is based upon the fact that since 9/11 Islam has made enormous progress and America has only done a little ineffective chat. Basically Americans remain paralyzed because it has wrongfully called Islam a religion and this is suicidal.

2. I believe the attack against Sharia is flawed because it implies that there is an Islam independent of Sharia and therefore leaves us stuck in the same split between moderate and militant. Now you will have Islamic deception that good Muslims do not want Sharia but the bad Muslims want Sharia.

3. My opinion is that our efforts should be against Islam in general by telling the truth that Islam in a counterfeit religion as stated in my article Islam's Invasion Ideology and that failing to do so means our gradual demise.

4. What's wrong with telling the truth about Islam that it is a fake and a fraud and not a genuine religion? I guess we could say that a cat is religious because it is so quiet and contemplative as it stalks a mouse.

5. When Islam prays five times a day, it is to kill and destroy all religions and nations worldwide. One should not be fooled by their pious demeanor. There have been several serial killers who had pious and holy demeanors. This is the case with Islam — it puts on the pious facade in order to deceive and kill its prey.

6. Our discussion here is more than theoretical because it can be verified by facts on the ground and the blood in the streets as time goes on. The most obvious strategic fact is the enormous progress Islam has made since 9/11.

7. Here we are talking about Sharia which is an obvious and egregious hate crime against all humanity. The very fact that we are discussing with such trepidation and timidity this far after 9/11 foretells our failure. We have become lost in a malaise of disconnected idealism avoiding the strategic realities.

8. Why don't these anti-Sharia efforts attack Islam head on? It shows that they do not have a strategic understanding of the situation, but remain locked in a discussion of hair-splitting idealism of a college classroom. Islam is defeating us strategically while we have our college classroom discussions about Sharia and court battles about Sharia. All the while Muslim immigrants build their enclaves and practice Sharia on the sly while their invasion ramps up and continues unabated.

........................................

Is there anything you'd like to add? Click here to leave a comment.

Why the Open Fuel Standard is Important

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 09:11:00 +0000

Someone just mentioned that we're promoting the Open Fuel Standard without explaining what it is for people new to Citizen Warrior. Here are some previous articles about it, in order of their relevance:

http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2010/08/how-to-boost-economy-of-free-world-and.html

http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2008/11/support-open-fuel-standard.html

http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2009/03/strike-heart-of-jihad.html

http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2011/06/keeping-saudis-wealthy.html

http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2011/05/how-to-achieve-energy-security-and-fair.html

http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2011/06/if-you-have-gas-only-car-youre-already.html

http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2011/11/congressman-allen-west-co-sponsors-open.html

http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2011/11/legislative-action-alert-from-act-for.html

http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2011/05/perfect-opportunity-to-concentrate.html

http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2011/05/lets-put-on-pressure-our.html

http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2009/04/action-alert-cut-off-jihad-money-supply.html

http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2010/08/flex-fuel-imperative.html

http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2011/08/breaking-opecs-grip.html

This Just In...

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 20:36:00 +0000

The following Action Alert just arrived in my inbox from ACT! for America. Let's add momentum to this important legislation!

*** LEGISLATIVE ACTION ALERT ***

VOICE YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE OPEN FUEL STANDARD AMENDMENT TO THE SENATE TRANSPORTATION BILL!

This week, the U.S. Senate is scheduled to consider S. 1813, a transportation bill called “MAP-21.” We expect Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Richard Lugar (R-IN) to offer S.1603, their Open Fuel Standard (OFS) Act as an amendment to the transportation legislation (amendment #1657).

The auto industry has been blanketing the Hill in opposition to the OFS amendment, using patently false claims. To counter that message, it is critical that our U.S. Senators hear voluminous and loudsupport for the amendment from the folks back home. ACT! for America’s 185,000 grassroots members can easily provide that support. Will you help us make this impact?

The Open Fuel Standard Act is very much needed legislation—especially at this point in time. With the return of increased gas prices due to OPEC’s standard manipulation, as well as the Iranian regime’s dangerous game- playing using oil as a negotiating tool, it’s time for us to finally sever OPEC’s chokehold. The OFS Act will move us in that direction. Brazil has already done it successfully and other nations are moving in the same direction.

While there certainly are numerous valid approaches to transportation fuel independence (most of which we fully support), the Open Fuel Standard legislation is the easiest first step. At zero cost to the Federal Government, and only $70 to $100 per vehicle, passage of the OFS Act will finally provide Americans a choice when filling up their gas tanks—just like we all have a choice for every other product offered to us. It will allow free market capitalism to be applied to the transportation fuel industry—something that currently does not exist.

We must finally cut the cord that keeps us dependent on wealthy dictators and Islamist nations for our gasoline. Further, we must stop funding Islamist terrorists every time we fill up our gas tanks. Passage of the Cantwell/Lugar Amendment is our opportunity to do so.

** IMPORTANT ACTION ITEM **

Please take a moment today to send your U.S. Senator an e-mail of support for the Cantwell/Lugar OFS amendment. Simply click on the Alert titled, “Cantwell/Lugar OFS Amendment” and follow the simple directions!

Thank you for all of your efforts. Together we will achieve freedom from OPEC oil!

REMEMBER, YOUR VOICE COUNTS!
IF EACH OF US DOES JUST A LITTLE, TOGETHER WE CAN
ACCOMPLISH A LOT!

Blasphemy and Free Speech

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 08:10:00 +0000

IN A RECENT issue of Imprimis from Hillsdale College — a publication read by almost two million people every month — is an excellent article by Paul Marshall, adapted from a lecture he delivered February 3rd this year. Here are the opening paragraphs of the article:

A growing threat to our freedom of speech is the attempt to stifle religious discussion in the name of preventing “defamation of” or “insults to” religion, especially Islam. Resulting restrictions represent, in effect, a revival of blasphemy laws.

Few in the West were concerned with such laws 20 years ago. Even if still on some statute books, they were only of historical interest. That began to change in 1989, when the late Ayatollah Khomeini, then Iran’s Supreme Leader, declared it the duty of every Muslim to kill British-based writer Salman Rushdie on the grounds that his novel, The Satanic Verses, was blasphemous. Rushdie has survived by living his life in hiding. Others connected with the book were not so fortunate: its Japanese translator was assassinated, its Italian translator was stabbed, its Norwegian publisher was shot, and 35 guests at a hotel hosting its Turkish publisher were burned to death in an arson attack.

Click here to read the whole article (and share it with your friends).

Ayaan Hirsi Ali Has Gone Mainstream With Our Message

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 02:05:00 +0000

I DON'T KNOW HOW she did it, but Ali has an article in the February 13 issue of Newsweek. Not only that, but it's the cover story! The cover says simply, "The War on Christians." The name of the article is this gem: "The Rise of Christophobia."

She makes some great points in the article, including an admonition to pay attention to the differences in "intolerance." The "intolerance" in the West comes in the form of cartoons, films, and writings. The intolerance against Christians in the Muslim world is expressed with knives, guns, and grenades.

In the article, she takes the Western media to task for not covering the war on Christians better.

This is excellent. Count one point for our side and celebrate the victory.

The Rebellion of Muslim Women May Defeat the Third Jihad

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Sat, 25 Feb 2012 23:08:00 +0000

I'VE BEEN reading an interesting book called How Civilizations Die and have come across some surprising facts. The book was published in 2011 and uses very recent population and birth rate data. Here's the bottom line: Women in Muslim countries are helping the counterjihad by not having many children. They are undermining orthodox Muslims by denying them soldiers. Here are some passages from the book:

In November 2010 President Ahmadinejad demanded that Iranian girls marry at the age of sixteen and produce more children... For years, Ahmadinejad has denounced Iran's falling birth rate as a Western conspiracy to hobble his country...In 2006 he declared that Iran's population should nearly double: "I am against saying that two children are enough..."

But Iranian women are doing the opposite of what Ahmadinejad asked. Back in 2006, when he first discovered the supposed Western plot to depopulate his country, Iranian women were having two children on average. By 2010 their fertility had dropped to only 1.7 children. Among the Persians who make up just over half of Iran's people — the rest are Turkish-speaking Azeris, Kurds, Arabs, and Baluchis — fertility is even lower. And in Iran's urban centers, there are even fewer births. In Tehran, the nation's capital, fertility is just 1.5 children per woman.

A country needs a birth rate of 2.1 just to maintain its population at the current level.

This same phenomenon is happening in other places in the Muslim world where women are literate. And the higher the literacy rate, the lower the birth rate. Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan has also pleaded with Turkish women to have more children. In a speech to an audience of women, he asked them to each have at least three children. They ignored him. "Erdogan asked women to have three children, and the demand for contraceptives went up," complained a well-known Turkish academic.

This trend is following Muslims into the Western world. Here's more from the book:

In Germany, for example, Turkish women had on average two more children apiece than German women in 1970. But by 1996, the gap had narrowed to a one-child advantage for the Turks. Muslim women in Austria bore an average of 3.1 children each in 1981, almost double the 1.7 fertility rate for Catholic Austrians. Twenty years later, in 2001, the Catholic fertility rate was down to 1.3, but Muslim fertility had fallen to 2.3. In Holland, Turkish immigrant women were at a fertility rate of 3.2 children in 1990, double the Dutch fertility rate of 1.6. But by 2008, Turkish women in Holland were having only 1.9 children apiece. And in Denmark, the fertility of native-born women reached 1.9 in 2009, against 1.6 for immigrant women. (The figure for Danish women, though, includes second-generation immigrants.)

The pattern also appears to apply to African Muslim immigrants to France, which takes in more immigrants from Muslim Senegal than from any other country in sub-Saharan Africa. Although Senegal's total fertility rate of 5.2 (four children in cities and six children in the countryside) is one of the world's highest, Senegalese immigrants average only 2.12 children, slightly higher than the French average..."

We sometimes fix our attention on the influence orthodox Muslims are having on our culture while overlooking the fact that our culture is also having an influence on the Muslims who move to developed nations.

The more educated the women, the fewer children they bore. The key element is literacy. Literacy reduces both population and fundamentalism (orthodoxy).

All this leads to the inevitable conclusion that if you want to do something to stop the demographic jihad, you should pour your efforts into helping Muslim women become literate, and you should get on it now.

The Girl Effect helps educate young women (read more about the Girl Effect here). While there are many organizations dedicated to literacy for girls, most of them don't work in Muslim lands. But the Girl Effect does.

If you've had trouble talking to some of your friends and family about Islam (trying to get them concerned about the third jihad) I suggest you switch tactics with the resistant ones. Stop talking about Islam with them and promote the Girl Effect instead. Promote literacy for women. Become a fanatic about it. They'll be so relieved, they will gladly join your new cause just to stop hearing you talk about Islam. They never need to know that all their efforts are doing exactly what you've always wanted.