What Muslim Leaders Say About Islam Dispels the Myth that Jihadists are a “Fringe” Element

Friday

WHEN WE discover some basic facts about Islam, our first impulse is to think, “But surely it’s only a small minority of extremists!” If you’ve looked into it, and especially if you’ve read the Quran, you realize the “extremists” are following standard, mainstream Islamic doctrine. That’s a real shock when this first dawns on you.

One day when I was reading yet another popular Muslim leader giving a speech and saying something that would be considered “inflammatory rhetoric” if I said it, but that was nothing more than just plain, ordinary Islamic teachings, I thought I should start collecting a list. Here’s what I have so far (below). I’m sure I’ll add to it as I go along, and I hope you to add to it in the comments.

I thought you could send this list of quotes to those people who tell you “the terrible stuff you say about Islam” only applies to a fringe group of nutcases who have hijacked Islam and twisted and distorted peaceful Islamic teachings into something bad. You could quote chapter and verse from Islamic source books until you’re blue in the face without making a dent because they’ll think hardly any Muslims nowadays believe in that stuff.

This list should disabuse anyone of the notion that the incessant intolerance, hatred, and even violence against non-Muslims is “fringe.” This is not just a small group of “radicals.” This is Islam, plain and simple. The leaders quoted below are hugely popular, even famous mainstream leaders in the Islamic world. For each quote, I’ve provided an online source. Let’s begin:

Ali Gomaa, the grand mufti of Egypt, the highest Muslim religious authority in the world, supports murdering non-Muslims. In the daily Al Ahram (April 7, 2008), he said, “Muslims must kill non-believers wherever they are unless they convert to Islam.” He also compares non-Muslims to apes and pigs.
Muhammad Sayyid Al Tantawi, president of Al Azhar University (the most prominent and authoritative institute of Islamic jurisprudence in the world) also approves of killing and maiming Christians, Jews, and other infidels. He added, “This is not my personal view. This what the Shari’a Law says, the law of Allah, the only valid law on the earth.”
Syed Abul Ala Maududi, founder of the Pakistani political party Jamaat-e-Islami, said non-Muslims have “absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God’s earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines.” If they do, “the believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life.”

The Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid teaches that “at first fighting was forbidden, then it was permitted, and after that it was made obligatory.” He clearly identifies two groups Muslims are obligated to fight: “(1) they who start fighting against Muslims, and (2) they who worship gods other than Allah.”

The most prominent Muslim scholar of the 20th century, Sheikh Abu Ala Maududi, stated in his book, Islamic Law and Constitution, on p. 262, that the Islamic State “seeks to mould every aspect of life and activity. In such a state no one can regard any field of his affairs as personal and private. Considered from this aspect the Islamic State bears a kind of resemblance to the Fascist and Communist states.” Maududi added “Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam.”

Hasan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood (the largest international Islamic organization in the world) wrote, “Islam is an all-embracing concept which regulates every aspect of life, adjudicating on every one of its concerns and prescribing for it a solid and rigorous order.” Hasan al-Banna acknowledged there are many levels of jihad, including mere “interior spiritual struggle,” which he deemed the lowest level. According to al-Banna, waging warfare against the infidels is the highest expression of fidelity.

Hasan al-Banna also wrote, “it is a duty incumbent on every Muslim to struggle towards the aim of making every people Muslim and the whole world Islamic, so that the banner of Islam can flutter over the earth and the call of the Muezzin can resound in all the corners of the world.” Now remember, this is the founder of the largest international Muslim organization in the world. Source: Robert Spencer’s book, Stealth Jihad.

Saudi Arabia’s Grand Mufti, Sheikh Abdulaziz Bin Abdullah Bin Mohammed al Sheikh said on Iqra’ TV channel, “Killing producers who show women unveiled is legal.”

The Saudi Sheikh Saleh Al-Lehadan, head of the Supreme Judiciary Council, told Al Watan Daily, (March 25, 2008) “After getting rid of the Jews in our Arab land, we must turn to the Christians. They have three options: either they convert to Islam, or leave, or pay Jizia (protection taxes).”

Libyan leader Muammar Ghadafi says: “There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam in Europe without swords, without guns, without conquest. We don’t need terrorists, we don’t need homicide bombers. The 50+ million Muslims [in Europe] will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.”
Shaykh Ghawhi, well-known and well-respected in Islamic universities and throughout the Islamic world, is a teacher of Islamic studies and Islamic law. He says according to Sharia:

1. A woman must only leave her house if she has a real need to do so.
2. Her husband or guardian must authorize her leaving the house.
3. When she is out, she must be completely covered, including her face.
4. When she is out, she must not look left or right but keep her head bowed down as she walks.
5. She must not wear perfume in public.
6. She must never shake a man’s hand.
7. Even if she is visiting a female friend and is inside her friend’s house, she must not uncover herself in case a man is hiding somewhere in the house.

Ayatollah Khomeini, the immensely influential leader of the Iranian revolution, and known as “the greatest Shi’ite leader of all time” said: “Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world…But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world…Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies].

Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender [to the enemy]? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Qur’anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”

Ayatollah Khomeini also said: “Mehrab (a mosque) means a place of war, a place of fighting. Out of the mosques, wars should proceed. Just as all the wars of Islam proceeded out of the mosques. The prophet had a sword to kill people. Our Holy Imams were quite militant. All of them were warriors. They used to wield swords. They used to kill people. We need a Caliph who would chop hands, cut throats, stone people. In the way that the messenger of Allah used to chop hands, cut throats, and stone people.”
Ayatollah Khomeini also said, “Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious.”

The following “explanatory memorandum,” as it’s called, was captured in an FBI raid and outlines the “strategic goal” for the North American operation of the Muslim Brotherhood (known to members as “Ikhwan”). Keep in mind that the Muslim Brotherhood is the largest international Muslim organization in the world. Here’s its goal in America, according to its own leadership:

“The process of settlement [of Islam in the United States] is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist’ process with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ their miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who choose to slack.”

The co-founder of CAIR (the most prominent “mainstream, moderate Muslim” organization in the United States), Omar Ahmad, an honored guest at the Bush White House, was invited by the president to the National Cathedral to mourn the Americans lost on 9/11. In 1998, Ahmad was secretly recorded at an Islamic conference in Fremont, California, saying, “Islam isn’t in America to equal to any other faith but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America and Islam the only accepted religion.”
Before founding CAIR, Ahmad was a leader at the Islamic Association of Palestine, an Islamist organization that raised money in America for Hamas, but was shut down by the government in 2005. The three largest American-based Brotherhood front groups have been blacklisted and/or shut down by the FBI. The FBI shut down Holy Land Foundation, the largest Islamic charity, for fraudulently raising money for Hamas and the FBI listed CAIR and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) as unindicted co-conspirators.
“The leading Egyptian cleric, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, considered one of the most influential scholars in Islam, promoted by London mayor Ken Livingstone as a moderate voice, says something on his Islam-online website, speaking of female genital mutilation (the removal of a girl’s clitoris): ‘Anyhow, it is not obligatory, whoever finds it serving the interest of his daughters should do it, and I personally support this under the current circumstances in the modern world.'”
Yusuf al-Qaradawi also urged Muslims to kill the Jews on Al Jazeera TV (Jan. 9, 2009), not only in Israel but also worldwide. He added, “No peace can be made between us (Muslims) and the non-believers. This what our holy book says. This what Allah says.”

Yusuf al-Qaradawi also wrote: “Secularism can never enjoy a general acceptance in an Islamic society.” Qaradawi is the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual guide and a favorite of the Saudi royal family. He made this assertion in his book, How the Imported Solutions Disastrously Affected Our Ummah, an excerpt of which was published by the Saudi Gazette just a couple of months ago.
We’re talking about Qaradawi, the “progressive” Muslim intellectual, much loved by Georgetown University’s burgeoning Islamic-studies programs. Like Harvard, Georgetown has been purchased into submission by tens of millions of Saudi petrodollars. In its resulting ardor to put Americans at ease about Islam, the university somehow manages to look beyond Qaradawi’s fatwas calling for the killing of American troops in Iraq and for suicide bombings in Israel. Qaradawi, they tell us, is a “moderate.” In fact, as Robert Spencer quips, if you were to say Islam and secularism cannot co-exist, John Esposito, Georgetown’s apologist-in-chief, would call you an Islamophobe; but when Qaradawi says it, no problem — according to Esposito, he’s a “reformist.”
And he’s not just any reformist. Another Qaradawi fan, Imam Rauf, the similarly “moderate” imam behind the Ground Zero mosque project, tells us Qaradawi is also “the most well-known legal authority in the whole Muslim world today.”
Rauf is undoubtedly right about that. So it is worth letting it sink in that this most influential of Islam’s voices, this promoter of the Islamic enclaves the Brotherhood is forging throughout the West, is convinced that Islamic societies can never accept secularism. After all, secularism is nothing less than the framework by which the West defends religious freedom but denies legal and political authority to religious creeds.
It is also worth understanding why Qaradawi says Islam and secularism cannot co-exist. The excerpt from his book continues:

“As Islam is a comprehensive system of worship (Ibadah) and legislation (Shari’ah), the acceptance of secularism means abandonment of Shari’ah, a denial of the divine guidance and a rejection of Allah’s injunctions. It is indeed a false claim that Shari’ah is not proper to the requirements of the present age. The acceptance of a legislation formulated by humans means a preference of the humans’ limited knowledge and experiences to the divine guidance: “Say! Do you know better than Allah?” (Qur’an, 2:140) For this reason, the call for secularism among Muslims is atheism and a rejection of Islam. Its acceptance as a basis for rule in place of Shari’ah is downright apostasy.”

Andrew McCarthy wrote: “In considering Imam Rauf and his Ground Zero project, Qaradawi and the Muslim Brotherhood are extremely important. Like most Muslims, Rauf regards Qaradawi as a guide, and referred to him in 2001 as ‘the most well-known legal authority in the whole Muslim world today.’ And indeed he is: a prominent, Qatar-based scholar whose weekly Al Jazeera program on the subject of sharia is viewed by millions and whose cyber-venture, Islam Online, is accessed by millions more, including Muslims in the United States. Not surprisingly, his rabble-rousing was a prime cause of the deadly global rioting by Muslims when an obscure Danish newspaper published cartoon depictions of Mohammed.”

Andrew McCarthy continues: “Qaradawi regards the United States as the enemy of Islam. He has urged that Muslims ‘fight the American military if we can, and if we cannot, we should fight the U.S. economically and politically.’ In 2004, he issued a fatwa (an edict based on sharia) calling for Muslims to kill Americans in Iraq. A leading champion of Hamas, he has issued similar approvals of suicide bombings in Israel.”
Sheik Taj Din al-Hilaly, former Mufti of Australia and Imam of the Lakemba Mosque, said in a sermon at the Lakemba Mosque October 2006: “Those atheists, people of the book [Christians and Jews], where will they end up? In Surfers Paradise? On the Gold Coast? Where will they end up? In hell and not part-time, for eternity. They are the worst in God’s creation.”
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, former leader of the Justice and Development Party, one of Turkey’s most popular politicians, and now Prime Minister of Turkey, publicly read an Islamic poem that included the lines: “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and Muslims our soldiers…”
Prime Minister Erdogan also commented on the term “moderate Islam,” often used in the West. He said, “These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”

OIC General Secretary Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu readily admitted in a speech in June of 2008 the OIC’s targeting and orchestration to criminalize speech that “offends” Muslims, noting their success in causing the West to deter “freedom of expression.” The OIC is the second largest inter-governmental organization after the United Nations and the largest voting block in the UN. Ihsanoglu said, “In confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film Fitna, we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed. As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look serious into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.”
Mohammad, the prophet of Islam, said: “If anyone changes his religion, kill him.”
“Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war…When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them…If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them.” So said Mohammad, founder of Islam (from Sahih Muslim’s Hadith, 4294).
A man came to Mohammed and said, “Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad in reward.” Mohammed replied, “I do not find such a deed.” Source: Bukhari Vol 4 Bk 52 Nbr 44

Sisi Is Just Another Caliphate-Idealizing Apologist For Islam Whose In-Actions Speak Louder Than His Hollow Words

 

Zabibah Brothers: Nour Party Salafists supported Sisi because he was deemed “faithful to the Sharia”

Despite the gushing over Egyptian President Sisi’s New Years Day, 2015 speech (to Al-Azhar University and the Awqaf Ministry), I will remain entirely unimpressed until his rhetoric can be: (I) reconciled with Sisi’s support for Islam’s Caliphate system, accompanied by his vociferous denunciation of Western secularism; (II) matched by concrete actions which demonstrate he is willing to oppose the ongoing application, for example, of Sharia “blasphemy” law directed at hapless Coptic Christians in his own beloved Egypt.

Our learned analysts might wish to remember that Sisi’s Zabibah Brothers-in-Arms (see this 2011 discussion of the Egyptian Zabibah-stan), the Nour Party “Salafists,” supported his Presidential candidacy because Sisi was deemed “faithful to the Sharia.” Nour, at that time, even sloganized, “Together hand in hand we build the country through religion.”

During an August 2013 interview, Sisi proffered this flimsy apologetic for Islam, which in essence differs little from what he opined January 1, 2015:

I want to tell you that those so-called Islamists have done harm to the image of Islam. Those who seem to be keen on religion have harmed Islam like never before. Islam is now synonymous to killing, blood and destruction. We have to assess the situation in an objective way and see how the world and other countries see Islam. The problem is definitely with implementation, not with the approach. It is implementation that has done harm to Islam.

Sisi’s 2006 U.S. Army War College “mini-thesis”—which had to be obtained via FOIA request over Sisi’s apparent objections—romanticized the “democratic” Caliphate system, and unequivocally decried Western secularism, as I described in August 2013:

Key extracts are reproduced, below:

{As documented [2] earlier and re-affirmed in an e-mail exchange below with the U.S. Army War College Library’s acting director, I was first unable to obtain a copy of al-Sisi’s thesis from the Inter-Library Loan office due to its “classification” status:

From: Acting Director,  U.S. Army War College Library

Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 12:09 PM
To: Andrew Bostom
Cc: USARMY Carlisle Barracks AWC Mailbox LIBRARYR; USARMY Carlisle Barracks AWC Mailbox LIBRARYC
Subject: RE: Thesis via Inter-Library Loan/pdf?

Sir, The U.S. Army War College Library is not able to fill your request. The paper’s caveat, “Distribution authorized to U.S. Government agencies only,” means it cannot be released to individuals or libraries outside the federal government.

The War College Library’s initial rejection [2] of my request Friday prompted a Freedom of Information Act demand [3] for its release by Judicial Watch, which was honored [4] Thursday, August 8, 2013 (thesis available here [5]) — albeit some hours after the thesis had inexplicably appeared online at Foreign Policy.

..I agree with the crux of Professor Springborg’s original (7/28/13) analysis [9], despite certain ambiguities in al-Sisi’s presentation, inserted, in my estimation, by design, to allow for “flexible,” contingent interpretations of the general’s words. Springborg’s Foreign Affairs essay did include [9] the following apposite, if rather understated, final commentary on al-Sisi’s romanticized depiction of the Caliphate:

Apologists for Islamic rule sometimes suggest that these concepts are inherently democratic, but in reality they fall far short of the democratic mark.

What are the key ideological statements—verbatim—in al-Sisi’s mini-thesis [5], totaling a mere 11 pages of text, with an additional 2 pages, containing 31 footnotes? In the section (from pp. 3-6) entitled “The Conception of Democracy from [an] Islamic Perspective,” al-Sisi most clearly (although hardly without inherent ambiguity!) articulates his Weltanschauung, as follows [4]:

Democracy, as a secular entity, is unlikely to be favorably received by the vast majority of Middle Easterners, who are devout followers of the Islamic faith.…Although concerns exist, for the most part, the spirit of democracy, or self-rule, is viewed as a positive endeavor so long as it builds up the country and sustains the religious base, versus devaluing religion and creating instability.

Democracy cannot be understood in the Middle East without an understanding of the concept of El Kalafa [the Caliphate]. El Kalafa dates back to the time of the Prophet Muhammad. During his life and the seventy year period that followed the ideal state of El Kalafa existed as a way of life among the people and within the governing bodies. This period of time is viewed as a very special period and is considered the ideal form of government and it is widely recognized as the goal for any new form of government very much in the manner that the U.S. pursued the ideals of “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.” From the Middle Eastern perspective, the defining words governing their form of democracy would likely reflect “fairness, justice, equality, unity and charity.”

Related to the El Kalafa are the roles of the Elbia and Elshorah. [Note: Both Springborg [9] and Trager [20] modify al-Sisi’s confused discussion of these two concepts] Both of these processes were represented in the early years of the Muslim faith and therefore considered important and respected processes. The Elbaya’a [Elbia] is the election process for choosing the El Kalifa, while the El Shorah [is the] advisory and oversight body to the El Kalifa or Califate [Caliphate]. The El Shorah performs its role from a religious viewpoint, in that it ensures that the Califate [Caliph] is carrying out his duties in accordance with Islamic teachings. Although these processes have religious historical ties, they also represent processes by which a democracy can emerge.

Given the religious nature of the Middle Eastern culture, how might a Middle Eastern democracy [be] structured? Will there be three or four branches of government? Should a religious branch be added to the executive, legislative and judicial branches to ensure that Islamic beliefs and law are followed? A simple answer might be yes, but that is probably not the best means. Ideally, the legislative, executive, and judicial branches should all take Islamic beliefs into consideration when carrying out their duties. As such, there should be no need for a separate religious branch. However, to codify the major themes of the Islamic faith, they should be represented in the constitution or similar document. [Note: See subsequent discussion of the constitutional road map issued [21] July 8, 2013, under al-Sisi’s aegis] This does not mean a theocracy will be established, rather it means a democracy will be established built upon Islamic beliefs.

Al-Sisi equivocates [4] on Hamas, insisting defiantly, at first (on p.5), that Western support of “democracy” must include,

…allowing some factions that may be considered radical particularly if they are supported by a majority through a legitimate vote. The world cannot demand democracy in the Middle East, yet denounce what it looks like because a less than pro-Western party legitimately assumes office. For example, the Palestinans recently elected members from the Hamas group. This group is not on favorable terms with the US or other Western countries, yet they have [been] legitimately elected. It is now up to Hamas and the rest of the world to work out their differences.

Subsequently (on p. 9), al-Sisi acknowledges [4]:

As groups such as Hamas emerge, they are likely to reach power through democratic means, but may not fully represent the population, particularly the religious moderates, who they [also?] represent. So even with an elected Hamas, there are likely to be internal governance challenges down the road; however there is hope that the more moderate religious segments can mitigate extremist measures.

But al-Sisi never retrenches [4] on his anti-secularism, frontally attacking even governments that “tend toward secular rule,” and their media mouthpieces, for allegedly “fomenting” Islamic religious extremism (on p. 9).

The control of the media by government further presents problems to moderate Muslims. The media is managed via a secular philosophy. The secular media secures control for the government and further disenfranchises the religious moderates. It spreads a philosophy of liberal living that many moderate Muslims do not support and it also provides a vehicle for extremists to exploit because it enables them to relate to the religious moderates on a shared theme. This has the effect of strengthening the extremist philosophy.}

Why Islam Creates Monsters

 

The following is written by Dr. Nicolai Sennels, a Danish psychologist who studied young criminal Muslims in a Copenhagen prison and compared them to non-Muslim criminals in the same prison.

Window at Charlie Hebdo

Psychopathic people and behaviour are found within all cultures and religions. But one tops them all — by many lengths. The daily mass killings, terror, persecutions and family executions committed by the followers of Islam are nauseating, and the ingenuity behind the attacks — always looking for new and more effective ways of killing and terrorising people — is astonishing: hijacking jumbo jets and flying them into skyscrapers, hunting unarmed and innocent people with grenades and automatic rifles in shopping malls, planting bombs in one’s own body, using model airplanes as drones, attaching large rotating blades to pickup trucks and using them as human lawn mowers, killing family members with acid or fire, hanging people publicly from cranes in front of cheering crowds, etc. It makes one ask oneself: what creates such lack of empathy and almost playful and creative attitude towards murdering perceived enemies?

This is a question for psychologists like me.

Studying the Muslim mind

Nobody is born a mass murderer, a rapist or a violent criminal. So what is it in the Muslim culture that influence their children in a way that make so relatively many Muslims harm other people?

As a psychologist in a Danish youth prison, I had a unique chance to study the mentality of Muslims. 70 percent of youth offenders in Denmark have a Muslim background. I was able to compare them with non-Muslim clients from the same age group with more or less the same social background. I came to the conclusion that Islam and Muslim culture have certain psychological mechanisms that harm people’s development and increase criminal behaviour.

I am, of course, aware that Muslims are different, and not all Muslims follow the Quran’s violent and perverted message and their prophet’s equally embarrassing example. But as with all other religions, Islam also influences its followers and the culture they live in.

One could talk about two groups of psychological mechanisms, that both singly and combined increase violent behaviour. One group is mainly connected with religion, which aims at indoctrinating Islamic values in children as early as possible and with whatever means necessary, including violence and intimidation. One can understand a Muslim parent’s concern about his offspring’s religious choices, because the sharia orders the death penalty for their children, should they pick another religion than their parents. The other group of mechanisms are more cultural and psychological. These cultural psychological mechanisms are a natural consequence of being influenced by a religion like Islam and stemming from a 1,400 year old tribal society with very limited freedom to develop beyond what the religion allows.

Classical brainwashing methods in the upbringing

Brainwashing people into believing or doing things against their own human nature — such as hating or even killing innocents they do not even know — is traditionally done by combining two things: pain and repetition. The conscious infliction of psychological and physical suffering breaks down the person’s resistance to the constantly repeated message.

Totalitarian regimes use this method to reform political dissidents. Armies in less civilized countries use it to create ruthless soldiers, and religious sects all over the world use it to fanaticize their followers.

During numerous sessions with more than a hundred Muslim clients, I found that violence and repetition of religious messages are prevalent in Muslim families.

Muslim culture simply does not have the same degree of understanding of human development as in civilized societies, and physical pain and threats are therefore often the preferred tool to raise children. This is why so many Muslim girls grow up to accept violence in their marriage, and why Muslim boys grow up to learn that violence is acceptable. And it is the main reason why nine out of ten children removed from their parents by authorities in Copenhagen are from immigrant families. The Muslim tradition of using pain and intimidation as part of disciplining children are also widely used in Muslim schools — also in the West.

Combined with countless repetitions of Quranic verses in Islamic schools and families, all this makes it very difficult for children to defend themselves against being indoctrinated to follow the Quran, even if it is against secular laws, logic, and the most basic understanding of compassion.

And as we know from so many psychological studies, whatever a child is strongly influenced by at that age takes an enormous personal effort to change later in life. It is no wonder that Muslims in general, in spite of Islam’s inhumane nature and obvious inability to equip its followers with humor, compassion and other attractive qualities, are stronger in their faith than any other religious group.

Four enabling psychological factors

Not only does a traditional Islamic upbringing resemble classical brainwashing methods, but also, the culture it generates cultivates four psychological characteristics that further enable and increase violent behaviour.

These four mental factors are anger, self-confidence, responsibility for oneself and intolerance.

When it comes to anger, Western societies widely agree that it is a sign of weakness. Uncontrolled explosions of this unpleasant feeling are maybe the fastest way of losing face, especially in Northern countries, and though angry people may be feared, they are never respected. In Muslim culture, anger is much more accepted, and being able to intimidate people is seen as strength and source of social status. We even see ethnic Muslim groups or countries proudly declare whole days of anger, and use expressions such as “holy anger” — a term that seems contradictory in peaceful cultures.

In Western societies, the ability to handle criticism constructively if it is justified, and with a shrug if it is misguided, is seen as an expression of self-confidence and authenticity. As everyone has noticed, this is not the case among Muslims. Here criticism, no matter how true, is seen as an attack on one’s honor, and it is expected that the honor is restored by using whatever means necessary to silence the opponent. Muslims almost never attempt to counter criticism with logical arguments; instead, they try to silence the criticism by pretending to be offended or by name-calling, or by threatening or even killing the messenger.

The third psychological factor concerns responsibility for oneself, and here the psychological phenomenon “locus of control” plays a major role. People raised by Western standards generally have an inner locus of control, meaning that they experience their lives as governed by inner factors, such as one’s own choices, world view, ways of handling emotions and situations, etc. Muslims are raised to experience their lives as being controlled from the outside. Everything happens “insha’ Allah” — if Allah wills — and the many religious laws, traditions and powerful male authorities leave little room for individual responsibility. This is the cause for the embarrassing and world-famous Muslim victim mentality, where everybody else is blamed and to be punished for the Muslims’ own self-created situation.

Finally, the fourth psychological factor making Muslims vulnerable to the violent message in the Quran concerns tolerance. While Western societies in general define a good person as being open and tolerant, Muslims are told that they are superior to non-Muslims, destined to dominate non-Muslims, and that they must distance themselves socially and emotionally from non-Muslims. The many hateful and dehumanising verses in the Quran and the Hadiths against non-Muslims closely resemble the psychological propaganda that leaders use against their own people in order to prepare them mentally for fighting and killing the enemy. Killing another person is easier if you hate him and do not perceive him as fully human.

Why Islam creates monsters

The cultural and psychological cocktail of anger, low self-esteem, victim mentality, a willingness to be blindly guided by outer authorities, and an aggressive and discriminatory view toward non-Muslims, forced upon Muslims through pain, intimidation and mind-numbing repetitions of the Quran’s almost countless verses promoting hate and violence against non-Muslims, is the reason why Islam creates monsters.

The psychological problem within Islam

The problem with Islam and Muslim culture is that there are so many psychological factors pushing its followers towards a violent attitude against non-Muslims that a general violent clash is — at least from a psychological perspective — inevitable. With such strong pressure and such strong emotions within such a large group of people — all pitched against us — we are facing the perfect storm, and I see no possibilities of turning it around. For people to change, they have to want it, to be allowed to change, and to be able to change — and only a tiny minority of Muslims have such lucky conditions.

Far too many people underestimate the power of psychology embedded in religion and culture. As we have already seen, no army of social workers, generous welfare states, sweet-talking politicians, politically correct journalists or democracy-promoting soldiers can stop these enormous forces. Sensible laws on immigration and Islamisation in our own countries can limit the amount of suffering, but based on my education and professional experience as a psychologist for Muslims, I estimate that we will not be able to deflect or avoid this many-sided, aggressive movement against our culture.

I do believe that we, as a democratic and educated society can become focused and organised concerning the preservation of our values and constitutions, can win this ongoing conflict started by the often inbred followers of sharia. The big question is how much of our dignity, our civil rights, and our blood, money and tears will we lose in the process.

How Would THEY See This?

 

WE NEED to reach people with the message that Islam’s relentless encroachment must be stopped. The question is, “How can people be reached?” We obviously can’t just blurt out what we know self-righteously with the attitude that if you can’t handle the truth, then you’re a wimp. Anyone coming across like that would help the cause more to keep silent.

We’ve got to think in terms of “What would a blind multiculturalist think about this?” How would they see it? How do they hear you? We’ve got to reach them. They are looking for a reason to discount this.

What can we do to become more effective? My first suggestion may sound elementary, but it is important: Spell correctly. If you write anything anywhere, double- and triple-check your writing. Make it as free of mistakes as you can, as professional as you can, and as articulate as you can. Avoid emotional rambling. Make your point as succinctly as you can with as much logic, reason, and evidence as you can.

Same goes for what to do when you’re speaking to someone in person too. Give them no easy reason to dismiss what you’re saying. Go out of your way to avoid hitting their triggers. Don’t throw in conspiracy theories in the middle of your comments. Don’t go off on tangents about anything a multiculturalist would consider “right wing,” like gun laws or stockpiling weapons and ammunition.

You’ve got to get inside their heads and look over at you through their point of view. You have legitimate information and, if they understood it, they would want to do something to about it.

And do not come off as if you know something and they are ignorant, even if it’s true. Do not come off as better than others. We are not better than others because we know about Islam and they don’t. It doesn’t make us better — it burdens us with a responsibility that we had better take seriously: The responsibility to get through to our fellow citizens and help them understand.

Being right isn’t good enough. Plenty of people in history were right and failed. Those who opposed the Communist revolutions in Russia, China, and Cambodia were right — and they lost. We have to be effective, not just right. You will make no converts being an obnoxious know-it-all. I’ve tried it. 😉

Think back to before your eyes were opened. If someone came at you wild-eyed and full of seemingly-racist conspiracy theories, you would probably have recoiled from it, and recoiled from the point of view, and recoiled from the idea that Islam might be dangerously different from other ideologies you’re familiar with, and you may never have given that idea any serious thought again.

We need to be careful. We cannot afford to lose people like that. We need to present our information as a realistic, unexaggerated, well-grounded, authoritative understanding of world. We need to make it clear that important people “in the know” also see it this way. We need to avoid presenting it as something “nobody else knows,” because they will think, “Yeah, right. You have figured out what the mucky-mucks in the Pentagon haven’t figured out? Sure, buddy. Why don’t you calm down and we’ll give you a sedative.”

We need to be perceived as reasonable. We need to have our facts straight and well-memorized. We need to be persuasive. We must win people over to our side, and we must do it as quickly as possible.

Yazidi slave: ‘Bomb them or we’ll commit suicide. I’ve been raped 30 times and it’s not even lunchtime.’

‘I’ve been raped 30 times and it’s not even lunchtime’: Desperate plight of Yazidi woman who begged West to bomb her brothel after ISIS militants sold her into sex slavery

• Yazidi woman contacted Iraqi peshmerga fighters to ask for their help 
• She pleaded for prison to be bombed to end misery of constant rapes
• Had been sexually assaulted so often she could no longer use the toilet
• Said ordeal is so harrowing she plans to commit suicide even if freed
• Details emerged from group of Kurdish anti-ISIS activists based in London

By John Hall for MailOnline

 

A young Yazidi woman forced into sex slavery by the Islamic State begged the West to bomb the brothel where she was being held after militants raped her 30 times in just a few hours, it is claimed.

The unidentified woman is understood to have been kept as a prisoner of the jihadists somewhere in western Iraq having been captured by ISIS during the Sinjar massacre in early August.

A group raising awareness of ISIS’ persecution of women in the vast swathes of the Middle East under its control said the woman had contacted Kurdish peshmerga fighters by telephone to plead for the brothel to be bombed to put the women held as sex slaves out of their misery.

She allegedly told the fighters she had been raped so frequently that she could no longer use the toilet, adding that the ordeal has been so harrowing that she plans to commit suicide even if freed.

Horror: The woman said she had been raped so many times by ISIS militants (pictured) that she could no longer use the toilet, adding that the ordeal has been so harrowing that she plans to commit suicide even if freed

No life: 5-7,000 Yazidi women are also being held in makeshift detention centres by ISIS, where they either been taken away and sold into slavery or handed over to jihadists as concubines.

Details of the woman’s brutal experience at the hands of the Islamic State emerged during an interview with Kurdish activists staging demonstrations in London to raise awareness of the plight of women in the Middle East.

During an interview with BBC World Service, a man identified as Karam described how a friend embedded with the peshmerga took a phone call from the Yazidi woman.

Describing the woman as crying on the phone, Karam quoted her as saying: ‘If you know where we are please bomb us… There is no life after this. I’m going to kill myself anyway – others have killed themselves this morning.’

‘I’ve been raped 30 times and it’s not even lunchtime. I can’t go to the toilet. Please bomb us,’ he claimed the woman added.

Iraq’s Yazidis speak of horrors under Islamic State militants

Brutal: Last week the UN confirmed that thousands of Yazidis were slaughtered in scenes reminiscent of the Bosnian Srebrenica massacre when ISIS swept through northern Iraq in August

The group of Kurdish activists to which Karam belongs have been staging protests in central London to raise awareness of the plight of women living under the brutal oppression of the Islamic State.

Among their recent demonstrations was the establishment of a mock-slave market where niqab-wearing women were seen chained together while masked men used loudspeakers to auction them off to the highest bidder.

A video of the group’s fake slave auction – run to shock those living in the West into confronting the grim reality of ISIS rule – has already been viewed more than 265,000 times on YouTube

The group says they used information provided by sources on the ground to help them portray the scenes authentically.

Anti ISIS activists create sex slave market in London

Displaced: A group of Yazidi women are photographed living in a refugee camp near the Syria-Iraq border having fled Islamic State militants during the Sinjar massacre

A Yazidi refugee carries her son as they flee ISIS militants near Sirnak – a city at the Turkey-Iraq border

Last week the UN confirmed that thousands of Yazidis were slaughtered in scenes reminiscent of the Bosnian Srebrenica massacre when ISIS swept through northern Iraq in August.

Researchers, piecing together reports of attacks, have now concluded that more than 5,000 Yazidi were gunned down in a series of massacres by jihadist.

A further 5-7,000 women are also being held in makeshift detention centres, where they either been taken away and sold into slavery or handed over to jihadists as concubines.

Five detention centres in the town of Tal Afar is thought to hold around 3,500 women and children.

Q on: Twelve Practical Steps to Stop Islamisation

Islamisation is the socio-political, economic, judicial and military process to implement Islamic Sharia over   both Muslim   and   non-Muslim populations. This   process   can be   observed in different stages in regions into which Islam has already spread – and continues to spread.

Islam is   unique in that     it was created   as a fusion   of   religious elements   from Judaism, Christianity and Arab paganism and then formed into theocratic ideology to complement the needs of   warlords and feudal   rulers. In its   totalitarian approach to   rule over all   aspects of human life, Islam has similarities with Fascism and Communism. But, because of the religious element, Islam   succeeds where Fascism   and Communism failed.   Islam remains the   most effective ideology to rally highly determined supporters and to rule over large populations. The

proclaimed ‘final solution’ of Islam is a global caliphate (theocratic global government) to rule

both Muslims and non-Muslims according to Islamic Sharia law.

In other publications we explain in more detail why we regard Islam in its current form as incompatible with our Western society and how Islamisation works. In this document we offer policy   proposals     which   our   parliamentarians should     consider   in   order     to   fulfil   their commitment to protect Australia and her people.

Separate Islam from State and Politics

The purely religious/spiritual elements of Islam are of no concern. However, of serious concern in Australia, as in many regions of the world, are the non-religious – the socio-political, judicial, economic and   military elements of   Islam.   To separate   the former from   the latter is   the challenge for our politicians.

Section 116 of the Australian Constitution explicitly protects the right to free exercise of any religion. Attempts by   politicians   and the   legal fraternity to     define ‘religion’only end   in perpetual controversy and costly legal arguments. Therefore, the insertion point for a political solution must be simple, decisive and beyond constitutional reproach.

We propose to tie the formal recognition of a religious group by the federal government as an accredited religious organisation to the fulfilment of, and ongoing compliance with a set of values and ethical principles. As a baseline for accreditation for all religious groups we propose the formal acceptance of a set of values in line with the principles set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as the supremacy of Australian law wherever a conflict between secular and religious law may arise.

In case of Islamic groups, this baseline shall be complemented by the requirement to sign and comply with an   undertaking similar to   the “Proposed Charter   of Muslim Understanding” offered by the Islamic scholar and ex-Muslim Sam Solomon. An authorised Australian version of the Charter in print or electronic format is available from Q Society of Australia Inc. The original EU-based version is available on the internet.

On this formal accreditation shall be based the special status as well as any special benefits, including tax exemptions, not available to non-religious organisations. It is only fair that such privileges carried by taxpayers, and so impacting on all Australians, is conditional upon the compliance with values and legal   norms held by the   vast majority of Australians. Religious groups may choose not to seek accreditation. These groups remain free to practise their religion within the law, but without the privileges reserved for accredited religious organisations.

Follow the Roadmap to an Integrated Multi-ethnic Australia

We   propose     that all   levels     of   government,   public     administration   and publicly-funded institutions formally acknowledge that the experiment of multiculturalism has failed. Together with this acknowledgment the body or institution shall give a binding undertaking that they will develop and implement strategies to work towards integration of fractured communities and a singular, inclusive Australian society.

Schools and universities shall be at the forefront of overcoming the growing tribalism in our society and to re-unite ethnically or religiously segregated communities.

The proposed roadmap leads towards a singular Australian identity, an integrated society and respect for one secular law based on classical European values and ethics. Our core values and common laws   have formed over     the millennia from   our Judaeo-Christian, European     and humanistic roots. This is the foundation of the Australian Constitution, the basis of our laws, customs and   ethics and this shall remain     the officially recognised lead culture   of Australia. Immigrants and refugees do not come here because we are Middle Eastern, Asian or African, but because Australia is part of Western Civilisation and the Anglosphere. This culture is what we shall     embrace, celebrate   and   enhance. Instead   of   being   torn between   old   and new allegiances, the   clear orientation towards   one lead culture   will give young   people the much needed guidance and sense of belonging, and provide our communities with a common spirit and positive outlook.

Public funds shall be directed to inclusive causes serving the whole community, regardless of ethnic or nationalistic orientation. For example Lions, Rotary, Scouts, CWA, Surf Life Savers and other inclusive community organisations will benefit,   as tax payers   will no longer fund ethnic division and the balkanisation of our society. If a group of citizens wishes to maintain an association themed around association with a specific ethnic or foreign nationality, they remain free to do so, but without public funding.

Halal Certification Schemes: Clear Labelling, Less Discrimination and User Pays Imposing tax-like certification fees for a religious ritual onto the general community is not only divisive and unfair, but violates aspects of section 116 of the Australian Constitution. Freedom to exercise any religion implies freedom from unwanted religious impositions. As an immediate measure we propose that all goods and services from companies which have obtained religious certification must be clearly labelled, so consumers can make informed decisions.

Religious certification does not serve the wider community, and shall no longer be allowed as a tax-deductible   compliance cost. We   further propose to   establish a “user   pays” principle for religious   certification for     products and   services.   Halal   certification   schemes   are   recent inventions and   not sanctioned by   original Islamic scripture.   Consumers are entitled   to be protected from   unwanted religious impositions   and those insisting   on certain   rituals   and religious observance   in relation to   goods and services,   shall be required   to meet the   cost associated with those religious rituals. Islamic organisations can still provide halal certification on a   voluntary basis to   interested suppliers free   of charge, and   fund their actual   expenses through donation from observant community members, who insist on halal certification.

All meat   products from animals   slaughtered in accordance   with religious practices   shall be offered in a specially marked   section of the   butcher   or supermarket. Restaurants and other food outlets selling religiously slaughtered meat shall disclose this fact on their menus. This will   allow religiously observant   consumers   to source   food according to   their special requirements; without imposing their rituals and associated cost on the wider community.

Maintain the Integrity of Australia’s Civil Society Federal and state parliaments shall make no changes to existing law nor enact new law for the purpose of making our legal system and economy more “Sharia-compliant”. Examples are:

i: No amendments to our taxation laws to suit the peculiarities of Islamic Sharia finance.

ii: Removing all exemptions granted to commercial, state or federal entities to discriminate on grounds of gender, religious or cultural identification. Only abattoirs, community organisations and schools owned by an accredited religious body shall be allowed to selectively employ based on belief, and slaughter for their own needs according to religious beliefs.

iii: Removing any authority vested in ethnic community leaders and religious leaders to act as judges, tribunals, or to otherwise allow the impression they are a parallel legal authority. The separation of   powers must   be   visibly upheld and   demonstrably enforced. There   must   be absolute clarity   for members of   ethnic or religious   communities that usually   self-appointed community leaders, imams and sheikhs are not above Australian law, or part of our judiciary.

iv: The   superiority of Australian   secular law and   civil order over   any aspect of   proclaimed religious or cultural sensitivities must be visibly upheld. This may involve forcing an accused to stand   before the judge   and banning full   face covers in   public   areas. Parents   severely mutilating their daughters’genitalia or   coercing their daughters   into underage marriages should be rigorously prosecuted. Following an alien culture shall no longer serve as mitigation before the law.

v: Planning,   public incitement and   providing material support   for the establishment of   an undemocratic, theocratic form of government in Australia, shall become an indictable criminal offence. Minor involvement in such activities shall be treated as a summary offence. Freedom of speech must remain an absolute right. Infringements by acts of law must be limited to incitement to violence and criminal acts, slander, libel and public defamation.

Australians must not be silenced by so-called ‘hate speech’

laws, which in practice are religious

blasphemy laws, or the hallmark of oppressive governments. Such oppressive instruments only

play into the hands of Islamic supremacists and professional ‘victim’

advocacy groups in their

pursuit of   special favours and   act to silence   any critical opposition.   Our   tolerance of other religions   and   cultures   must not     be   abused to     penalise   critical, humorous     or   satirical expressions. Freedom   of speech is   the first and   the last line   of defence for   any democratic society, and what sets us apart from totalitarian forms of government.

Establish in Law that Islamic Sharia is not Religion but Law and Politics Most of the OIC (Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) member states have not recognised the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and have drawn up their own Constitutions and Laws as subordinate to the Sharia and the Koran. This validates the fact that Islamic Sharia is not merely a matter of spiritual or religious custom, but indeed politics and applied law.

In the Commonwealth of Australia, Islamic Sharia is an alien system of law as it is theocratic, discriminatory and totalitarian in nature. The Federal Government shall establish in law that, while Australians are free to follow any religion or non-religious ideology in a lawful manner, this does not extend to the practice or promotion of religious or political doctrines or financial or legal practices which have the termination of our constitutional democracy as their objective.

–

Separation of state and religion, segregation of powers, the rule of law, universal human rights and equality of all citizens before the law are fundamental values of the Australian society and not a   matter of selective   acceptance by religious   groups. Individuals and   groups practising, propagating   or   enticing   others to     practice   elements of     Islamic   Sharia, in     violation   of fundamental Australian laws and values, shall be stripped of their accreditation as a religious organisation and declared a social, political or criminal group, depending on the circumstances.

Vetting of Educational Material for Religious Bias

The Federal Government shall set up a standing commission under joint leadership, tasked with the oversight of religious material that is to be used in primary and secondary schools receiving Commonwealth funding.   All material used   to teach history   and social science   to minors shall be subject to review by this commission. The commission shall ensure information contained in the curriculum materials complies with Australian law, is historically accurate and not partisan material designed for the purpose of spreading a particular religion.

Religion in Public Schools and Public Service

Religious studies in public schools shall only take place for the purpose of historical analysis and socio-political education. The major   religions in the Australian   community shall be given time and resources in proportion to their prevalence. No partisan religious organisation may take part in production, or fund the production, of educational material used in public schools.

In public schools any sectarian religious education, as well as activities by school chaplains and similar persons, shall take place outside the curriculum and on a strictly voluntary basis. Excursions to   places of religious   worship must be   extracurricular and approved   by parents. Exemptions from general school uniform policies shall be on health grounds only. Non-meat alternatives and concern for medical allergies shall be the only considerations for canteens in publicly funded institutions.   Schools run by accredited religious organisations and receiving public funding, may offer faith-specific meals as part of a broader selection.

No   agency     of government   or     publicly-funded     organisation   may permit     favouritism nor discrimination on grounds of religious or ethnic affiliations. For example, this would entail the prohibition of   extra prayer   breaks   during work, Muslim-only   prayer   rooms, Muslim-only washrooms, Muslim-only exemptions from anti-discrimination laws, Muslim-only exemptions from OH&S regulations or imposition of Islamic dietary rules onto non-Muslims.

Immigration, Refugees and Illegal Arrivals

Implement a   10-year moratorium on   all resident visa   categories for applicants from   OIC- member countries.   Exception may apply   for   members of   persecuted non-Islamic minority groups. For resident visa   applications from all other   countries, an upgraded   character test shall ensure   that applicants with   links to socio-political Islamic   organisations, are treated equally to   applicants from OIC-member   countries. Review every   five years with   particular consideration for the human rights situation for women and non-Muslim minorities.

The annually   available number of   humanitarian visas for   permanent resettlement shall   be limited to ten (10) per cent above the OECD average per capita. Preference shall be given to displaced persons     from cultural   backgrounds with     the best outlook     for integration   and becoming a productive member of our society.

The ability to sponsor visas for a spouse, prospective spouse or extended family members shall be reserved for Australian citizens and permanent residents after eight (8) years of residency and a positive track record of contributing to our society.

The Australian Government shall remove Australia from the outdated UN Refugee Convention of 1951   and associated protocols   hijacked by the   OIC, and take   sovereign control over   our borders and humanitarian relief efforts.       Non-documented arrivals   claiming asylum shall   be processed swiftly   and without recourse   to the domestic   legal system. Besides   a streamlined process with   one single review   option by a   specialist tribunal, undocumented arrivals   shall contribute to   their housing and   living expenses similar   to the HECS/HELP   scheme for our students. Recognised refugees shall be given temporary protection visas (TPVs) and a timely return to the refugee’s homeland or a safe country closer to home shall always remain in focus. All   undocumented arrivals     claiming asylum   shall     remain in   detention   and   undergo   a streamlined one-stage process to establish the merit of their application. If determined to be an economic migrant   or otherwise   ineligible, the   applicant shall be     returned to the   port of embarkation immediately and prohibited from applying for an Australian visa for an extended period.   To     facilitate   this   process,     Australia   shall   seek     bilateral   arrangements   with neighbouring countries   to ensure each   country will accept   back persons who   have travelled between signatory countries without a valid visa.

The Australian   government must monitor   more closely the   flow of public   contributions to humanitarian aid   projects   to ensure   that   our aid   actually   reaches those   in   need. It   is unacceptable when   Australian aid   ends   up with organisations   acting   as shop fronts     for terrorists, militant jihadists and religious hate preachers.

Serious Criminals amongst Migrants and Refugees

All applicants for, and holders of, permanent and temporary visas shall be required to sign a sworn undertaking of compliance. With this the visa holder or applicant affirms that he will familiarise himself with, and abide by, Australian law and that he understands that his visa and those of any dependents will be automatically cancelled if he is found guilty of serious or repeated acts of crime. Whilst leniency may be given for minor offences, repeated convictions for habitual criminal activities or convictions for serious offences like membership in or support of organised   crime gangs, crimes   of violence, trading   in illicit drugs,   people smuggling or support of terrorists shall lead to automatic visa cancellation. Imprisonment shall be followed by deportation or detention, where deportation is not yet possible.

Moratorium on Sharia-linked Investment, Financial Transactions and Donations Introduce a temporary ban on government-owned or publicly-funded bodies to utilise financial products, investment funds, financial guarantees, sponsorships or accept donations in money or in kind,   by and from   entities which are   subject to guidance   by an Islamic   Sharia board or Islamic cleric. After five years, review individual cases on application and under consideration of the human   rights situation, especially   the protection of   religious minorities and women’s rights, in the jurisdiction in which the guiding Islamic authority is based.

Islamic Mosques and Koran Schools

Federally incorporated owners and/or operators of existing mosques, Islamic schools, Islamic cultural centres and similar Koran-based entities shall be required to acquire and maintain the status of accredited religious organisations.

States shall   amend their laws   for incorporated associations accordingly. Annual   audits by specialised sections of   federal and state-based Departments for Education shall ensure that teachings, curriculum   material and information, made   available to the   community, comply with the accreditation requirements.

Newly-incorporated Islamic organisations shall be prohibited from establishing new mosques and Koran-based schools for a period of five years. Review every five years under consideration of the human rights situation for women and religious minorities in OIC member countries.

Access to Security-sensitive Positions, Public Services and Airspace Staff in Australian Embassies and High Commissions in OIC-member countries who are likely to come into contact with any part of visa applications, must be Australian citizens and must not be members of an unaccredited Islamic religious organisation.

Security-relevant functions at all Australian air and seaports shall be conducted by Australian Federal Police or suitable federal or state bodies. Outsourcing or sub-contracting of sovereign duties and security-relevant functions critical for our national security must be prohibited.

Granting or renewal of air freedom rights to foreign operators beyond refuelling and repairs rd (3   freedom), shall be dependent upon an Australian registered air carrier seeking reciprocal rights for   the same routes.   Exceptions may apply   for routes which   the Federal government deems necessary for the national interest and where no Australian carrier is available to serve such routes.

Conclusion

There are valuable lessons to be learned from both distant and recent history, in particular how Islamisation has changed non-Islamic societies over the course of only a few generations. We hope that Twelve Practical Steps to Stop Islamisation will contribute to the critical public debate about Islam and Islamisation we need to have in Australia. The proposals will provide a clearer understanding of the challenges ahead, and hopefully lead to   better policies to ensure that all Australians will continue to live together harmoniously and in liberty.

With questions and for further information please contact Q Society of Australia Inc.

Q Society of Australia Inc PO Box 1228, Altona Gate, Victoria, 3025, Australia

Telephone 1300 361 200 Intl +61 2 8006 1525 Fax (02) 8008 1529

ABN 11 883 362 342 http://www.qsocaus.org Q101201R2

How Should We Treat the Muslims in Our Midst?

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

THE RECOMMENDED POLICY

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ISLAMIC BELIEVERS

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

 

WHY THE TOUGH LOVE ATTITUDE IS NECESSARY

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

IDEOLOGY COUNTS

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

NOT GOOD ENOUGH

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

 

YOUR PUBLIC DECLARATION OF YOUR IDEOLOGY SHOULD INFLUENCE MY BEHAVIOR

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

Islamization of the world by the year 2501

 Is it possible?

Statistically, Muslimisation (Muslims being 50% of the world population) is an absolute certainty even prior to year 2501 if the present growth rates of Muslims and non-Muslims continue for that period.

Islam religion and hence Muslim population began around 640 AD and now there are 1,300,000,000 Muslims in this world. This is a historical growth rate of 1.51% per year. The world population now is 6,137,000,000 and the current growth rate of the world population is 1.30% per year (Source: PRB 2001 World Population Data Sheet). At these growth rates, mathematically, it will take 410 years for Muslim population to be 50% of the world population.

In fact, current growth rates of many Muslim countries are much greater than 1.51%.

Attached is an excel spreadsheet which lists 47 countries with Muslim majority and their populations and growth rate statistics. The composite growth rate for these 47 countries is 2.00%. Based 2.00% growth rate of Muslim population v/s 1.3% for the world it will take only 125 years for Muslims to be 50 % of the world population!!!!   Therefore if these growth rates continue, mathematically it is a certainty that the world will be muslimised between 125 and 410 years.

(Of course if these growth rates continue the world population in 125 years and 410 years will be 30 billion and 1.22 trillion respectively; Muslim population will be 15 billion and 610 billion for the respective periods. We may say that that is not possible but if some one said the same thing for the world population of 6.1 billion people 400 years ago he would have been laughed out of the court, if he was lucky and beheaded if he was not. In any case if there are going to be factors which will mitigate the population to what we guestimate to be a “sustainable” level, there is no reason to believe that those factors will affect Muslim and non-Muslim populations differently to change the growth rates and hence percentages. Therefore, in absence of any other information, the above conclusion should stand the scientific scrutiny.)

 

Islamization

 

Islamisation means conversion of a country or a state or a region’s legal system to Islamic (or Quaranic or Sharia) law. Islamisation of the world means 50% of the world population living under Sharia law.

 

Once a region is muslimised, Muslims demand for a separate country or a region for themselves, e.g. Pakistan and Bangladesh and now a demand for independent Kashmir.  Once a country is muslimised, Islamists demand for Islamic or Quranic or Sharia law.

 

Let us take an example of Pakistan. When it separated from India in 1947 it proclaimed itself a secular state. The Islamists gradually exerted their influence and in 1988 Pakistan became a Sharia law country.

 

Bangladesh got its independence in 1971 and now it is sliding towards Sharia law. Recent election resulted in a government which needed support of small Islamist parties and within 10 years, I believe, Bangladesh will become a shria law country.

 

Similar tendencies are in place in other large Islamic countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Nigeria. In all of these countries Islamists are demanding and in my opinion will be successful in making them sharia law countries. The attached statistical sheet shows a few other countries where sharia law is inevitable.

 

Countries such as Turkey and Egypt are trying hard to keep Islamists at bay but based on Islamist persistence it is doubtful these countries will remain non-sharia for a long time.

 

In either case, (whether muslimised or Islamised) the Muslim majority decimates the minorities by any and every means.  Through physical, social, judicial, financial, legal, extra legal, religious, personal, familial or brute force duress, they either convert or drive out or kill the minorities.

 

Again let us take the example of Pakistan. In 1947 its population was about 50,000,000 of which minorities constituted about 25% or 12,500,000. If minorities grew at the current world growth rate of 1.3% per year, they should have now numbered 25,000,000. Instead the minority population in Pakistan at present is only 2% or 2,700,000!!   In effect, Pakistan converted, drove out or killed 22,300,000 (25,000,000-2,700,000) of non-Muslims in last 55 years. And the world, amnesty international and similar organization does not seem to have any problem with that.

 

Similarly in Bangladesh non-Muslim population has plummeted from 25% to 10% in the same period and therefore there is elimination of 13,000,000 non-Muslims.  Not only that, the same annihilation is going on right now and will not stop until non-Muslims are for all practical purposes wiped out.  That means existing 13,000,000 non-Muslims and their progeny will not see the light of the day as non-Muslims.  See the table below for historical growth of Muslim population in some countries.

 

One Pissed off Canadian Housewife

 

One Pissed off Canadian Housewife This is very good PLEASE read….

Thought you might like to read this letter to the editor. Ever notice how some people just seem to know how to write a letter?

This one surely does!

This was written by a Canadian woman, but oh how it also applies to the U.S.A., U.K. and Australia .

THIS ONE PACKS A FIRM PUNCH

Written by a housewife in New Brunswick , to her local newspaper. This is one ticked off lady…

“Are we fighting a war on terror or aren’t we? Was it or was it not, started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001 and have continually threatened to do so since?

Were people from all over the world, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan , across the Potomac from the capitol of the USA and in a field in Pennsylvania ?

Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn’t they?

Do you think I care about four U. S. Marines urinating on some dead Taliban insurgents?

And I’m supposed to care that a few Taliban were claiming to be tortured by a justice system of a nation they are fighting against in a brutal Insurgency.

I’ll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East, start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere belief of which, is a crime punishable by beheading in Afghanistan .

I’ll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for hacking off Nick Berg’s head, while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.

I’ll care when the cowardly so-called insurgents in Afghanistan , come out and fight like men, instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in Mosques and behind women and children.

I’ll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of Nirvana, care about the innocent children within range of their suicide Bombs.

I’ll care when the Canadian media stops pretending that their freedom of Speech on stories, is more important than the lives of the soldiers on the ground or their families waiting at home, to hear about them when something happens.

In the meantime, when I hear a story about a CANADIAN soldier roughing up an Insurgent terrorist to obtain information, know this:

I don’t care.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank:

I don’t care. Shoot him again.

When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed ‘special’ food, that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being ‘mishandled,’ you can absolutely believe, in your heart of hearts:

I don’t care.

And oh, by the way, I’ve noticed that sometimes it’s spelled ‘Koran’ and other times ‘Quran.’ Well, Jimmy Crack Corn you guessed it.

I don’t care!!

If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your E-mail Friends. Sooner or later, it’ll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behavior!

If you don’t agree, then by all means hit the delete button. Should you choose the latter, then please don’t complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great Country! And may I add:

Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering, if during their life on earth, they made a difference in the world. But, the Soldiers don’t have that problem.

I have another quote that I would like to share AND…I hope you forward All this.

One last thought for the day:

Only five defining forces have ever offered to die for you:

1. Jesus Christ
2. The British Soldier.
3. The Canadian Soldier.
4. The US Soldier, and
5. The Australian Soldier

One died for your soul, the other four, for you and your children’s Freedom.

YOU MIGHT WANT TO PASS THIS ON, AS MANY SEEM TO FORGET!

AMEN! GOD BLESS CANADA AND AMERICA

 

Warning To The West!

The following is an email we received from a former Muslim. We are reprinting it with his permission:

I was born and raised as Muslim. My name is Abdul Rahman. My whole family is still Muslim. I know the Islamic brain very well. I have lived and breathed with them. I am an insider. I left Islam when I understood Islam is a sick and evil religion. Muslims can fool the gullible West but can’t fool us, the ex-Muslims. On this basis I write the following.

Fighting terrorism is easier than fighting the evil teachings of Islam. These evil teachings are already inside the West. Muslims do not need Osama Bin Laden or Zarqawi to lead them. Their inspiration for violence comes directly from the Quran and from Islamic history. One small independent group of Muslims in the West can create havoc.

Ali Sina, of FaithFreedom.org, thinks he can bring down this 1400 years old religion in his lifetime. Is he dreaming? How can you defeat an enemy who has the following agenda? Also remember that the greatest strength of Muslims is that they do not read any site or books that talk against Islam. Most Muslims do not even read the Quran in their own language.

Who will tell you the truth about Islam? Muslims? Of course not. Muslims can’t even see the evil in Islam. The West? The gullible West has no clue. Then who? Ex-Muslims and ex-Muslims only can expose Islam to the West.

Muslims believe Islam will rule the world, very soon. They are committed to it. The constitution for the new Islamic Republic of EU and USA is under construction. Welcome to the 21st Century Islamic Warfare. To the infidels of the West, Muslims say: We will fight the infidel to death. And they mean it.

Meanwhile, Muslims are able to say with complete confidence:

American laws will protect us.

Democrats and Leftist will support us.

The UNO will legitimize us.

CAIR and MAB will incubate us.

The ACLU will support us.

Western Universities will educate us.

Mosques in the West will shelter us.

OPEC will finance us.

Moderate Muslims will fertilize us.

Hollywood will love us.

Koffi Annan will publish the politically correct sympathetic statements for Jihadists.

We will use your (West) welfare system.

We will take advantage of American kindness, gullibility, and compassion. When time comes, we will stab America in the back as we did on 9/11 and 7/7, the Islamic way. We will say one thing on the camera (Islam is the religion of peace) and teach another thing (Quran 8:12 Terrorize and behead the infidels wherever you find them) to our children at home.

We will teach our children Islamic supremacy from their earliest childhood. We will take over Europe first and then the U.S. will be the next. We already have a solid ground in the UK, Holland, Sweden, Spain, Italy, Germany, and now in the U.S.

Who are we? We are the “sleeper cells” next door.

At the time of the real fight we will hold our own children as our armor – this is the Islamic way. When American or Israeli troops shoot at us the world will be watching. Imagine, just imagine the news in the world: “Death of Muslim babies by infidels”.

We say to the West: Keep your Nukes in your curio cabinets. Keep your aircraft carriers and high-tech weaponry in the showcase. You can’t use them against us because of your own higher moral standard. We will take the advantage of your (Western) higher moral standard and use it against you. We won’t hesitate to use our children as suicide bombers against you.

The West manufactures their tanks in the factory. We Muslims will manufacture our military force by natural means — by producing more babies. It is cheaper that way. You infidels cannot defeat us. We are 1.2 billion strong and we will double our population again.

Using the Western legal system we will assert our Sharia Laws, slowly but surely.

Moderate Muslims will say there is no link between Islam and terrorism and the West will believe it because the West is so gullible. Moderate Muslims all over the world will inadvertently incubate Jihadists by defending Islam as a religion of peace, by telling this to their children and the world.

There will be more 9/11s in Europe and in America. We will say, “We do not support terrorism but America got what it deserved.”

We will recite the Quran and say Allah-Hu-Akbar before beheading infidels, as we have been doing it. We will videotape those and send them to infidels to watch. The infidels will surrender — ISLAM means surrender.

Islam is the fastest growing religion among convicts in prison all over the word. 30% of French prison inmates are already converted to Islam.

We will use your (Western) own values of kindness against you. You (the West) are destined to lose.

Must be very depressing for you (the West). Isn’t it?

Allah-Hu-Akbar (as we like to say just before beheading you; it means God is Great).

The rules of war and intelligence-gathering that the world has evolved over the last 100 years count on some fundamental laws of humanity. For example there is some Geneva conventions even for the battlefield. For example, even in the battlefield you give enemy a chance to surrender. You do not take random hostages, behead them, videorecord it, and post it on the internet. Generally, a mother will try to save her babies and children — they won’t sacrifice her own babies for her religion. These are basics of morality for the human race and have been for a very long time, even before religions came along.

Modern Islamic warfare did away with all of the above morality. The equation of war has changed. One major mistake the West has made is to believe terrorists need a structural hiarchical power structure to fight an enemy. Islamic teachings prepare Muslims from childhood to act on their own wherever they can — even without the authorization from his/her superiors. No wonder you are seeing so many independent Muslim terrorists all over the world. These are entrepreneur terrorists.

These sleeper cells go beyond national origin, language, race, or citizenship. Terrorists could be British born-and-raised citizens, or American Taliban. There is only one thread that binds them together that is “ISLAM.”

My, our (ex-Muslims’), message to the West is until the West identifies, names, and warns the public who the real enemy is, the West won’t have chance to win this war. The real enemy is “Islam.” As long as Mr. Bush, Blair, and the other world leaders are afraid to call a spade a spade, and as long as they keep saying in public the blatant lie that “Islam is a religion of peace” — we run the risk losing our freedom.

Our freedom already is curtailed. No major newspapers, magazines, or TV reproduced the Mohammad cartoons in America. They were afraid. So, in effect, 6 million Muslims in America and 1.2 billion Muslims around the globe severely restricted our freedom of expression without officially legislating their Sharia laws that prohibits Mohammad’s caricature. We now have unwritten partial Sharia laws in practice in the USA.

Remember ex-Muslims like me are the insiders. We are exposing Islam to the West so we can enjoy Western freedom. Our websites are: FaithFreedom.org, and ApostatesOfIslam.com.

Qur’an 8:67 “It is not fitting for any prophet to have until he has made a great slaughter in the land.”

Qur’an 8:12 “I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle.”