Category Archives: Uncategorized

The Achilles’ Heel of the West

ACHILLES WAS invincible, so the story goes. He was strong and lightning fast, and in every battle he was undefeatable. But when he was shot with an arrow through the back of his heel, he was momentarily disabled, and that gave his enemies enough time to finish him off.

The West seems invincible too. We have superior technology and war-making know-how. We seem undefeatable. But we have a weakness. It is known in North America as “white guilt.” In Europe it’s called “post-colonial guilt.”

But this guilt is founded on a mistake we should all easily see. The mistake is a simple overgeneralization (the enemy of us all). If we looked at it from another angle, most of us could clearly recognize the error. If someone said, “All Muslims should die because of what they did to us on 9/11,” almost everyone could see something wrong with the statement. Not all Muslims were involved in bringing down the Twin Towers. Some Muslims hadn’t even been born yet. So it would be a moral wrong to punish all Muslims for what some Muslims did.

Let’s look at it from another angle. Let’s say an African-American kills a European-American in a robbery. Should all African-Americans be punished for this? Should all African-Americans even feel guilty about it? No, absolutely not. Just because someone is a member of your race or religion does not mean you are responsible for what they do. They are individual human beings, and they choose their own destiny. All African-Americans should not be held responsible for what any individual African-American does.

We can easily see this.

And yet what is white guilt? For a “white” person, it says “because some people in the past had a similar genetic background as yours, and because they did some terrible things to people of dissimilar genetic background (Native Americans or Africans, for example), then you should feel guilty about it, and feel responsible for it, and people of your genetic background should do something to make amends for it.”

Nobody says this explicitly, but it is an unspoken basic assumption in the hearts of a large percentage of people of European descent. It is a presupposition so widespread, it is almost never even spoken aloud, and yet it underlies much of what is spoken and done.

This guilt is a major weakness, and orthodox Muslims are aggressively exploiting it.

As long as we are paralyzed by this arrow through our heel, orthodox Muslims have the upper hand. We are vulnerable.

Many of us have familiarized ourselves with Islamic doctrine, and we seek to educate our fellow non-Muslims about the information, and we seek to propose solutions to the problem, but we are often labeled as “racists.” It is an oxymoron. It doesn’t make any sense. It’s crazy. But it is effectively making many people in prominent places — politicians and news commentators, for example — back off from saying anything honest about Islam. Very few people have examined the guilt clearly enough to recognize the unarticulated, mistaken assumption it is based on, so a public charge of racism can be devastating to a person’s career.

A sizable portion of the population is motivated to bend over backwards for Muslims because of an undiscerning guilt — a guilt that stems from a feeling that “we” have harmed people of other religions and races and that we can (and should) make it up to the “oppressed” and “downtrodden” underdogs of the world.

I heard a 19 year-old freshman in college talking the other day about his class in early American history. He was upset about all the terrible things “we” did to the Native Americans. He clearly felt appalled and guilty about it. I asked him, “Have you ever done anything bad to a Native American?”

“No,” he said, “but white people did.”

“Are you somehow responsible for what other white people did?” I asked. He seemed confused. He had completely accepted the point of view of his teacher and textbook (it’s the standard position of many teachers and textbook authors that “we” should feel guilty for what “we” did).

I asked him, “If you were transported back to those times, would you have done anything bad to the Native Americans?”

He said, “I don’t think so.”

I said, “Were any of your ancestors living in America at that time?”

“I don’t know.”

“So let me get this straight,” I said, because I can’t seem to leave things alone sometimes, “your ancestors may have still been living in Europe and had nothing to do with what other Europeans were doing to the Native Americans, and even if they were living in America at the time, you really are not responsible for what your great, great, great grandparents did anyway, are you? And yet here you are feeling guilty for something you would never do and have never done? Doesn’t that seem kind of crazy?”

People accept this point of view — this white guilt or post-colonial guilt — and they teach their children the same guilt. And it has consequences. When the Muslim Students Association wants to create their own prayer room just for Muslims on a college campus, they make their appeal to administrators who have a deep-seated, well-ingrained white guilt, and these Muslims know the administrators have this guilt, and they press on that sore spot. It usually doesn’t take much before the administrators acquiesce. And a little Muslim enclave has just been created. A little piece of Sharia law has been implemented (every concession to Islam is the establishment of Sharia law). And as time goes on, the concession becomes accepted as permanently established because it has “always been there.”

Muslims are getting away with this sort of thing all over the free world. In this gradual way, Western culture is giving way to Islamic culture. Islam is a ratchet.

What causes Western culture to give way? The main culprit is white guilt.

If a student had come in and said, “We are Scientologists and we want our own prayer room,” the administrator would have chuckled and wondered how someone could be so stupid as to think they could demand such a thing on a college campus! Why the different response? White guilt does not apply to Scientology. Or Catholicism. Or Protestantism.

Everywhere orthodox Muslims are pressing for concessions — concessions they would not get if they were Catholics or Scientologists — the white guilt blinders need to be removed so the request can be seen for what it is, and those special privileges and special considerations can then be refused in exactly the same way all the others would be refused, and with no guilt.

“We” don’t owe anybody anything because of what “our” ancestors may have done. We are all here now. Let’s move forward.

When you’re talking to your friends, keep your ears tuned to white guilt. You will often hear it as a presupposition in what they say. Point it out when you hear it. Shine some light on it. Ask them if they feel guilty. Ask them if they feel responsible for what other Americans or Europeans or Caucasians have done in the past. And make it clear to them that this is the same mistake — this is the identical mistake — that racists make when they say some derisive comment about a race. Your friend’s guilt arises from an overgeneralization.

The more people who understand this, the more often orthodox Muslims will be thwarted in their efforts to gain concessions. Right now the free world is yielding to Muslim pressure. Let’s put a stop to it every place we can.

Wanting An Excuse Not To Become Alarmed

THE FOLLOWING is an article published on Jihad Watch by Ronald Shirk, entitled, When Islam is Just “Stuff White People Like.” I thought Shirk really nailed it when he said, “They wanted excuses not to become alarmed, and they wished above all to sound like the voices of reason against the ‘alarmism’ spread by ‘jingoists’ and ‘militarists’ like Winston Churchill.” That’s it! That’s exactly what we’re up against in one sentence! I think it really helps to understand what underlies the incomprehensible refusal to listen to simple facts when talking to some people. Here’s the article:

It’s hard for most of us who have already had our individual epiphanies on the subject of Islam to understand why so many of the very communities targeted for the worst abuse by sharia seem least willing to acknowledge the nature of the threat. Perhaps the comparison I’ve drawn with the phenomenon of anti-anti-Communism helps make today’s self-willed blindness less surprising.

Reading the historical record, it is shocking how slow one key community was to awaken to the Communist threat: Christian clergymen. As Paul Kengor documents in Dupes, elite, mainline Protestant clerics served as a particularly gullible audience and important transmission belt for Soviet propaganda in the West. A number of prominent ministers, led by Soviet friendly professors like Corliss Lamont, embarked on subsidized cruises to the new utopia, and returned to America or Britain to discredit the truthful reports of religious persecution in Russia.

After carefully arranged visits to Potemkin villages and rigidly controlled tours of select districts in Leningrad or Moscow, these veal-calves in collars would disembark in New York to tell the respectable press to disregard all the (factual) reports that Soviet Russia was persecuting Christians.

To some degree, these clergymen’s attitudes may have reflected class, ethnic, and denominational bias; low-church, progressive ministers trained at Yale Divinity School or the Union Theological Seminary had little or no use anyway for bearded monks whose ceremonies were for them an embarrassing relic of Christianity’s superstitious past.

Such ministers, whose theological uncertainties had been neatly replaced by Social Gospel dogmas, were much more sympathetic to secular progressives like the atheist John Dewey (for years the leading dupe in America) than to exiled clerics with wild tales of labor camps and NKVD killing squads. (To some degree, the current apathy of even conservative Christians in America must stem from a similar distaste for “foreign,” “archaic” forms of faith such as Assyrian Christianity in Iraq.)

More important (because it’s closer to the surface of consciousness) is the fact that many Western Christians today are deeply concerned about burnishing their credentials as good progressives, and distinguishing themselves from a) low-status, intellectually non-respectable Evangelical Christians, and b) low-status, ethnically intolerant working class Americans. In other words, their embrace of foreign clerics with alien religions is just a niche form of urban white snobbery. It’s akin to the behavior of an Upper West Side Manhattanite who preens about his cosmopolitanism by only seeing foreign films and overpronouncing words like Neek-a-ROU-gua.

Of course, this political form of social climbing extends beyond our poshest neighborhoods and out into the Heartland. My favorite recent example of it appears in a town I’d never heard of, Norman, Oklahoma. There, Margarita Banos-Milton of St. Stephen’s United Methodist Church is sponsoring a gabfest on “religious intolerance toward Muslims,” featuring such luminaries as

Muneer Awad, executive director of the [Hamas-linked] Council on American-Islamic Relations, Oklahoma City chapter; Malaka Elyazgi, a Muslim who serves on the University of Oklahoma’s Women’s and Gender Studies board of directors; Michael Korenblit, co-founder and president of the Respect Diversity Foundation of Oklahoma; and Nathaniel Batchelder, director of the Peace House in Oklahoma City. … [As Banos-Milton said,] “I personally am deeply concerned about the misinformation, the heated emotion and blanket rejection of the Muslim faith. We have such wonderful Muslim brothers and sisters.”

Kay Antinoro, St. Stephen’s director of educational ministries, said the interfaith gatherings are designed for people seeking a better understanding of other faiths and their own faith.

“This round table is an important affirmation of our church’s respect for religious difference and an opportunity to offer another voice in a culture of misunderstanding, fear and hatred,” Antinoro said.

You have it all right there: Ms. Banos-Milton is keen to display her post-Christian virtues of “deep concern,” and the “wonderful Muslim brothers and sisters” whom she parades like adopted pets. Her colleague, Kay Antinoro is fluffing her church’s peacock tail of “respect for religious difference.” Could there be a religion on earth with less respect for “religious difference” than Islam? Not since Jim Jones handed out the Kool-Aid in the (leftist Christian) People’s Temple.

But what we need to remember is that appeasement of Islam really isn’t about the Muslims, any more than it is about the victims of Islam around the world. Religious dupes of the Communists weren’t really concerned what was going on in Russia, either — or else they would have displayed more intellectual honesty than to accept without question the bromides dispensed by their hosts on foreign junkets. In much the same way, war-weary Englishmen in the 1930s weren’t interested in what was really happening in the Sudetenland or Poland. They wanted excuses not to become alarmed, and they wished above all to sound like the voices of reason against the “alarmism” spread by “jingoists” and “militarists” like Winston Churchill.

When people swallow blatant lies, when they shut their eyes to so much evidence, only to maintain an intellectual position that raises their social status and makes them feel better about themselves, we don’t need to wonder hard or wonder long why they prove immune to fresh evidence and solid arguments. Indeed, the more alarming facts an “Islamophobe” presents to such a person, the more violence you adduce and ugly connections you present, the crasser and more unpleasant you’ll seem to him. You represent all the realities he doesn’t wish to face.

You’re the oncologist who has spotted him smoking, the rehabilitated junkie who saw the needle fall out of his knapsack. You represent narrow, ugly, frightening thoughts; in effect, you become (in Freudian terms) the Id he’d rather pretend does not exist. So he’ll repress all the information you try to pass on to him, the better to convince himself of his own high-mindedness. In fact, you’ll become the scapegoat for whatever anxieties you’ve provoked — which explains why Oklahoma Methodists like these really do believe that the threat to religious tolerance in the West arises from…Christians.

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

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

Lessons on Jihad From the Movie, “What About Bob?”

I WAS THINKING of writing an article about the infuriating cleverness of orthodox Muslims, and I was wondering what I could use to illustrate what they’re doing. And then it came to me in a flash: The movie, What About Bob?

In the movie, Bill Murray plays a psychiatric patient who drives his psychiatrist crazy (Dr. Leo Marvin, played by Richard Dreyfus).

I just watched it again and the parallels to orthodox Islam’s dealings with the West are amazing. Bob uses the same techniques on Dr. Marvin that orthodox Muslims use against the United States and Europe, and with similar results: Bob successfully fools everyone except Dr. Marvin, and Dr. Marvin becomes infuriated and helpless, but unable to stop it.

Bob is able to cleverly insert himself into Dr. Marvin’s life without his consent, and able to turn Dr. Marvin’s friends and family against him.

As I watched, I kept stopping to write notes every time I saw a parallel. Here are my notes:

1. Bob’s stand is: I am suffering. Islam’s stand is: We are an oppressed people, we are under attack, we are the underdog, and we are suffering. Bob manages to make normal events in life cause him to suffer. Orthodox Muslims take anything their enemies do and turns it into “oppression.” And if their enemies do nothing offensive, they create opportunities to be affronted.

Read any mainstream Muslim publication, like the Muslim Public Affairs Committee newsletter, and you will see a strong theme running through almost every article: Muslims are oppressed and persecuted (and therefore must “defend” themselves).

I subscribe to several pro-Muslim e-mail newsletters, and this is an extremely common theme. Every little “hate-crime” they can come up with proves that Muslims are an oppressed minority. I recently read this: In the year 2007, the number of hate-crimes in the U.S. committed against someone because of their religion was 1400. Here’s how the hate-crimes break down by religion:

Anti-Jewish 969

Anti-Other Religion 130
Anti-Islamic 115
Anti-Multiple Religions 62
Anti-Catholic 61
Anti-Protestant 57
Anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc. 6

(Source: FBI Hate-Crime Statistics)

Over the course of a year, and with 300 million people in this country, that’s a pretty low incidence of hate-crimes against Muslims. But their perpetual position is that they are an oppressed minority.

2. Bob uses every technique he can find to keep pushing for what he wants. And he uses the one tool that gives him the most leverage with normal people: Pity. Evoke genuine pity, and you can pretty much gain any concession you want.

The stealth jihad uses this principle constantly. Jihadis try to portray themselves — just as their leader Mohammad did — as innocent victims of wrongdoing. Then, having aroused pity, they seek a concession of some kind.

They continue gaining concessions and giving none. Islam is a ratchet: It only goes one way.

3. Bob uses deceit masterfully. Bob hires a hooker to portray Dr. Marvin’s sister to get through on the phone (when Dr. Marvin is on vacation and is not taking calls). Bob impersonates a detective and lies to the operator to get information about where Dr. Marvin is vacationing.

Islam has a principle called taqiyya, which means “religious deception.” They can and do lie to non-Muslims and they have Allah’s permission to do so as long as it serves the cause of Islam.

In the movie, Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West, there are several good examples, captured on film, of a Muslim leader speaking to Western media, saying one thing, and then it shows the same leader speaking to their fellow Muslims saying just the opposite. You see them speaking peace and tolerance to Westerners and two days later vigorously preaching jihad against the West to their fellow Muslims. This is taqiyya.

Probably the single most important reason orthodox Muslims have gotten away with so much is because they use deceit masterfully.

4. Bob pushes for concessions because he is special, unique, weird. And Bob captures everyone’s attention and doesn’t let them go about their normal lives.

Muslims do the same thing. In Norway, for example, Muslims were agitating for a law that would make it illegal to serve alcohol in discos on certain nights (because they are uncomfortable around alcohol). Hege Storhaug, the co-founder of Human Rights Service, rejects such a proposal. “All the time they have special rules,” says Storhaug, “and we reject special requirements. We get a split-up society and Islam gets more presence in the public sphere. People force religious opinions on others. In the most extreme consequence it leads to the Islamization of society…All the time it’s Muslims who come with special requirements. We never hear a peep from Catholics, Jews, Hindus, etc.”

One way to try to gain a concession is to simply ask. Another way (and far more effective) is to ask while providing a good reason why an exception should be made for you that would not be made for others. Bob had “special needs” because he was agoraphobic or afraid of sailing or deathly afraid of germs, and people went out of their way to accommodate him, conceding things to him they would never concede to a normal person.

Islam does the same thing. And they often succeed (read more about what kinds of concessions they have gained). They press for concessions because they are oppressed or because they are unique (they have particular needs because of their unique religion), or because they’ve been wronged or persecuted or whatever.

5. Bob seems really nice to everyone but his enemy. People usually recognize Bob is unusual, but they think he is innocent. But Dr. Marvin sees what he’s doing and how deliberately and insidiously he’s doing it.

By the skillful use of taqiyya, Muslims — even Muslims we know to be bloodthirsty killers — are considered “really nice people” by those who don’t know better.

Islamic countries are often very friendly to Western countries while at the same time whipping up national hatred against those same Western countries on Islamic television stations, and funding global jihad against those same countries.

6. Bob uses public embarrassment to force concessions. When he arrives in the small town where the well-respected Dr. Marvin spends his summer vacation, Bob starts yelling at the top of his lungs in the middle of the street, “Dr. Marvin! Doctor Leo Marvin!” He keeps yelling until he has everyone’s attention and Dr. Marvin can’t simply ignore him and get away, which is what he was planning on doing.

Orthodox Muslims try to embarrass organizations into doing what they want. They will go to court even though they know they will lose, they will get the press involved. They’ll do whatever it takes to embarrass people or companies or governments into conceding. Radio stations have fired good people because the station didn’t want to deal with the public embarrassment of a lawsuit. Politicians restrain themselves and go out of their way not to say anything honest that might be offensive to the super-sensitive Muslim-advocacy organizations, because those organizations will do what they can to embarrass the politicians.

Orthodox Muslims have wormed their way into training programs for police and intelligence agencies and intimidated them into not saying anything that might lead to public embarrassment, demonstrating again and again that the Muslim organizations will use public embarrassment to silence critics of Islam.

7. Bob uses Dr. Marvin’s enemies against him. There is a husband and wife in town who are angry because the rich city doctor came and bought their dream home out from under them. Bob gets these people to help him, and they do it to help ruin Dr. Marvin’s life.

Orthodox Muslims are actively converting and recruiting disgruntled convicts in prison — people who are already enemies of the society. Iran sends soldiers into Iraq in order to kill U.S. soldiers, but Iran also supplies Russia and China with oil, so if the U.S. wants to do something about Iran, we will have our two biggest enemies to contend with. In essence, Iran uses our enemies against us.

Closer to home, those of us who are in the process of alerting our fellow citizens to the danger of Islam’s prime directive have enemies among our own fellow non-Muslim citizens. The blind multiculturalists in the media actively fight against us, trying to discredit anyone who criticizes Islam, and the orthodox Muslims use those enemies against us.

I get a newsletter from CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) that brags in almost every issue about how they are bringing this suit against this person or sending press releases out about this or that grievance, and you can see from their wording that they are hitting every hot-button they can think of to gain sympathy from our fellow non-Muslim “enemies.”

8. Bob exploits all of Dr. Marvin’s weaknesses — his egotism, his desire to win his family’s love and approval, his failures and embarrassments, his family’s kindness and innocence, his family’s resentment against Dr. Marvin’s pomposity — Bob exploits it all to get what he wants.

Orthodox Muslims exploit Westerners’ weaknesses, too. One of our “weaknesses” is our reverence for life. Jihadis will hide behind civilians during a battle, knowing Western soldiers will not open fire.

Here’s another example of this principle, from DhimmiWatch:

“Palestinian jihad fighters have even used Christian sites and people as shields against the Israelis. In Spring 2002 they appropriated Bethlehem’s Manger Square as a base of operations, knowing that Israeli forces would not attack them there and would face international opprobrium if they did. This activity precipitated the siege of the Church of the Nativity in April and May of that year. After launching attacks against the Israelis from Manger Square, a group of jihadists fled into the church, where they remained for 39 days — secure in the knowledge that Israel would not attack a Christian holy site. Meanwhile, they desecrated the church.”

Orthodox Muslims are masters of exploiting their enemy’s weaknesses. They immigrate into free countries and then use the democratic process and rights of free speech to agitate against those freedoms and seek to subvert the democracy, as illustrated in the ironic picture here.

They also exploit the multicultural beliefs of the resident population in order to wage jihad by gaining concessions.

9. Bob is absolutely relentless. He doesn’t let up ever. Neither do orthodox Muslims. They keep infiltrating, they keep immigrating, they keep agitating, they keep killing, they keep intimidating, and they will never stop on their own. They’ve been doing it for 1400 years, and they are determined to keep it up until the whole world acknowledges there is no god but Allah and Mohammad is His Messenger.

10. Bob makes sure every response Dr. Marvin makes will backfire. He ensures that no matter what Dr. Marvin does to return to his normal life or solve his problem, it will not work. In the documentary, Target America, you can see each successive American president through the seventies, eighties, and nineties try many different ways of dealing with orthodox Muslims, and every attempt backfired.

The orthodox Muslims made sure they set up a situation where no matter what the U.S. did, it would go badly.

The same infuriating frustration Dr. Marvin feels is what I saw on the faces of all the presidents in Target America as they tried and failed to deal successfully with hijackings and captured hostages and bombings.

11. No matter what he does, Bob makes Dr. Marvin look like the mean one and Bob look like the innocent, underdog victim of Dr. Marvin’s apparently bad-tempered selfishness. Osama bin Laden’s plan was to run planes into the Twin Towers in the hopes that the U.S. would overreact, counting on the fact that the violent overreaction would cause Muslims around the world to unite against the West.

Many people think that’s exactly what happened. Muslims flew planes into the Twin Towers, killing thousands of office workers, and in the end, the U.S. looks like the mean one to a lot of people, and Muslims look like the underdog victims who only need potable water and a little compassion from big, bad America.

12. Bob causes Dr. Marvin’s wife and kids to sympathize with Bob and to resent and reject Dr. Marvin. They all try to look out for poor Bob. They push for Bob to get what he wants. This is analogous to orthodox Muslims causing multiculturalist Westerners to sympathize with Muslims and turn against their fellow countrymen who are trying to protect us all from further harm.

So we have one group of people in the U.S. who want to make sure we’re no longer vulnerable to attack by orthodox Muslims. And we have another segment of the U.S. who wants “stop the hate,” wants to “give peace a chance,” and wants to stop “racial profiling.”

In other words, orthodox Muslims have successfully turned some of our own people against each other. They have manipulated the situation so some non-Muslims are pushing for the orthodox Muslims to get what they want.

This is not just happening in America, it is happening in free countries all over the world.

13. Bob keeps provoking a hostile overreaction from Dr. Marvin and then appears to be the innocent victim of Dr. Marvin’s cruel insensitivity, and then he leverages that to gain concessions. If Dr. Marvin doesn’t respond, Bob escalates or persists in his provocation until Dr. Marvin can’t take it any more and bursts out in anger.

One memorable example from the movie is the dinner scene. Bob moaned with pleasure while he was eating. He kept moaning and saying, “This is so delicious!” And he kept it up until Dr. Marvin suddenly yells at him to shut up. All of Dr. Marvin’s family looks at him with anger and embarrassment. Bob looks like the innocent victim of Dr. Marvin’s irrational rage.

Here’s a good example from William Bennett’s Why We Fight: Moral Clarity and the War on Terrorism:

“From the beginning, the Palestinian strategy was, and still is, to provoke outrages to which Israel has had no choice but to respond with stringent countermeasures, thereby supplying endless footage of Palestinian casualties and eliciting fresh pressure by the West to accommodate ever-escalating Palestinian demands. Israel’s commitment to peace stimulated in the Palestinians not a spirit of reciprocal amicableness but an appetite for more…”

14. Bob knows full well what he’s doing, but successfully appears innocent to everyone but Dr. Marvin, who sees right through him but can’t get anyone else to see it. Those of us who have been trying to alert our fellow Westerners to Islam’s relentless encroachment are having a very difficult time.

Islam appears innocent to many people, and to them, we are suspect. We must be racists or bigots or Islamophobes. This assessment effectively shuts their ears to accurate information about something real enough to cause over seventeen thousand deadly attacks since 9/11.

15. Dr. Marvin clearly expects the problem (Bob) to go away, but he will never go. He keeps insinuating himself more and more thoroughly into Dr. Marvin’s life. Almost every non-Muslim I talk to about Islam’s relentless encroachment expects someone to take care of it and expects the problem to go away. But it isn’t going away. It’s getting worse. Islamic supremacists are insinuating themselves more and more thoroughly into Western societies.

16. Bob is skillful, but conceals it. Dr. Marvin comes up with a brilliant scheme to admit Bob into a mental institution, but the institution can only legally hold Bob for 24 hours before they let him go. They can keep him there only if the staff agrees Bob needs to be institutionalized. Dr. Marvin is sure everyone will see Bob is crazy, but they don’t. Within a few hours, they release Bob. Bob completely charmed the staff, telling jokes and cracking everyone up.

Like Bob, Islam is skillful, but conceals it. The more I learn about the clever infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood into mainstream American life, the more impressed I am at the long-range planning and the skillful, sophisticated understanding of the American mind.

One branch of the Muslim Brotherhood is CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations. They have successfully fooled most people in America that they represent moderate, peace-loving Muslim Americans.

17. Bob is in it for the long haul. Eventually, Dr. Marvin loses his mind, goes off the deep end, and he becomes violent and irrational, mainly because nobody else sees what Bob is really doing except Dr. Marvin.

Orthodox Muslims find every crack in the wall they can find and work their way in. And they twist every event and utterance to their purpose. They will not stop, they will not tire, and they have nothing else to live for. This is it. This is the meaning of their existence: Islam must win. Islam must dominate all other cultures, all other religions, all other governments. Allah wills it.

They have infiltrated our schools by giving donations to colleges and then using their seat on the board to exert influence (creating a campus culture of Islam-loving, America-hating students). Orthodox Muslims offered the British government and banks on Wall Street money to help them through the 2008-2009 financial crisis, but with strings attached — the money is “Shari’a compliant” which means, among other things, that there is a built-in written agreement that a certain portion of the money goes to particular charities — charities that support jihad against the West.

Orthodox Muslims have created “legitimate,” mainstream organizations that lobby Washington and “represent the Muslim community” to governments and to the media, and yet have a secret agenda, revealed at the recent Holy Land Foundation Trial, of conquering America from within.

The list goes on and on. They are in it for the long haul, and they absolutely will not stop, ever. They won’t grow tired or give up. If they are going to be stopped, we must stop them. And we had better do it with more success than Dr. Marvin had with Bob.

To get rid of Bob, out of mad frustration, Dr. Marvin tries to blow him up, but Bob ends up “accidentally” blowing Dr. Marvin’s vacation home to smithereens, and then marries Dr. Marvin’s sister!

Bob won. Dr. Marvin lost. We’ve got to do better.

The Key to Your Listener’s Inability to Confront the Disturbing Truth About Islam

SOMEONE left the comment below on The Islamization of the West and it reminds me of many similar comments I’ve gotten over the years, and similar feelings I’ve had:

“I am at a complete loss as to why CAIR, ISNA, ICNA, MPAC or this NMLA is even allowed to exist in America?? Are some Americans so dumbed down that they don’t see the enemy right in front of them? Is this or any political party in government so stupid that they just turn a blind eye to what’s happening?”

Can you feel the commenter’s exasperation? Have you had this feeling before? We are in a strange situation: We try to simply share new information we’ve learned, and we find ourselves unable to share it — not because we are incapable of articulating it, but because our listeners do backflips trying to invalidate the information. They contort themselves into impossible cognitive pretzels in order to reject simple, factual information. It has been baffling to many of us. I know. I have heard from hundreds of our fellow counterjihadists about this.

And I know how it feels. I sometimes want to write off my fellow non-Muslims as idiots, but I know many of them are not stupid, so what is going on? What could be the cause of their seemingly stubborn stupidity on this subject?

Last night, I was reading Victor Davis Hanson’s book, The Father of Us All, and he said something I’ve never thought about before. Namely, that people in the West are acutely aware of the inequalities of the world — we in the West enjoy a material quality of life far better than billions of other people — and for a lot of Westerners, this presents a serious ethical problem.

They feel guilty about it. They need to assuage their guilt in some way. But here is the key insight I’ve never thought about before: They need to assuage their guilt in some way other than giving up the goodies, because even though they don’t like the inequality, they don’t want to give up the high quality of life.

In other words, many people need to have a way to keep enjoying the material riches, but still rectify or expiate the guilt they feel about others being so poor.

The solution many have chosen is to go out of their way to see what’s wrong with their own culture, and to give other cultures an undeserved reverence.


This solution is something we are familiar with in our personal relationships. If you are more successful than a friend of yours, for example, one way you can help him feel better and prevent him from resenting you is to point out your own faults. Those who are exceptionally successful often habitually display humility, making it a point to underline their own personal imperfections.

The successful person can do this with integrity because everyone has faults, even very competent people, and because every success is partly a result of pure luck — the luck of being born in a free country, the luck of being born with ambition, a high energy, basic intelligence, good health, etc. Many people use this stratagem, knowingly or unknowingly, because it helps. The self-deprecation helps a successful person continue to enjoy the material goodies without feeling too guilty about it around other people, and without making other people feel bad about themselves or resentful of the successful person.

It shows no class to put down the “less fortunate” as lazy, stupid, ignorant, etc. It is the height of vulgarity to criticize or humiliate or ridicule or rebuke or denounce the less fortunate.

And I think the people who will not listen to you, or who argue in defense of Islam even when they know nothing about Islam, are doing the same thing on a cultural scale. In other words, when you, a fellow member of the fortunate class (a Westerner) start bad-mouthing another culture — when you start criticizing Islamic doctrine — you have violated an important code of etiquette. And for them to listen to you and accept what you say is for them to violate it too.

What we’re dealing with is a “cultural humility” about Western culture and achievements. People are going out of their way to point out what is wrong with their own Western culture or their country in particular. They’re not casual about this — there is an underlying intensity. They seem hell-bent on criticizing their own country or culture.

Now it makes sense that it seems so deeply felt, that your listeners seem so committed to stopping you from criticizing Islam and committed to criticizing their own culture. Many people rely on this criticism to allow them to enjoy their iPads and nice cars and cell phones without too much guilt.

They feel less guilty because they express a sufficient degree of contempt for their own highly successful culture, and they feel (or at least profess) sufficient admiration for all other cultures.

The simple, factual information about Islam you want to share threatens to undermine this whole unformulated creed, which endangers the linchpin of their emotional harmony and ethical congruence. They can’t let it in.

To let it in would require them to rearrange an important feature of their worldview and their self-image. This is not a minor matter. This is not a small, inconsequential barrier we can easily sweep aside. It is a major psychological problem that stands in the way of our goal of educating people about Islam. Understanding what it is and what we’re up against is the first step.


We are talking about a psychological problem similar to survivor guilt. People who have survived plane crashes or concentration camps or some other event where others have died sometimes suffer a painful, unrelenting guilt because they survived while others perished. It wasn’t fair, and they have a problem dealing with the unfairness.

Westerners are in a similar position on a global scale. Think about it. We’ve seen close-up, full-color pictures of our fellow human beings starving in Africa, imprisoned in China, tortured in Iran, executed in Saudi Arabia, while we drive to and from our pleasant activities in clean, comfortable cars, go to grocery stores overflowing with food, come home to a comfortable shelter with cable television, microwave ovens, high-speed internet, and enjoy an immense degree of personal freedom. It isn’t fair. Yes, we may have worked to earn the money, but had we been born in Iran or China, our lives would be tragically different, regardless of how hard we worked.

We got lucky and it definitely isn’t fair. At some level, I think most of us feel some kind of guilt about this. I think we should have a name for it. Born in a Western Country Guilt? I don’t know what to call it, but clearly some of us handle the guilt better than others.

How do you live with the inequality of the world? Some people think those of us in Western countries have created a superior culture, so we deserve our wealth. Some think the European or “white” race is genetically superior. Some good evidence indicates the inequalities are a result of geography. And some just consider themselves lucky and try to help others when they can.

We’ve all found a way to live with it, but the people we’re having a hard time communicating with about Islam have found a less-than-optimal way of dealing with it. It’s better than the path self-righteous racists use, but it is not ideal (or even adequate) — it’s preventing them from confronting and accepting important facts about the real world.

Multiculturalism is one way this guilt manifests itself. Multiculturalism says all cultures are equal. None is better than others. Moral equivalence is another. Moral equivalence says, “Yes, that other culture does terrible things, but look, we’ve done terrible things too,” so again, we are not better than others. White Guilt is another. Each of these different manifestations all stem from the same fundamental need to relieve guilt while still enjoying the safety and wealth and comfort of their Western society.

We have a need, wrote Hanson, for “cultural neutrality” — for seeing ourselves as no better than anybody else. This doesn’t sound so bad, but the need for cultural neutrality can be so well-ingrained that it causes a kind of willful blindness that overrides common sense and the basic instinct of self-preservation. It has gone off the deep end. Hanson wrote: “…so strong is the tug of cultural neutrality that it trumps even the revulsion of Western progressives at the … jihadist agenda, with its homophobia, sexism, religious intolerance, and racism.”

It is important to clearly understand this perplexing, confusing, exasperating phenomenon we are all running into: The compulsive, undiscriminating reflex to defend Islam and criticize Western countries. The source of the resistance we’re coming up against is this: People feel guilty for having so much more than others, and this prevents them from accepting your legitimate criticisms of Islamic doctrine.

The Terrifying Brilliance of Islam

Have you ever wondered why so many Muslim men are dedicated to killing Americans? Or why so many are willing to blow themselves up to kill Israelis? Or why they are so committed to blowing up random people in Bali, London, Madrid, New York, etc.?

Orthodox Muslims are doing this all over the world, attacking Westerners and their own fellow Muslims alike. Why?

Because of a doctrine. A doctrine is a collection of ideas. These could be customs, words, beliefs, etc. A religion is not a single idea; it is a collection of ideas. The collection of ideas that make up the religion of Islam makes Muslims behave and feel as they do.

Collections of ideas compete with each other in the same way that collections of cells (organisms) compete with each other. And because idea-collections compete, and because new ideas can often be added or subtracted from the collection, and because some collections gain more believers than others, collections of ideas can actually evolve.

Let’s look at how religious idea-collections evolve and compete. To begin with, let’s assume we already have a religion established. It already has a holy book and millions of people are already believers.

And then there is a slight variation.

The original version had a “live and let live” attitude, and never tried to encourage its followers to bring in converts. But then someone comes up with the idea that if you can persuade a non-believer to become a believer, you earn some sort of spiritual merit. You are saving souls, and your chances of getting into heaven are better.

Okay, now you have two variations on the same religion: One contains the idea that it doesn’t really matter if you get anyone else to join the religion. The other motivates its believers to persuade others to join.

After a thousand years, which of the two variations will have more believers? I’m betting on the motivated-to-spread-it version.

Let’s assume, for the moment, that the motivated version gets far more followers. Does that mean it makes people happier? Or more successful in life? Or have healthier children? No. Just because a collection of ideas successfully gains followers does not mean it benefits any of the people believing those ideas.

The same is true in genetics. Contrary to common sense, a successful gene doesn’t necessarily benefit the organism. It is “successful” in the sense that it has made lots of copies of itself and is found in many organisms. But it may actually be harmful for the organism.

For example, if there is a gene for alcoholism, and if drinking causes someone to start having children younger than someone who doesn’t drink, over thousands of years, the alcoholism gene might be more successful (the gene makes its way into more offspring) than the non-alcoholism gene, even though it is bad for each individual person carrying the gene.

In the same way, the success of an idea-collection doesn’t necessarily mean it’s good for the people who believe it or follow it.

If an idea-collection says it is wrong to use contraception, over time, that idea-collection would probably be followed by more people than the version that says contraception is just fine (assuming people normally teach their children to believe as they do).

So the hapless believer of a particular idea-collection will try to follow the rules and be a good person by avoiding the evil of contraception, and what will be the result for him personally? He may have more children than he might want or could afford, causing him to work overtime to support them — working two jobs if he must. This may send him to an early grave, but his effort creates more believers of that particular collection of ideas than someone who doesn’t hold those ideas.

So in a sense, the idea-collection has used the man for its own purposes, or at least that’s one legitimate way to look at it. And it’s a way that sheds new light on Islam, which is why I’ve spent so much time explaining it.

If you were going to deliberately design a collection of ideas with the purpose of making one that might eventually dominate the world — one that would eventually out-compete or eliminate every other religion or political system — you would be hard-pressed to do better than Islam.

Let’s look at some of the individual ideas within the collection. Many of the ideas enhance each other. In other words, adding one idea to the others can make the whole collection much more effective because some ideas work synergistically. If you’d like to read more detail and background about the principles below, check out: Terrifying Brilliance of Islam: Amplification of Key Concepts.

Here are some of the key components of the idea-collection known as Islam:

1. A standardized version of the idea-collection is written down. This is something basic to several religions and isn’t an Islamic invention, but it is an important factor in the success of Islam.

Something only transmitted orally can change over time, but something written will be identical a thousand years from now, and with modern printing presses, can be reproduced in the millions, giving it an enormous advantage in spreading identical copies of the idea-collection.

2. The Quran includes instructions for its own spread. It tells believers they must spread Islam. It is their holy duty to bring Mohammad’s warnings and Islamic law to every corner of the world.

3. The idea-collection includes instructions for its own preservation, protection, and replication fidelity. The Quran, the most important of the Islamic holy books, directly tells its followers that they can never change or modify or “modernize” any of the teachings within the idea-collection. It is perfect as it is. It is a capital sin to try to do so. This idea ensures the preservation of the whole collection.

These first three ideas are pretty standard for several successful religions. But now it gets interesting…

4. Islam commands its followers to create a government that supports it. This may be one of the most ingenious ideas in the whole collection. Islam is the only religion that uses it. Other groups of religious people have had political aspirations, but no other major religious group orders its followers — as a religious duty — to create a government that follows its own system of law.

Islam has a system of law, called Sharia, and all Muslims are obligated to continually strive to make their government — wherever they are — follow it. Because of some of the other ideas added to Islam, you will see that this political addition to the idea-collection has significant consequences. Not only is this perhaps Islam’s most brilliant innovation, it is also the most terrifying to non-Muslims.

5. Permission to spread the religion by war. This is another brilliant innovation. Although some other religions have spread themselves using force, they had very little justification from their own religious doctrines to do so.

Not so with Islam. Expanding by conquest is very much accepted and encouraged by the idea-collection. Islamic teachings present it this way: The poor non-Muslims not living in an Islamic state need to be saved from the sin of following laws other than Allah’s. If they won’t voluntarily change their laws to Sharia, then it is the duty of Muslim warriors to insist. The world cannot be at peace until every government on earth follows the laws of Allah.

Mohammad’s own experience showed the example — an example, says the Quran 91 times, that every Muslim should follow. At first, Mohammad tried to spread Islam by peaceful means. After thirteen years he had a paltry 150 converts.

But then he changed tactics and started using warfare, slaughter, executions, and assassination, and within ten years he converted tens of thousands, and after he died, they used the same tactics and converted millions. And by simple population increase, it is now over a billion.

The use of warfare combines synergistically and powerfully with the instruction to create an Islamic state. So Islam spread quickly as their armies got bigger. They conquered and set up Islamic states, most of which have lasted to this day, and the laws within an Islamic state make Islam very difficult to dislodge. The laws also make it very advantageous to convert to Islam.

This is one of the most effective methods ever invented for getting an idea-collection into huge numbers of minds. It’s a method of control and indoctrination similar to those used successfully in communist and totalitarian states. But as you’ll discover below, Islam makes unique use of the power of the law to enforce complete conversion to the religion.

6. Lands must be conquered. Lands that Islam has lost must be reconquered, like Spain and Israel, for example. The Islamic empire must continually expand. Contraction is bad, expansion is good. So if a land was once Islamic and now it is not, that’s contraction, and must be remedied.

According to Islamic teachings, the earth is Allah’s. If there are parts of the earth not following Islamic law, it is the duty of the faithful to gain control of that land and establish Sharia. It is a sin to let it be.

7. The idea-collection provides for new soldiers by allowing polygamy. A Muslim man can marry up to four wives, and he can have sex with as many slave girls as he wishes.

The Quran especially encourages men to marry widows. This is an important idea to add if you are going to be losing a lot of soldiers in war. You need some way of replenishing your army. Otherwise the idea-collection could die out from a lack of offspring.

8. It is a punishable offense to criticize Islam. You can see why this one is a good supporting idea for the collection. It helps suppress any ideas that would reduce the authority of Islamic ideas. This one, like many of the others, is good for the idea-collection, but bad for people. This one limits freedom of speech. This idea is in the Quran, and Mohammad set a fierce example of punishing people who criticized him or Islam. The punishment was usually death.

9. You can’t leave Islam once you’re in. This is an interesting one. It is actually illegal in Islamic states to convert out of Islam. This is a critical part of Sharia law. Someone who has rejected Islam who was once a Muslim is an “apostate.” This is a crime and a sin, and the punishment for it is death (and eternal damnation in hell thereafter).

Obviously, you can see why this idea has been included in the collection, but this one has actually caused Islam a problem because those who are following Islam to the letter consider more “moderate” Muslims (those who want to ignore or alter the more violent passages of the Quran) to be apostates. Since the punishment for apostates is death, fundamentalist Muslims are fighting modernizing Muslims all over the world, and keeping many rebellious, modernizing Muslims (or MINOs) from speaking up for fear of death.

Every time a group of Muslims decides that maybe Islam should be updated for the 21st century and maybe women should have some rights or maybe the government should be more democratic, the devout Muslims call them apostates and discredit them or even try to kill them.

The idea-collection protects its own fidelity (the original idea-collection cannot be altered). This is not good for the organisms (the Muslim human beings), but it’s great for the collection.

Another idea in Sharia law says it’s against the law for anyone to try to convert a Muslim to another religion.

10. Islam must be your first allegiance. This is a great idea to add to the collection if the goal is world domination. You are a Muslim first, before any allegiance you give to your family, your tribe, or your country.

This does two things: It causes a unity of people across borders which allows the group to grow bigger than any other entity. In other words, the “Nation of Islam” can grow bigger than any country, no matter how large (which gives the group a massive numerical advantage).

11. Dying while fighting for Islam is the ONLY way to guarantee a man’s entrance into Paradise. This is a great idea for creating fearless, enthusiastic warriors, especially given the Quran’s vivid descriptions of the sensuous delights of Paradise.

A Muslim man has a chance of getting to Paradise if he is a good Muslim, but it is not guaranteed. However, if he dies while fighting for Islam, he is guaranteed to get in, and that’s the only thing he can do to guarantee it.

12. You must read the Quran in Arabic. This unites believers by language, and language is a very powerful unifying phenomenon. For added incentive to learn Arabic, another idea in the collection says you can’t go to Paradise unless you pray in Arabic.

So all Muslims all over the world share a language. This makes it easier to coordinate far-reaching campaigns of protest, political pressure, and war. I doubt if Mohammad foresaw this possibility, but this idea is brilliant, even if it was an accident.

13. You must pray five times a day. This is one of the five “pillars” — that is, one of the five central practices — of Islam. Within an Islamic state, it is enforced by law. Every Muslim must pray five times a day. The practice helps the idea-collection dominate a Muslim’s life, infusing his daily rhythm with Islam.

It would be impossible to forget anything you deliberately do so often. Five times a day, every day, a Muslim must bow down and pray to Allah.

Research has shown the more effort a person expends for a cause, the more he is likely to believe in it and value it. So this is a good way to eventually make believers out of people who became Muslims through coercion.

Islam completely takes over every aspect of Muslims’ lives. Not only are they required to pray five times a day, they have to go through a washing ritual beforehand. Islam dictates the laws, and the laws cover many public and private behaviors. In an Islamic state, it is impossible to be a casual Muslim.

14. The prayers involve moving together in time. When Muslims pray, they all face the same direction, they bow down, get on their hands and knees, and put their face on the mat, all in unison, and then rise back up. Again and again.

When people move together in time, whether dancing or marching or praying, it creates a physical and emotional bond between them. That’s why all military training involves close-order drill (marching in unison), even though it has been a long time since military groups have actually marched into combat. There is no longer a need for the skill, but military training retained the practice because it is so effective at creating a strong feeling of unity between soldiers (read more about that).

The same is true of any physical movements people make in unison. So the method of prayer in Islam is a unifying idea added to the collection.

15. A woman is in a thoroughly subordinate position. This idea really helps support other ideas in the collection, like five and six. If women had too much influence, they’d try to curb the warring. Women in general don’t like to send their husbands and sons off to war. But if women have no say, then the rest of the ideas can express themselves without interference. By subordinating women, the idea-collection prevents their effective vote against war, violence, and conquest.

The rules and laws within Islam that keep women subordinate are numerous. For example, she is not allowed to leave her house unless she is accompanied by a male relative. Under Islamic law, a woman is forbidden to be a head of state or a judge. She can only inherit half of what a man can inherit. In court, her testimony is only worth half of a man’s. She is not allowed to choose where she will live or who she will marry. She is not allowed to marry a non-Muslim or divorce her husband. He, however, can divorce her with a wave of his hand. And according to Sharia, he can (and should) beat her if she disobeys him.

All of these ideas keep her subordinate, which helps keep the war machine going unimpeded by domestic rebellion.

16. The only way a woman can get into Paradise for sure is if her husband is happy with her when she dies. When I read about this one, I thought, “Mohammad, you are a crafty one.”

This idea obviously helps with the subjugation of women. It motivates her to subjugate herself. It gives her a strong incentive to subordinate her wishes to her husband’s, because while she might have a chance to get into Paradise if she’s a good Muslim, the only way she can guarantee she will go to Paradise (and avoid eternal suffering in hell) is to make sure her husband is happy with her when she dies.

17. Allah gives Himself permission to edit his own work. This is an interesting one. It says in the Quran that if a passage written later contradicts an earlier passage, then the later one is the better one (read more about this). The Quran was written in sections (Mohammad’s revelations, each written as a sura or chapter) over a period of 23 years. The circumstances of Mohammad’s life and his religion changed quite a bit over those 23 years.

One of the ideas in the Quran is “this is the word of Allah.” People had already memorized his earlier revelations, so Mohammad couldn’t just change his revelations. It would look a little strange for the all-knowing, infinitely wise Allah to change something He had already said.

But with this new idea — that later revelations abrogated or overwrote any earlier revelations they contradicted — Allah’s methods could change as Mohammad found more effective ideas.

As I pointed out earlier, in his first 13 years of peacefully preaching, Mohammad only managed to win 150 followers. But as a military leader and violent conqueror, he was able to subjugate all of Arabia to Islamic law in less than 10 years. The peaceful ways were too slow. Conversion by conquering and establishing Sharia was much faster and more efficient. So later, violent, intolerant verses abrogate the earlier peaceful, tolerant passages.

18. The Quran uses the carrot and stick to reinforce behavior. Throughout the book are vivid descriptions of hell, where sinners and non-Muslims will have to drink boiling, stinking water, will be thrown face down into a raging fire, and will be there for eternity, suffering endless torments in agony.

There are also vivid descriptions of Paradise. In Paradise, it says, believers will wear green silk robes and recline on plush couches. Trees will shade them, fruit will dangle nearby. They’ll have tasty food and refreshing drinks served in silver goblets. To have a chance of achieving this, they must be devout Muslims. To guarantee it, they must die in jihad (for men) or make sure their husbands are always happy with them (for women).

19. It provides a huge and inspiring goal. Leaders of countries or companies or religions have all discovered that you can get the most motivation and enthusiasm from your followers if you provide them with an expansive vision — an enormous goal. In the Islamic idea-collection, the goal calls for a continuous effort to expand the domain of Islamic law until all the world is subjugated to it.

Many religions have the goal of converting everyone, but Islam has a method available nobody else has: To expand by seizing and converting governments to Sharia.

Once the whole world is Islamic, peace will reign. That’s why even terrorists can say with complete sincerity, “Islam is a religion of peace.”

The Quran says it is best if non-believers accept Islam and become Muslims without force. But if they refuse, then you must fight them and conquer them and save their poor souls by insisting they live by the laws of Allah.

Once all countries are conquered, the world will be at peace. Therefore, Islam is a religion of peace.

It is an enormous and inspiring goal, and a strongly unifying purpose. It creates motivated, enthusiastic followers.

20. Non-Muslims must pay a large tax. Once Muslims conquer a country and convert the government to Islamic law, any non-Muslims have the choice between becoming Muslim or becoming a dhimmi. Dhimmis are allowed to practice their non-Muslim religion if they pay the jizya (a tax). If they convert to Islam, they no longer have to pay a tax, so there is a practical incentive to convert.

But another aspect of this makes it a brilliant idea to add to the collection. The tax takes money away from the non-Muslims and their competing idea-collections and gives that money to support Islam. This is pure genius!

The income from these taxes (usually a 25% income tax) helped fund the Islamic conquests during the first two major jihads. They conquered vast lands, most of them already filled with Christians and Jews, many of whom did not convert at first, and their jizya poured huge sums of money into the Islamic war machine.

Eventually, the numbers of Christians and Jews dwindled down as they converted or escaped, until now, in most Islamic countries, Jews and Christians are very small minorities.

The tax-the-non-Muslims idea helps the Islamic idea-collection make more copies of itself by suppressing competing religious idea-collections and financially supporting Islam.

Several ideas within Sharia law extend this effect. For example, non-Muslims are not allowed to build any new houses of worship. They’re not even allowed to repair already-existing churches or synagogues. This puts the houses of worship of any competing idea-collection in a state of permanent decline. Brilliant.

Also, non-Islamic prayers cannot be spoken within earshot of a Muslim — again, preventing Muslims from being infected by a competing religion. No public displays of any symbols of another faith may be shown either.

All of this prevents the spread of any competing religion, and makes competing idea-collections die out over time. That’s why today there are so many “Muslim countries.” Almost every other country in the world is made up of many different religions.

One added idea makes it that much easier for Muslims to dominate non-Muslims within an Islamic state: Non-Muslims are not allowed to own weapons of any kind. To subjugate a people, all dictatorial rulers in the history of the world have done the same thing: Disarm the subjugated people. They are much easier to manage, less dangerous, and less capable of upending the status quo.

21. A Muslim is forbidden to make friends with an infidel. A Muslim is allowed to pretend to be a friend, but in his heart he must never actually be a friend to a non-Muslim. This is one of the best protections Islam has against Muslims leaving the faith because in every other religion conversions to the religion are usually made because a friend introduced it. Being forbidden to make friends with infidels effectively prevents that from happening.

22. The Quran counsels the use of deceit when dealing with infidels. Mohammad instructed one of his followers to lie if he had to (in order to assassinate one of Mohammad’s enemies). The principle was clear: If it helps Islam, it’s okay to deceive non-Muslims.

This principle has served Islamic goals very well through history. And it serves those goals today. On the DVD, Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West, you can watch real-life examples of Islamic leaders saying one thing in English for the Western press, and saying something entirely different to their own followers in Arabic a few days later.

Deceiving the enemy is always useful in war, and Islam is at war with the non-Islamic world until the whole world follows Sharia law. All non-Muslims living in non-Islamic states are enemies. So deceiving Westerners is totally acceptable. It is encouraged if it can forward the goals of the spread of Islam.

And so we have the strange phenomenon covered by Steven Emerson in Terrorists Among Us, where organizations in America were ostensibly raising money for orphans, but really giving the money to terrorists. They deceived good-hearted Western infidels into giving money to organizations that were actively killing Western infidels. As it says in the Quran, “War is deceit.” This idea gives Islam a tremendous advantage over idea-collections that encourage indiscriminate truthfulness.

23. Islam must always be defended. This idea is a primary linchpin that gives justification for war with almost anybody, as you’ll see in the idea below. After the enemy is defeated, of course, Muslims are required to establish an Islamic state.

24. Islamic writings teach the use of pretext to start wars. The Quran devotes a lot of time complaining about people who did not support Mohammad when he first started his religion, with Allah often condemning them to torment in hell in the hereafter. The Quran is intensely intolerant of non-Muslims .

Mohammad was rather pushy and insistent with his religion, and when others felt intruded upon and protested, Mohammad took that to mean they were trying to stop Allah’s holy prophet from bringing the revealed word of Allah to the world, so he was justified to fight them and destroy them as Allah’s enemies. This is a demonstration of the principle of pretext.

Non-Muslims of the world need urgently to become aware of this principle. Of all the ideas in the Islamic collection, this is the most dangerous to the West because it removes our natural self-preserving defenses. The use of pretext tends to make the West defenseless against the Islamic invasion now underway. Muslim terrorists are not naive people. They are smart, educated, well-funded, and being used by a very clever idea-collection.

The invasion of the West is underway, and it is being done so cleverly, most Westerners don’t even know it is happening. (Read more about their 20-year plan to overthrow the government of the United States. Also, read about the Shariatization of Europe.)

The use of pretext means you need only the barest excuse to begin hostilities. It means you’re actually looking for an excuse, and even trying to provoke others into striking the first blow (“starting” the hostilities).

If the only way to get to Paradise is dying while fighting for Islam, you need war. And if it is your holy duty to make all governments use Sharia law, you need to conquer those governments. But you don’t really want to look like the aggressor. Appearances count. All throughout the Quran, Mohammad tries to justify his aggression as defending Islam.

The Quran repeats 91 times that followers of Islam should use Mohammad as a model and imitate him. So Muslims the world over try to find or create grievances, so they can get a holy war started, so they can fight and die in Allah’s cause and help make the world ruled by Allah’s laws.

And because of the rise of multiculturalism (respect for all other cultures) in the West, the use of pretext is very effective against people who are unfamiliar with Islam. Many people think al Qaeda is angry at the West for having troops in Saudi Arabia, for example. That’s merely a pretext. They want all non-Muslims out of the Middle East. Then they say they will cease hostilities. It is a ridiculous and impossible goal, so they are justified in permanent war against the West.

It’s surprising that so many Westerners accept this particular pretext because it flies in the face of a fundamental Western principle: Equality. What Osama bin Laden is saying is “infidels are so undeserving, their very presence defiles our holy places.” Wow. What does that say about the non-Muslims?

Why doesn’t this kind of racism or prejudice or infidelphobia (or whatever you want to call it) outrage more Westerners? Instead, many think we ought to pull out of the Middle East so these poor offended Islamic supremacists aren’t so angry with us any more!

The principle of pretext means you try to provoke a hostile reaction and then use the hostile reaction as a reason to escalate hostilities. It’s the same method schoolyard bullies have used for thousands of years: “What are you looking at? You got a problem?! You wanna take it outside, punk?”

25. The explicit use of double standards. Islam has one standard for Muslims, and a different standard for non-Muslims, which always gives the advantage to Muslims and within a Muslim country, it provides incentives to convert.

For example, Islam must be spread by its believers, wherever they are. But when other religions try to spread their own idea-collection, Muslims are supposed to see it as an aggression against Islam — an act of aggression that must be “defended.” Remember, Islam must always be defended.

Another example of how the double standard idea gives Islam an advantage: When Islam is defamed in any way, Muslims should violently defend it. Even in a cartoon. But Muslims can and should defame Jews and Christians in Muslim newspapers and television, and they should defame any infidel or enemy, as they defame the U.S. today.

Here’s another example: The Islamic supremacists of Saudi Arabia are pouring money into building mosques all over the free world. But according to Sharia law, which is the law in Saudi Arabia, no non-Muslim religious structures are allowed to be built.

Muslims all over the world protest loudly and violently when anyone in Europe or America resists the building of more mosques in their countries.

Islamic supremacists don’t see the irony in it. They don’t feel strange having such an obvious double standard. They are, after all, Allah’s followers and everyone else is deluded. Fairness and equality with such unworthy infidels would seem very out of place. A double standard seems completely appropriate from that perspective.

The double standard principle is a key part of the idea-collection, and it has been a great advantage in the spread of Islam (and the suppression of competing religions).

Sixty-one percent of the Quran is about non-Muslims and how to deal with them. Not one verse in the Quran about non-Muslims is positive.

26. It is forbidden to kill a Muslim (except for a just cause). It is not forbidden to kill an infidel. This causes a bond between Muslims, fear in non-Muslims, and motivation to become Muslim. This is also another example of an explicit Islamic double standard.

27. If Muslims drift away from Mohammed’s teachings, Allah will end the world. That makes converting others and promoting Islam a matter of survival. It also motivates Muslims to prevent each other from losing faith.

28. The message in a standard Quran is difficult to decipher. Whether it was done intentionally or not, the Quran’s message has been scrambled and in a sense, coded. This discourages almost all non-Muslims and a significant percentage of Muslims from understanding it.

In what way is the message scrambled? First, the chapters are published out of order in every standard Quran. Rather than printing them using the chronological order in which they were revealed, the 114 chapters (suras) of the Quran are arranged using a baffling method: They’re arranged in order from the longest chapter to the shortest. That’s the traditional order.

When you read a standard Quran straight through like a normal book, the message is disjointed and the story jumps around and seems contradictory. One very important consequence of this curious disorder is that it hides the clear progression from Mohammad’s semi-tolerance of non-Muslims to his violent hatred toward them.

The disorder also prevents anyone from figuring out which passages are abrogated unless they know the chronological order of the Quran.

The second way the Quran has been put into code is by putting the key somewhere else. Much of the Quran cannot be understood without being familiar with the life of Mohammad (by reading the Sira and the Hadith). These are primarily about Mohammad — what he said and did.

In other words, the Quran — the source book, the single most important holy book in Islam — can’t be understood without the key, and the key can only be found somewhere else, which is similar to one of the ways a message can be written in code: Put the key to understanding the message somewhere else besides including it in the message. This is enough to keep most non-Muslims from understanding the Quran, and also keeps most Muslims on a need-to-know basis. So the only ones who really know what’s going on are the imams and the scholars. They call the shots. Everyone else is in the dark.

If the Quran wasn’t put in code deliberately, it has been a tremendously fortuitous accident which has served the goals of Islam very well throughout history. Fortunately, someone has unscrambled the Quran for us.


Okay, we can admire the brilliance of the Islamic idea-collection in an abstract, intellectual sort of way, but it is terrifyingly real. Millions of people try to follow these ideas to the letter. And their belief in the idea-collection is strongly supported by the side-effects of Sharia law. By making the government and laws ruled by Islam, the idea-collection applies two powerful principles of influence: social proof, and authority.

Everyone practices the religion in an Islamic state (or they are flogged, taxed, or killed) and no one can criticize it, not friend-to-friend, and not through any media. The psychological impact of this is enormous. Three generations later, it would be almost impossible for any Muslim living in that state to think outside of Islam. The authority and social proof would be overwhelming.

Of course, just because I admire the genius of the idea-collection doesn’t mean I’m in favor of it. As a non-Muslim, I am wholeheartedly against it. Remember, the success of an idea-collection has nothing to do with making people happy or healthy. “Success” only means it propagates well.

The same is true for genes. A successful gene is one that gets the most copies of itself into future generations. The genes making up a deadly virus may kill millions of people and cause untold misery, but from a genetic point of view, the virus is successful. Genes don’t care about people. They don’t try to make us happy. They are cold and indifferent to our plight.

Same with ideas. An idea-collection will use up and spit out human lives in the service of its propagation, indifferent to the pain, misery, or death it causes.

An idea-collection, well-drilled into someone’s head and reinforced by the powerful authority and social proof of his whole society, can cause him to blow himself up just to kill others for the fulfillment of a fantasy goal of ultimately attaining world peace and the triumph of Allah (and a harem of 72 dark-eyed voluptuous beauties devoted to his every wish).

The Islamic idea-collection is formidable. It is a force to be reckoned with and we ignore it at our peril. It has already taken hold of the minds and lives of almost one and a half billion people, and it’s the youngest of the major religions.

And yet, I don’t think the situation is hopeless. Many Muslims now living in Islamic states are trapped and would defect from Islam if it were safe to do so.

The first thing we in the multicultural and tolerant West need to do is help each other become aware of the formidable idea-collection threatening to overtake us. We need to help our fellow citizens awaken to the fact that Islamic supremacists will deliberately take advantage of our tolerance and our freedom so as to ultimately eliminate it.

This is an ideological war, so the ideas in the heads of your fellow Westerners makes all the difference. And you can help turn the tide. Find ways to introduce this information to your fellow non-Muslims.

You will be shocked at how little most people know about Islam. And they will be shocked to find out. And when enough non-Muslims know about it, Islamic tactics like pretext and deceit will be seen for what they are, and will no longer make us defenseless. When we know more about the founder (the one all Muslims should imitate) and the goals of Islam, our collective decisions and actions can effectively thwart their plans. Our collective grasp of the real situation will bring more rational changes to our laws and policies (such as our current immigration policies).

But to do this kind of inoculation, you have to have a pretty good handle on the Islamic teachings. That will require some study. I know you have other things to do, and you can’t make this a full-time occupation, but I also know how serious this is, so it will require some sacrifice on your part.

I have created a curriculum of sorts. I tried to figure out what would be the material you could study that would give you the most critical knowledge in the easiest way with the smallest investment of time.
Study that material, and start right away. After millions of people have fought against tyranny and died to gain the rights and freedoms we enjoy today, we are now confronted with a pernicious idea-collection hell-bent on taking them away. And the Islamic idea-collection could realistically succeed with terrifying brilliance.

Take action today. Learn about Islam. With every new understanding you have, and with every new certainty and clarity you gain, you will feel bolder in speaking up, and speaking up is the first thing we must do to win.

How to Resist Islamic Encroachment and Still Be Happy

In a scene from the movie, Armageddon, a young couple is on a picnic, just being with each other and feeling in love, but with a tinge of sadness. He has to leave the next day, and there’s a chance he won’t survive the mission. It’s getting dark. This may be their last moments alone together. And if the mission doesn’t succeed, the entire human species will be extinguished.

She said, “Do you think there are others in the world doing just what we’re doing right now?”

He said, “I hope so; otherwise, what are we trying to save?”

In the counterjihad movement, we know what we’re trying to save, don’t we? We’re trying to save the Western world, freedom and democracy. Why? Because Western-style democracy is the best system ever invented to allow people to pursue happiness. It is worth protecting. It’s worth defending. But do we have to be miserable to do it?

Each of us discovered Islam’s prime directive, and each of us felt motivated to help others learn about the basic elements of Islam, and most of us ran face-first into a wall of anger and resistance and argument and judgment and self-righteousness, and our desire to simply help educate our fellow non-Muslims has become a stressful, eternally-upsetting, arduous chore.

Many drop out of the counterjihad movement because of the stress. They’ve lost friends. They’ve alienated relatives. Their life has become no fun. They’ve lost their happiness.

So they drop out. They burn out. They stop talking about it. The whole exercise seems futile, upsetting, and unbearably frustrating. They think to themselves, “It is going to take a nuclear weapon going off in downtown Chicago before these idiots will wake up.” And they give up the fight and leave it to fate.

We can’t afford to lose these people. We need to not only educate our fellow non-Muslims, but we need to keep the educated ones in the fight with us. We need to prevent the burnout. That means we need to make sure fighting the good fight doesn’t make us so miserable.

Another good reason to focus some attention on this issue is that (as every sales organization has discovered) people who are unhappy are lousy at influencing others. Most people are repelled and repulsed by unhappy, angry, frustrated, depressed people. Nobody wants to listen to someone like that. People don’t want to be influenced by someone like that. People don’t want to become like that.

So how can we remain in the counterjihad and still be happy? As silly as it may sound, this is an important question.

We have one thing working in our favor already: Having a meaningful purpose contributes greatly to a feeling of happiness and fulfillment. And if there is one thing we all share in the counterjihad movement, it is a meaningful feeling of purpose. This is usually ruined, however, by living in a permanent state of upset, anger, and frustration.

How can we keep the positive feeling of a fulfilling purposefulness while reducing the negative, stressful emotions? If we can solve that problem, fewer of us would drop out of the fight, and our effectiveness would increase.

I don’t think there is a single answer to this question. But we have many things we can do to reduce the stressfulness of our purpose and allow us to feel happier while still being a dedicated citizen warrior. For example:

1. Collect and associate with allies. Stay in communication with others in the counterjihad movement. This lowers the stressful feeling of being an isolated outcast. Find like-minded people on Facebook. Join ACT! for America and attend their meetings. Join Infidels United and check in every day. Knowing you have people on your side, knowing you’re not alone, reduces stress.

2. Improve your effectiveness. Add new skills to your persuasion repertoire. Add new approaches. Success is uplifting. Failure is frustrating and demoralizing. So the better you get at reaching people — the better you get at making your message penetrate and have an impact — the less stressful the process is.

3. Use a stress-reduction technique. There are many different ways to directly reduce stress (see a good list of them here). Find one that works for you and do it when you feel too stressed out. It can make a huge difference in your feeling of well-being and happiness. It’s healthy too.

4. Connect with people you love. Connecting produces oxytocin, an anti-stress hormone researchers believe is the antidote or counterbalance to stress hormones. One hormone (adrenaline) is for revving up your system to deal with threats; the other hormone (oxytocin) is for calming you down and rejuvenating and healing. Make sure these stay in balance.

5. Avoid talking about or reading about Islam an hour before bedtime. This habit has helped me a lot. It makes my sleep more restful. Try it and see if it works the same for you.

6. Use a mental checklist like cognitive distortions occasionally to clear your mind. It can greatly reduce your feelings of stress and reveal ways to think differently that can prevent stress in the future.

7. Don’t try to do everything. Focus on the one aspect of the purpose that interests you most and that you are most motivated to do. Relax by reminding yourself that there are many of us with you in this fight, and we each have our own specialities and inclinations, and trust that all of it will be done. You can focus on the one thing you’re most compelled to do and let the rest go. Let others do what they do, and you do what you do.

8. Don’t watch much mainstream news. Don’t overdo it on the news, period. Especially watching news; it is stressful and can be demoralizing. When mainstream news talks about Islam, the amount of distortion can be downright maddening. Take it in small doses.

9. Do less of the actual persuasion yourself and let DVDs, books, and articles do some of the work for you. Many people will automatically discount what you say about Islam, no matter how much you know, because they don’t consider you an authority. This can be frustrating and stressful. But when they watch DVDs showing interviewed experts, they might be more inclined to accept the information. Not only that, but a 90-minute DVD can deliver a lot of information, saving you time and trouble. Focus on persuading people to watch a DVD rather than focusing on persuading them to listen to you about Islam. It’s a more efficient use of your time. Learn more about sharing DVDs and articles.

10. Do your best to see things from the other side’s point of view. We often get into a right-wrong, us-versus-them, all-or-nothing position, and part of the reason this is stressful is that the world is not as black-and-white as this oppositional stance tries to make it. The other side of this worldwide debate has some legitimate points, and it eases a lot of stress (and makes your arguments more persuasive) to understand those legitimate points and to graciously concede them.

11. Be committed to perpetual learning. Every time something stresses you out, take the time to improve yourself. What can you do differently next time that will make it less stressful? The process of learning and growing itself can give you a lift and reduce stress.

If the Majority of Muslims Are Peaceloving People, Do We Really Have Anything to Worry About?

On one side of the debate, we have people who say, “The majority of Muslims are peaceloving people.” The implication is that because of this, we can all just relax, because the growing presence of Muslim people in our midst is not a problem. On the other side, we have people who say Islam is a totalitarian, aggressive ideology that has already made inroads into Western countries with the aim of usurping our governments and replacing our laws with Sharia.

It’s possible both sides are correct. Let me explain.

First of all, I think everyone can agree that there are a few dedicated jihadists who commit violence in the name of Islam. They are not “peaceloving people” by anyone’s definition but their own. They may think of themselves as peaceloving because they think that once the whole world has submitted to the rule of Islam, the world will be at peace. But the methods they use to achieve that peace are car bombs, beheadings, and flying planes into buildings.

There are also a number of Muslims committed to forcing Sharia law on the world by rioting and the threat of riots. These are the ones who protest and riot when a Danish cartoonist publishes cartoons about Muhammad, for example. The ensuing riots killed 187 people. It is a violation of Muslim morality to draw Muhammad or to criticize him, and the violence intimidated many others in Western democracies into restraining themselves from re-publishing those cartoons, and in this way, the threat of violence enforced Sharia law on Western democracies.

The same thing happened with Draw Muhammad Day on Facebook, and with the pastor who burned a Koran. The violence and threat of violence by Muslims around the world affected the behavior of people in free countries, curtailing their freedom. The end result is the enforcement of Sharia law in Western democracies — not by changing what is written in the lawbooks, but by scaring people into doing what orthodox Muslims insist non-Muslims must do.

The people doing the rioting may, in fact, be “peaceloving people” in their daily lives in the opinion of everyone who knows them. It could be argued that everyone has a breaking point; anyone can lose their temper if the offense is great enough, and perhaps they love their Prophet or their Koran so much, that criticizing him or burning it was just too much for them to stand, so they went berserk, but really they are just normal, peaceloving Muslims in the rest of their lives.

Another sizable percentage of Muslims are dedicated to legally and nonviolently gaining concessions for Islam within Western democracies. They are pressing for halal food in public schools, pressing for Islamic limits on free speech (pressing for censorship in the media so Islam is never criticized) They are doing it in individual countries, and they’re also doing it at the UN. The Organization of the Islamic Conference is the largest voting block in the UN and they are putting pressure on the rest of the countries to impose worldwide limits on free speech — the kind of limits Islamic law demands.

All these people working for the legal imposition of Sharia law may very well be peaceloving people.

A very large percentage of Muslims do not protest against the violent ones. Silence implies consent, usually, but they may keep silent out of fear. The violent ones are, of course, capable of violence, and peaceloving people could be afraid to speak out in protest against such violence in the name of Islam. And they may not feel that they have an ideological leg to stand on since the violence is sanctioned by Islamic doctrine and protesting against that violence is prohibited by it.

Another large percentage pay their zakat — it is a mandatory tithe to the mosque. This money is often used for charity (to help Muslims, according to Sharia law, and never to help non-Muslims). This money also sometimes goes to fund jihad. The people paying the zakat may be considered peaceloving people by most standard definitions.

Another group of Muslims are creating avenues for “Sharia finance,” which also gives a certain percentage of that money to Islamic charities, some of which also fund jihad. Those who put their money in Sharia financial institutions or pay the fees could be peaceloving people, even though they are, wittingly or unwittingly, helping to finance the killing or subjugation of non-Muslims.

A sizable percentage of Muslims, according to polls, wish to have some measure of Sharia law, including things like Islamic limits on free speech and the death penalty for apostates (Muslims who leave Islam). In some places, a majority of the Muslims feel this way. But they do not commit any violence themselves and would be considered by many as peaceloving people.

When Muslims immigrate to Western democracies, they often form “enclaves” — whole areas where primarily Muslims live. The larger the number of Muslims in the area, the more hostile some of them are to the non-Muslims living there, so those non-Muslims move away. More and more Muslims move to the area until it becomes, for all intents and purposes, a small Muslim state within a Western democracy.

These enclaves are creating “no-go zones” where legitimate law-enforcement officers are reluctant to go, or where legitimate government authorities bend to the Muslims’ demands (for fear of violent reprisals). There are more enclaves and no-go zones in Western democracies with every passing year in Sweden, France, Germany, and many other European countries. The United States just got its first Muslim enclave.

Wherever Muslims gain a sizable majority, the most dedicated among them begin pushing for local manifestations of Sharia law.

But it would probably be correct to say that most of the people who move to a Muslim enclave from a Muslim country are peaceloving people. They are just families who are moving to an area where they have relatives, and they want nothing more than to raise their children and be happy.

Let us assume they don’t know much about Islamic doctrine, and even if they do, they have chosen to quietly ignore the violent or political parts of it. They are still unwittingly helping to accomplish Islam’s prime directive in many ways — they are helping those who are actively trying to convert Western democracies into Islamic states — even if they don’t mean to.

Muslims around the world have lots of children. Some of them immigrate to Western democracies and go on welfare, so the raising of their children is being paid for by the non-Muslim taxpayers. But most of these people are probably not violent. They raise their children, telling them that they are Muslims and that the Koran is the word of Allah, but they don’t explain to their children the political mandates of Islamic doctrine.

When the kids become teenagers, some of them are susceptible to recruitment by the more orthodox (politically active or violent) Muslims because the teenager has already been primed — a primary identity they have is “I am a Muslim” and the recruiter only has to say, “read your Koran and discover your obligations.” And so we see that second-generation Muslims in Western democracies are more likely to become jihadists than their parents, even though their parents are peaceloving people.

This is another way peaceloving Muslims are unwittingly helping jihadists accomplish their mission.

Another couple of groups I should mention are Muslim leaders and oil billionaires. There are quite a few prominent Muslim leaders who exhort their followers to pursue Islam’s prime directive. These are not isolated leaders with little influence and few followers. These are heads of state and influencial people with huge numbers of followers .

And there are Muslim billionaires (primarily Saudi Wahhabis) who are pouring their money into building mosques and madrassas all over the world. They fund 90 percent of the world’s Islamic institutions. Unfortunately, they are promoting Wahhabism, which is a branch of orthodox Islam — dedicated to jihad; dedicated to Islam’s prime directive; dedicated to eliminating all democracies and establishing Islamic law for all people. This is not as impossible as it sounds. The world is far more Islamic today than it was even 20 years ago.

These oil billionaires have built and maintain most of the mosques in the United States and Canada, for example, and 80 percent of these mosques are actively promoting jihad .Promoting the violent overthrow of the government by jihad or any other means is against the law, but it is overridden by the protection of religious freedom. Because the jihad they preach is not extraneous to their religious teachings, but inherent in them, freedom of religion has protected them.

The oil billionaires and the Muslim leaders may have never done anything violent in their lives, and may only want a peaceful Islamic world, so they may be “peaceloving people” by most peoples’ definitions.

One final idea we should consider is that it doesn’t take a majority to cause serious trouble, which means that if the majority of Muslims are peaceful, it would be irrelevant.
So let’s get back to our original question: If the vast majority of Muslims are peaceloving people, do non-Muslims really have anything to worry about?

What is Taqiyya?

In several Quranic passages as well as the example of Muhammad, Muslims are encouraged to deceive non-Muslims when it will help protect Islam. It is known as the principle of “taqiyya” or “religious deception.”

This is less surprising if you first understand that in mainstream Islamic teachings, the world is divided into “the house of Islam” and “the house of war.” That is, part of the world is Islamic and the other part has yet to brought into the light with Allah’s holy law (Sharia).

And since relations with the non-Islamic part of the world exists in a state of war, then deceit is an appropriate strategy, used by all military commanders since the beginning of warfare.

As Raymond Ibrahim wrote, the Quranic verses 3:28 and 16:106, as well as Muhammad’s famous assertion, “War is deceit,” have all led to the formulation of a number of doctrines of “taqiyya.” And this is not an obscure point of theology. It is being practiced today by devout Muslims. See some examples of taqiyya caught on tape.

In the book, Terrorist Hunter: The Extraordinary Story of a Woman Who Went Undercover to Infiltrate the Radical Islamic Groups Operating in America, Rita Katz wrote about being at an IAP conference in Chicago. IAP is the Islamic Association for Palestine. There were lots of booths at the conference for “charitable” organizations, and at one of these booths, Katz met a man she already knew about: Muhammad Salah. She pretended she didn’t know who he was, and he introduced himself as a “Muslim human rights activist.”

Katz, a non-Muslim woman dressed as a Muslim, wrote, “He was small, thin, nearly bald. Totally harmless looking.” He told her these conferences were so important because “we can teach you about the oppression and sufferings of Muslims in America and all over the world.”

Then he told Katz his story. He had been a Palestinian with an American citizenship, a used-car salesman, working in Chicago when he went to Israel to “visit family and friends.” But in Israel he was arrested by the Israeli authorities and thrown into prison for five years!

Katz looked appropriately appalled and asked why in heaven’s name would they put him in prison? “Because the Israelis oppress innocent Palestinians,” he said. “And do you know what is the most shocking part? When I returned to the U.S., after I was tortured and I thought I was going to die in that prison, the Americans placed me under investigation and froze my assets! Me, an innocent citizen, a car dealer, a family man, father of five!”

To any other kafir this probably would have been a convincing story. The poor, oppressed Muslim! It’s just wrong to treat people that way. Those Israelis must be very cruel. Those Americans are so oppressive to Muslims!

But Katz was not an ordinary kafir. She researched people like Salah for a living. She knew all about him. This frail, innocent-looking man was the leader of the worldwide military wing of Hamas, a brutal terrorist organization! When he was arrested in Israel he had a hundred thousand dollars in cash on him. In his testimony, he admitted the money was supposed to go to “members of Hamas’s military wing.” He displayed detailed inside knowledge of Hamas’s structure and funding, and his testimony was later used as evidence in the New York trial of Musa Abu Marzook, the leader of the political bureau of Hamas (and the man who had appointed Salah to his position as leader of the military wing). Katz writes:

“Salah disclosed (in his testimony) that he’d been authorized by Marzook to recruit individuals for training in the uses of explosives to fight in the ‘holy war.’ In the United States, Salah began training ten such recruits, three of whom were chosen to carry out attacks. In addition to supervising the building of bombs, explosives, and remote detonation devices, Salah was instructed by Marzook to develop biological and chemical weapons for Hamas.”

When Nasser Hidmi was caught trying to detonate a bomb in Israel, he said he had been chosen by none other than the poor, innocent, abused, oppressed Muslim, Muhammad Salah.

This is an example of the principle of religious deception in action.

The use of taqiyya is the main reason most non-Muslims are so confused about the real nature of Islam — they are constantly being intentionally deceived by orthodox Muslims. But once you know about it, the jig is up. You are much less easily deceived.

Know the Quran


Does the Quran urge Muslims to kill infidels? Or is it a book of peace? You can read commentary on the Quran all day long, but in the back of your mind you know you may be getting more spin than facts. The only solution is to find out for yourself. And it is easy to do.

Here are some online Qurans in English.

Does the Quran tell Muslims to make war on unbelievers? I originally wanted to check this out for myself because I was skeptical that the villainizing of Islam could be Christian or Jewish or Hindu propaganda.

So I found web sites that have English translations of the Quran online like the ones above. I picked a chapter at random, which in this case was chapter 8, known as Al-Anfal (every chapter has a name) and read through it. Here are some of the verses from that chapter:

57. So if you gain the mastery over them in war, punish them severely in order to disperse those who are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson.

58. If you (O Muhammad ) fear treachery from any people throw back (their covenant) to them (so as to be) on equal terms (that there will be no more covenant between you and them). CertainlyAllâh likes not the treacherous.

59. And let not those who disbelieve think that they can outstrip (escape from the punishment). Verily, they will never be able to save themselves (fromAllâh’s Punishment).

60. And make ready against them all you can of power, including steeds of war (tanks, planes, missiles, artillery, etc.) to threaten the enemy of Allâh and your enemy, and others besides whom, you may not know but whom Allâh does know.

65. O Prophet (Muhammad )! Urge the believers to fight. If there are twenty steadfast persons amongst you, they will overcome two hundred, and if there be a hundred steadfast persons they will overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are people who do not understand.

67. It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), butAllâh desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise.

On the other side, I did see a hopeful passage in that chapter:

61. But if they incline to peace, you also incline to it, and (put your) trust in Allâh. Verily, He is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower.

But the downside is that this quote is within the context of having defeated an enemy and gained the country. And the peace has lots of stipulations, including a choice of conversion to Islam or death, or for Christians and Jews, a heavy tax and fewer rights.

I recently read a great version of the Quran. One of the things that makes Qurans difficult to read is their strange organization. The chapters are not arranged in the order they were written, but rather from the longest chapter to the shortest. So the events jump around, seemingly at random, and often the reader feels confused about what’s going on.

In addition, the passages in the Quran sometimes refer to events in Mohammad’s life, but the Quran doesn’t tell you what those events were.

And the third thing that makes the Quran difficult for a modern reader is the strange tendency of many English translations to use King James’ Bible-style Old English, using “thee” and “thou,” for example.

“A Simple Koran” fixes all three of those problems without losing the meaning of the passages. Every passage of the Quran is in “A Simple Koran,” arranged in the order it was written. The book fills in the events of Mohammad’s life so you understand what the passages are about, and the writing is normal, modern English. This is the best, most readable version I have yet to come across.

An interesting thing comes to light in reading this new version. Because the chapters are laid out in chronological order, you can clearly see the progression from tolerance at first — tolerance of the Jews, and even seeking the approval of the Jews — to rejection of them and their “evil ways,” to outright hatred, condemnation, and a call to war against them.

The way the Quran is normally laid out, the chronological order is scrambled, so you would never notice that.

The bad news is that when passages written later in Muhammad’s life contradict passages written earlier, the later one overwrites the earlier one. When reading this version in the order it was written, you can clearly see the passages get more and more violent and intolerant as Muhammad got older and more politically powerful.

I wanted to make sure this version said the same thing as the authoritative version I already own (The Holy Quran by Maulana Muhammad Ali), so I took specific passages (the Quran is numbered, chapter and verse, just like the Christian bible) from one Quran and compared it to the same passage in the other. And I found the meaning was identical. But “A Simple Koran” was much easier to read.