How United Are Republicans and Democrats About the Threat of Islamic Doctrines?

Writing about recent Pew surveys, the Pew site sums up their findings this way:

Looking both domestically and internationally, Republicans are more concerned than Democrats about the rise of Islamic extremism. About eight-in-ten Republicans (82%) are very concerned when it comes to Islamic extremism in the world and 71% are very concerned about the U.S. specifically; among Democrats, about half (51%) are very concerned internationally and 46% nationally...

An increasing share of the public believes that Islam is more likely than other religions to encourage violence among its believers, reaching a high since 2002. Currently, 50% say Islam encourages violence more than other religions, up from 43% in July and 38% in February.

Republicans continue to be more likely than Democrats to say Islam encourages violence more than other religions. But increasing shares of both parties express this view. Among Republicans, two-thirds (67%) say Islam is more likely to encourage violence — up 13 points since February; just 23% say Islam does not encourage violence more than others. About four-in-ten Democrats (42%) say Islam is more likely to encourage violence — up 14 points — while 48% say it is not more likely.

Internally, there are divisions within both parties. Conservative Republicans are 20 points more likely than moderates and liberals to say Islam encourages violence more than others (72% vs. 52%). And more conservative and moderate Democrats say this than do liberal Democrats (46% vs. 35%).

Just 33% of those under 30 say Islam encourages violence more than other religions and this sentiment has remained roughly constant over the past year. Older adults, however, are increasingly likely to say that Islam encourages violence. Fully 64% of adults 65 and older say this, an increase of 18 points since February.

Read more...

Why Stop Muslim Immigration

The following is adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism & Islam: Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat.

When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well. Here's how it works. As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

United States — Muslim 0.6%
Australia — Muslim 1.5%
Canada — Muslim 1.9%
China — Muslim 1.8%
Italy — Muslim 1.5%
Norway — Muslim 1.8%

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:

Denmark — Muslim 2%
Germany — Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%
Spain — Muslim 4%
Thailand — Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France — Muslim 8%
Philippines — Muslim 5%
Sweden — Muslim 5%
Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago — Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:

Guyana — Muslim 10%
India — Muslim 13.4%
Israel — Muslim 16%
Kenya — Muslim 10%
Russia — Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:

Bosnia — Muslim 40%
Chad — Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania — Muslim 70%
Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
Qatar — Muslim 77.5%
Sudan — Muslim 70%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:

Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
Egypt — Muslim 90%
Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
Palestine — Muslim 99%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' — the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:

Afghanistan — Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%
Somalia — Muslim 100%
Yemen — Muslim 100%

Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

"Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel." — Leon Uris, "The Haj"

It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts nor schools nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.

Learn more about Islamic doctrine: What Makes Islam So Successful?

Read more...

Another Amazing Interview Series Starts Monday, Nov 3

Coming up this week: Interviews with four more amazing fighters for freedom of thought and speech, for truth — about Islam, about political correctness, about the dangers the West is facing. Monday Nov 3 through Thursday Nov 6.

To listen, register here: http://WorldTruthSummit.com

The four people interviewed:

Tom Trento, of the United West, a major online and "real world" media presence. A recent show asks: CAIR and La Cosa Nostra — Birds of a Feather?

Heidi Mund, the brave German woman who shouted out in a major church, when an imam was giving the Muslim call to prayer, which, according to Islamic doctrine, turns the church into a mosque. Her words, heard worldwide through a video that went viral: Only Jesus Christ is Lord here!

Alexandra Belaire, atheist blogger for freedom of thought and speech. Her most recent focus: The many court cases against Connie and Marc Fournier of Free Dominion, the oldest Canadian Conservative discussion forum — now shut down.

Andre Drouin, the Herouxville town councillor who shot onto the world stage with his 2007 Herouxville Code of Life, which includes items such as:

- a man cannot stone a woman to death,
- nor burn her with acid;
- faces are not to be covered except at Halloween,
- and children cannot carry weapons, including Sikh kirpans, to school

The interviews will go online, one per day, Monday to Thursday, and will be available at no charge for two days.

And who is putting all this together? Elsa Schieder, as usual. She calls herself a truth sleuth. She cares about Western freedoms and values, and is very aware of the dangers posed by Islam and political correctness.

Register here (in the right sidebar) and you will be sent invitations to listen as the interviews become available.

Read more...

A New Series of Counterjihad Interviews With Elsa Schieder

Back in 2012 and 2013, Elsa Schieder released a series of interviews with some of the most important figures of the counterjihad movement, including Bill Warner, Robert Spencer, Nicolai Sennels, Andy Miller, and Mark Durie. The interviews were personal, revealing and inspiring.

Elsa is releasing a new series of interviews this month. To get access to these interviews, register here (it's free): Personal Journeys Toward Difficult Truths. You'll see a small registration form in the right sidebar.

The first set of interviews in the new series will become available July 28th. Elsa will post four interviews, one per day, from Monday to Thursday, at 8 pm EST. Each interview will be available for free for 48 hours. She will send a link to each interview to everyone who registers.

There will be another set of interviews in August, and the series could keep going. "The core focus of the interviews," says Elsa, "is activism." Here's what she says about the idea behind these interviews:

We start with ethics, with caring, with a sense of right and wrong.

But what do we do? A few people instantly become activists the moment they feel something is wrong. Far more of us are confused, uncertain, hesitant. We don't know what to do, what might work. We aren't sure what is real. Or we try things, but see that we're not getting our message through to people. Or we wish we knew how to do more.

Each month, I'll interview one "big name" person — someone widely known.

The other people are what I term "local heroes" — people who have found ways of reaching others in a smaller way.

This month the big name is Robert Spencer of JihadWatch, which has a worldwide reach. On top of that, he's published 13 books, including two New York Times bestsellers. His most recent book is Arab Winter Comes to America: The Truth About the War We’re In.

Then there's Rabbi Jonathan Hausman, of the Hausman Memorial Speakers Series. He's put his job on the line, by hosting, at the synagogue where he's the rabbi, a speaker series that includes Robert Spencer, Allen West … and even Geert Wilders of Fitna fame.

There's also Narain Kataria, who as a teenager experienced the partition of India. Over 1,000,000 Hindu and Sikh deaths. Now he aims to educate about the menace of terrorism all over the world — through the Indian American Intellectuals Forum, the Human Rights Coalition against Radical Islam, and more. Most of his activism has taken place after retirement — quite a common occurrence.

And who will be fourth?

It could be Chris Logan, of North American Infidels. He's a 12-year veteran of this war most people in the West refuse to recognize is happening. It could be Alexandra Belaire (Canada) or Daniel Scot (Australia) or Meir Weinstein (Canada) or Andrew Harrod (United States). It might even be Tamar Yonah, program director and talk show host at Israel National Radio. She's living "in the eye of the storm," Israel. Or it may well be Meir Weinstein (Canada), who has been organizing people to confront, for example, in pro-Hamas anti-Israel rallies.

In August, the "big name" person will be the remarkable Bill Warner, who has a PhD in Physics, but has dedicated himself to counter-jihad since 9/11.

Register here to get the link to the interviews.

Read more...

The Search For The Moderate Muslim

This may be one of the most difficult issues to deal with for those of us who are working to defeat the third jihad: What about the moderate Muslims? Is there such a thing? What does "moderate" mean?

I think what most of us hope it means is "a Muslim that openly and definitely repudiates the violent, intolerant, supremacist passages in the Koran."

But the more I read about mainstream "moderate" Muslim organizations in America, the more I realize that what I hope "moderate" means and what those "moderate Muslims" mean by the term are entirely different. I am getting the feeling that the term "moderate Muslim" is not only pointless, but misleading — perhaps even deliberately misleading.

We should stop using the term. We should come up with a name for Muslims who straightforwardly reject the violent, intolerant passages in the Koran and openly reject the supremacist ideology strewn throughout Islamic teachings.

In my opinion, someone who does that is not really a Muslim, but maybe they still enjoy praying five times a day and fasting during Ramadan, so they might prefer to call themselves Muslims. Maybe they don't want to be rejected by their community and family. Who am I to tell someone what they call themselves?

On the other hand, we non-Muslims need a term that draws a distinction between the two types of Muslims. One type is dangerous to non-Muslims and one is not. A Muslim may not care about this distinction, but it's pretty important to us non-Muslims.

I heard Walid Phares use the term "democracy-seeking Muslims" and I thought that was pretty good, but it doesn't go far enough. Until a Muslim acknowledges that there are, in fact, calls to violence and intolerance against non-Muslims in their central holy book, and then repudiates those specific Koranic passages, I don't feel that Muslim can be trusted.

I know that would sound terrible to someone who doesn't know anything about Islam. But really, this is a pretty straightforward matter. If you call yourself a Muslim, almost everybody on earth is assuming you think the Koran contains the core teachings you will follow. For us non-Muslims who have read the book, that's a scary thought. For those of you who haven't read it yet, these passages will give you an idea: What the Koran Says About Non-Muslims.

So a firm repudiation of those passages would at least acknowledge that the Muslim knows those passages exist and acknowledges that they should be rejected. I know it is entirely possible someone saying so could be lying, but it would at least be a start.

What should we call Muslims who repudiate intolerant and supremacist Islamic teachings? "Moderate" isn't good enough. How about "Scrubbed Muslims?" "Jihad-rejecting Muslims?" "Freed Muslims?" "Friendly Muslims?" "Non-jihadi Muslims?" "Pluralist Muslims?"

I like "Jihad-rejecting Muslims," or JRMs. As far as non-Muslims are concerned, JRMs are the only ones we should engage in "interfaith dialogs" and the only ones allowed to provide counsel for the FBI and the only ones translating documents for security services.

JRMs are the only Muslims who should be allowed to preach in mosques in free countries or teach in madrassas. This is just simple, reasonable self-preservation. A person who calls himself a Muslim but does not openly reject the killing of non-Muslims for being non-Muslims, and who does not reject the overthrow of legitimate democracies, and who does not reject Shari'a law, should not be allowed into those positions. That should be a no-brainer for any person who cares about their government's survival.

So far there aren't many Muslims who are clearly JRMs. The term "moderate Muslims" lets them off the hook — they don't have to risk rejection by their families or perhaps even risk their lives openly repudiating specific Koranic passages, and non-Muslims are left with no way to tell who is a friend and who is a foe.

The term "moderate Muslim" also allows Muslims to remain "undeclared." They don't have to decide whose side they are on. They can secretly harbor a wish that some day their democratic country will be ruled by Shari'a, that some day Islam will reign supreme over the whole world, and that some day all kafirs will pay the jizya (tax on non-Muslims), and yet they may look in every way like a good citizen, trusted by non-Muslims, allowed into influential positions, etc. But if circumstances permitted, they would work toward their Islamic supremacist fantasy. They can function like a kind of sleeper cell in our midst.

By making our own term and defining it, we can make a clear distinction for ourselves and for Muslims, between who is an enemy and who is a friend.

I don't know if simply rejecting jihad would be even be enough, however. One of the most fundamental principles of Islam is that loyalty to Islam comes before loyalty to anything else, including one's country or even one's family. Wouldn't that be a potential problem if the person is working for the government? But maybe our definition of a JRM could include a repudiation of this Islamic hierarchy of loyalties as well.

Another problem is that it says in the Koran 91 times that a Muslim should use Mohammad as an example to emulate. And Mohammad ordered the torture of people, personally participated in beheading 600 people in one night, ordered and led raids on caravans, captured, owned and had sex with slaves, and spent the last ten years of his life conquering and subjugating people. So the definition of a JRM would also have to include a bold rejection of the idea that Mohammad is someone who should be imitated.

Since the stakes are so high for us non-Muslims (being the target of the violence), and since it is easy enough to find out what it actually says in the Koran (that it's a Muslim's duty to fight against the unbelievers until no god is worshiped in the world but Allah), we would be foolish to cavalierly grant our trust to Muslims until they prove themselves trustworthy.

The onus, the burden of proof, is not on non-Muslims.

Muslims will have to prove themselves trustworthy. This whole thing is difficult for all of us, but this distinction must be made. It's a sane response for non-Muslims to make to this sticky situation.

If any Muslim thinks this is offensive or intolerable or somehow outrageous, I think we have discovered someone who is trying to pretend those dangerous passages are not in their holy book, and that sounds like someone we cannot trust.

But if non-Muslims named and defined who we would be willing to trust, and we did it clearly and defiantly, we might find out how many Muslims are on the side of freedom, equality, and pluralism. What do you think?

Read more...