Definition of a Memetic Immune System

Thursday, September 30, 2010

In any collection of memes, you will often find memes that help protect the memeplex from being attacked or destroyed or weakened. For example, when non-Arabic speaking non-Muslims learn what is in the Quran, Muslims will use something in the Islamic memeplex: That the Quran can only be understood in Arabic.

So unless someone reads the Quran in Arabic, anything they say can be discounted. This is an example of Islam's memetic immune system.

Read more about this in the book, Thought Contagion.



Tuesday, September 28, 2010

The following is an excerpt from an article entitled, The Brain's Negative Bias:

Researchers at Duke University Medical Center hooked people up to a high-resolution functional MRI machine (to track the blood flow in the brain) and flashed pictures in front of them. The pictures were of either a square or a circle. They were asked to push a button in their right hand when they saw the square, and push the button in their left hand for the circle.

The squares and circles were presented in a random order, but of course short patterns would sometimes emerge — a string of all squares, for example, or alternation between a square and a circle for several cycles.

Their brains reacted when one of these short patterns ended. Their brains automatically detected and generalized patterns, and very quickly. They were given no reward for detecting patterns. They were not asked to detect patterns. In fact, they were told the pictures would be flashed randomly. Yet still, without any effort on their part, their brains automatically saw patterns in the random events and generalized — began to expect what the next picture would be. In previous similar studies testing their reaction time, the volunteers had a slower reaction time when an expected pattern was broken.

Your brain is predisposed to generalize. It automatically tries to see patterns. And for the most part, our ability to generalize is a good thing. Many moons ago, Ignaz Semmelweis noticed that when a doctor performed a dissection and then assisted in a birth, the women had a tendency to get childbed fever. He was able to detect a pattern, make a generalization, and his ability to generalize led to the practice of using antiseptics and sterilization, saving millions of unnecessary deaths over time.

Charles Darwin was able to create a generalization that governs the evolution of all of life. Quite a generalization! From that single generalization, new understandings about diseases were discovered that greatly improved the effectiveness of doctors. In fact, whole new sciences have issued from that single generalization.

What I'm trying to say is that those mistakes our brains tend to make (like overgeneralizations) are the inevitable secondary results of our great intelligence.

Your ability to recognize a face comes from your brain's ability to complete a pattern with minimal clues. It has been exceedingly challenging to create computers that can do it, and they still aren't as good at it as you are on a bad day without even trying. Your brain recognizes faces without any effort on your part. Your brain is so good at completing a pattern, even in dim light, even if you can only see half of the face, you recognize immediately who it is.

But this amazing ability also sometimes causes us to see patterns that don't really exist. We see a man in the moon. We see a horse in the clouds. We see the big dipper, the little dipper, Orion's belt. Our brains can take the most scant clues and see a pattern, without us making even the smallest effort to do so.

But especially given our brains' bias toward negativity, we also see patterns that create pessimism, cynicism, and defeatism — patterns that our brains have created out of minimal clues — patterns that don't actually exist.

I used to work with a woman who had two failed marriages and concluded, "All men are pigs." From only two examples, she created a generalization that included all three billion men on the planet! Her cynicism, her unwillingness to allow any men to get close to her, was the side-effect of two common mistakes our brains tend to make: 1) the brain's amazing ability to see a pattern with minimal clues, and 2) our brains tendency to look for evidence that confirms an already-existing conclusion.


Once you have concluded something, you have a strong tendency to notice evidence that supports your conclusion and to explain away or ignore information that invalidates your conclusion, not only in your immediate perception, which is bad enough, but also in your memory.

In an experiment, for example, volunteers were asked to read a story about a woman. Let's call her Clare. Two days later, half the volunteers were asked to recall the story and decide how suited Clare was for a career as a real-estate agent. The other half were asked to rate her suitability for a job as a librarian. They were all asked to remember some examples of Clare's introversion and extroversion.

The volunteers looking at her ability as a real-estate agent remembered more examples of Clare's extroversion.

Those assessing her ability as a librarian recalled more instances of Clare's introversion.

The volunteers were not asked to bias their data. They had no stake in the matter. They weren't rewarded in any way to answer one way or another. But that's what human brains do. Your brain naturally and automatically looks at the world and your own memory as if it is trying to confirm whatever conclusions you've already drawn.

You are not the helpless victim of your brain's natural functioning. You can do something about it. But here we're looking at how the virus of negativity can enter the system. We're asking the question: "At what points are we vulnerable to infection?" How do otherwise healthy, reasonable people become pessimistic, cynical, and defeatist? One way is through the natural mistakes human brains are prone to make, combined with the brain's negative bias.

Let's recap. Human brains react more strongly to negative than positive information. They make certain kinds of mistakes in the way they process information — mistakes like overgeneralizing, seeing things in too black-and-white, a tendency to confirm conclusions they have already formed.

And because the brain is already biased toward the negative, those cognitive mistakes are more likely to be made in the direction of pessimism, cynicism, and defeatism.

A form of therapy has sprung up to directly deal with this phenomenon, called cognitive therapy. A cognitive therapist tries to root out the mistakes clients make in their thinking. Those mistakes are causing or sustaining their depression or anxiety. The therapy is simple, straightforward, and short term, and yet it has proven to be surprisingly effective. Cognitive therapy is the most thoroughly-researched form of therapy and when compared to other forms of therapy, it wins. It is the most effective of all therapies, both from objective measurements as well as the clients' own reports.

If you were a client, the most important thing a cognitive therapist would do for you is undermine your confidence in your mistaken conclusions. Overconfidence in our own conclusions is one of the worst mistakes we naturally make. We have a natural propensity — built into the brain — to draw conclusions with insufficient evidence and to hold those conclusions with excessive confidence. And to defend those conclusions with unjustified ardor.

Read more about the dangers of overgeneralizing.


Tit For Tat

Monday, September 27, 2010

In the 1970's the political scientist Robert Axelrod created a computer "world" using the famous Prisoner's Dilemma as a game computer programs could play against each other. He wanted to find out which computer program would succeed the best.

The Prisoner's Dilemma is a hypothetical situation used to test whether someone will cooperate or compete, and how well the strategies work in the long run.

The game is played by two people. If one cooperates and the other competes, the one who cooperated will lose and the competitive one (the selfish one) will win. If they both compete, they both lose, but not as badly.

If they both cooperate, they both win. That's how the game is set up.

If you were one of the prisoners, what would you do? That's the dilemma. How much can you count on the cooperative nature of the other person?

The game is often played repeatedly with the same two people, each of them choosing to cooperate or take advantage of the other through successive rounds of the game.

The Prisoner's Dilemma game is designed to parallel real life. If two people in real life cooperate with each other, it very often works to their mutual advantage. But if one person cooperates and the other takes advantage, it often works out very well for the selfish one and very poorly for the cooperative one.

On the other hand, if you go around preempting people — trying to take advantage of them before they take advantage of you — you will miss out on the advantages of cooperation, people will resent you, and you might get people working against you.

What is the best long-term strategy? This is the dilemma we are faced with every day, personally as well as culturally.

Robert Axelrod, the man who created the computer world, invited computer programmers to create a program to play the Prisoner's Dilemma with other programs. The question is, which program would succeed the best?

In a game that resembles the real dilemma we all face, what strategy is the most effective?

The program that proved the best was named TIT FOR TAT. It was designed by Anatol Rapoport and it was one of the simplest programs submitted. For the first interaction, it would cooperate. After that, it would repay in kind whatever the other did. That was the whole strategy.

If the other cooperated, TIT FOR TAT benefited. So did the other. If the other took advantage, TIT FOR TAT cut its losses immediately.

As the game went on, TIT FOR TAT gained more (and lost less) than any other program. In The Moral Animal, Robert Wright wrote, "More than the steadily mean, more than the steadily nice, and more than various 'clever' programs whose elaborate rules made them hard for other programs to read, the straightforwardly conditional TIT FOR TAT was, in the long run, self-serving."

And it's the most fair to everyone involved.

I suggest we in the West use the same program when dealing with other countries and other cultures. We should begin with tolerance and cooperation, and then be as tolerant and cooperative as the other is from that point on.


Female Genital Mutilation, a Muslim Practice

Sunday, September 26, 2010

THE FOLLOWING is an excerpt from the excellent little volume, Sharia Law for Non-Muslims. The practice of female genital mutilation is common in many Muslim countries, and Muslims have doctrinal support from their primary religious teachings to justify it and continue it. From here to the end of this article is the excerpt:

It is unfortunate that the term circumcision is applied to both the removal of the foreskin of the male and the removal of the clitoris of the woman. There is no comparison.

[Bukhari 7,72,779] Mohammed said, "Five practices are characteristics of the ancient prophets: circumcision, shaving the pubic hair, cutting the moustaches short, clipping the nails, and depilating the hair of the armpits."

This hadith refers to the circumcision of female genitalia. It assumes that both the man and the woman are circumcised.

[Muslim 003,0684] [...] Abu Musa then said, "When is a bath obligatory?" Aisha responded, "You have asked the right person. Mohammed has said that a bath is obligatory when a man is encompassed by a woman and their circumcised genitalia touch."

Circumcision is part of the Sharia law. Here is the deceptive translation:

e4.3 Circumcision is obligatory for both men and women. For men it consists of removing the prepuce from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce of the clitoris (not the clitoris itself, as some mistakenly assert).

However what the Arabic actually says is:

e4.3 Circumcision is obligatory (for every male and female) by cutting off the piece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male, but circumcision of the female is by cutting out the clitoris (this is called Hufaad)."

This deceptive translation obscures the Sharia law. This deception is called taqiyya, a form of sacred deception.

At the battle of Badr, we have a reference to the custom of removing the clitoris.

Ishaq 564 Hamza said, 'Come here, you son of a female circumciser.' Now his mother was Umm Anmar, a female circumciser (one who circumcised girls) in Mecca. Then Hamza smote him and killed him.

Read more on this barbaric practice: Female Genital Mutilation.

And Islam and Female Genital Mutilation.


What Does Geert Wilders Think Should Be Done?

Saturday, September 25, 2010

IN AN ARTICLE on the Canada Free Press, Publius Huldah wrote:

Dutch Member of Parliament Geert Wilders lists ten steps Western countries must take to stop the Islamization of their countries. All ten steps are mandated by our Declaration of Independence, and are consistent with our Constitution:

(1) Stop cultural relativism: We must formalize the idea that we have one dominant culture that is based on Judaism & Christianity (Wilders adds “humanism”).

(2) Stop pretending that Islam is a religion.

(3) Show the true face of fundamentalist Islam. It is a brutal totalitarian ideology.

(4) Stop all immigration from Muslim countries. For Muslims who are already citizens, tell them that if they adhere to our values and our Constitution, they may stay as equals. But if they deviate, we will expel them.

(5) Outlaw Sharia and deport practitioners.

(6) Require Muslims to sign a legally-binding pledge of integration and allegiance.

(7) Stop building mosques.

(8) Seek reciprocity with Saudi Arabia for Western churches & synagogues.

(9) Close all Islamic schools — they are fascist institutions teaching hate.

(10) Remove our current weak leaders.


No Right to Apply Sharia Here

IN AN ARTICLE on the Canada Free Press, Publius Huldah wrote:

Not only do Muslims claim the “right” to impose shariah in the Muslim communities springing up throughout our Country, they also claim the “right” to impose shariah law in the public square: They demand shariah compliant financial institutions, foot baths in public places, that wine, sausages, and the like be banned from their presence, that they be allowed to shut down public streets for “prayers”, etc.

Do Muslims have the “right” to apply their law here? No! Art. VI, clause 2 of Our Constitution says:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

OUR Constitution and laws authorized by OUR Constitution are the supreme law of this land — and anything to the contrary must fall. It violates Our Constitution for Muslims to practice shariah here! Muslims who thus seek to overthrow Our Constitution and replace it with shariah are guilty of criminal sedition. The federal government has the duty to prosecute them for sedition — or deport them.


No First Amendment Right to Build Mosques

IN AN ARTICLE on the Canada Free Press, Publius Huldah wrote:

We are told Muslims have a “First Amendment right” to build mosques, proselytize, and implement shariah here. But is that what the First Amendment says? No! Let’s read it:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment doesn’t grant any rights to anybody! All it does is prohibit CONGRESS from making laws about religion, speech, the press, or assembly!

So Muslims do not have a “First Amendment right” to build mosques, proselytize, and implement shariah here.


Making it Public Makes it Harder to Change

Sunday, September 19, 2010

In an article entitled, Bias for Confirmation, we find this useful little tidbit:

In an experiment, people were asked to determine the length of a line. One group was told to decide how long the lines were in their heads; another group was told to write it on a Magic Pad (pads for children that erase what you write when you lift up the top sheet) and then erase it before anyone saw it; and a third group was told to write their conclusions on a piece of paper, sign it, and give it to the researcher.

Then the subjects were given information indicating their first conclusion was wrong, and they were given an opportunity to change their decision. Those who decided in their heads changed their conclusions the easiest; those who wrote it on the Magic Pad were more reluctant to change their minds; and those who declared their conclusions publicly remained most convinced their first conclusion was correct.

Their feeling of certainty was an illusion; it wasn’t related to their conclusion’s accuracy. It was being influenced by another factor — how publicly they had made their conclusions.


The Ultimate Trojan Horse of Islam

In a comment on an article on a cyber-jihad group implicated in a virus attack, a commenter going by the name "profitsbeard" wrote:

Islam is the ultimate "worm."

Infesting human software for 1350 years.

A Trojan Horse, pretending to be an Abrahamic religion, when it is actually a method of destroying the original moral code of the infected recipient and substituting the predatory totalitarianism virus of a mass-murdering warlord.


An Experiment

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

In a comment on an article in the Brussels Journal, you will find this comment:

I wonder how critics would have reacted if, instead of threatening to hold a physical Quran burning event outside his small church in Florida, the pastor had called upon people worldwide to download a copy of the Quran from the internet and, at a specified time and date, delete it, thus rendering said item in question "destroyed?"


How Many Muslims Are Loyal Citizens of Their Adopted Western Democracies?

In the article, The Specter of Muslim Disloyalty in America, Raymond Ibrahim writes:

Koran 5:51 warns Muslims against "taking the Jews and Christians as friends and allies … whoever among you takes them for friends and allies, he is surely one of them," i.e., he becomes a non-believing "infidel," the worst thing in Islam. According to authoritative Muslim exegete, al-Tabari, Koran 5:51 means that the Muslim who "allies with them [non-Muslims] and enables them against the believers, that same one is a member of their faith and community." Similar scriptures include Koran 3:28, 4:89, 4:144, 5:54, 6:40, 9:23, and 58:22; the latter simply states that true Muslims do not befriend non-Muslims — "even if they be their fathers, sons, brothers, or kin." Conversely, according to Muhammad, "A Muslim is the brother of a Muslim. He neither oppresses him nor humiliates him nor looks down upon him…. All things of a Muslim are inviolable for his brother in faith: his blood, his wealth, and his honor" — precisely those three things Islamic law singles out as not being vouchsafed to free infidels.

The problem here is that these scriptures are not mere words; American Muslims act on them. Consider the ongoing case of Nasser Abdo, an infantryman assigned to the 101st Airborne Division, who refuses to deploy to Afghanistan: "I don't believe I can involve myself in an army that wages war against Muslims. I don't believe I could sleep at night if I take part, in any way, in the killing of a Muslim…. I can't deploy with my unit to Afghanistan and participate in the war — I can't both deploy and be a Muslim." And why is that? "Abdo cited Islamic scholars and verses from the Quran [no doubt such as the above] as reasons for his decision to ask for separation from the Army." Indeed, his loyalty to foreign Afghani Muslims is such that, if he does not get discharged, "he will, apparently, be facing a prison sentence."

Rather than going quietly to prison, major Nidal Hasan went on the infamous Fort Hood killing spree, slaying thirteen Americans. Maintaining that "Muslims shouldn't kill Muslims," he was, like Abdo, adamant about not being deployed to a Muslim nation, his "worst nightmare." He was also "very upfront about being a Muslim first and an American second," thereby showing where his true loyalty lay. Tabari's words come to mind: the Muslim who "allies with them [e.g., Americans] and enables them against the believers, that same one is a member of their faith and community," i.e., he too becomes an infidel.

And of course there was sergeant Hasan Akbar, who was convicted of murder for killing two American soldiers and wounding fourteen in a grenade attack in Kuwait: "He launched the attack because he was concerned U.S. troops would kill fellow Muslims in Iraq." Previous to the attack, he confessed to his diary: "I may not have killed any Muslims, but being in the army is the same thing. I may have to make a choice very soon on who to kill."

At this point, one may justly ask: if Muslim disloyalty to non-Muslims is a ubiquitous phenomenon, why are most examples limited to the military? Simple: Islam is primarily concerned with actual deeds; and the military is one of those rare institutions that requires people to demonstrate their loyalty through action, such as, by going to the frontlines and, if need be, combating America's enemies — even if they be one's coreligionists. It is therefore only natural that Muslim loyalty/disloyalty is primarily revealed in military related scenarios, including instrumental support via food or other aid. Concerning this latter, Muhammad said, "One [Muslim] who equips a person on his way to raid [the enemy's camps] in Allah's path [jihad] is considered to have the same status as the raider [jihadist]." The willing Muslim financial enabler of the infidel American soldier thus acquires the same infidel status.

Read it all: The Specter of Muslim Disloyalty in America.

What should we do about this? Read A New Era in Muslim-Non-Muslim Relations.


How the Dutch Handled Islamic Encroachment in the 1600s

IN 1622 THE DUTCH entered into a treaty with the pasha of Algiers in which payments to the pasha would “buy the peace” and Dutch merchant vessels would be allowed to pass in the Mediterranean unmolested. By 1624 the depredations of the Algerian corsairs on Dutch ships returned to the pre-treaty levels. The Algerians would capture the Dutch ships, seize their cargo as war booty and return to Algiers with the Dutch crews who would then be sold into slavery throughout the Islamic empire. All of which of course is sanctioned by the Islamic canon that enjoins jihad upon the non-Muslims wherever they may be encountered.

The Dutch leaders had their fill of the unprovoked jihad and so dispatched a squadron of warships under the command of Admiral Lambert Hendrickszoon (”Mooy Lambert”) to deal with the pasha. Admiral Lambert soon arrived at the mouth of the Algerian harbor with several Algerian corsairs in tow that he had captured along his way. He anchored his squadron in the harbor and sent word to the pasha that he demanded the immediate release of all Dutch citizens and return of their ships and cargo. If the pasha did not comply, the admiral would hang all of the Algerian officers and crewman in his possession. The pasha refused, believing that Lambert was bluffing. Lambert promptly turned his squadron out to sea with every one of the Algerian captives hanging from the spars as the Dutch squadron disappeared over the horizon.

The spectre horrified the Algerian populace and the city convulsed with wailing crowds and tumultuous clamor at the gates of the pasha’s palace. There was no time for the pasha and his officers to fully ponder the implications of the event as soon they beheld the return of Lambert’s squadron with a fresh collection of captured corsairs and their crews. Lambert again anchored in the harbor and repeated his demands with the same threat if they were not met. The pasha relented immediately, all the Dutch captives in the city were freed and their property restored. Admiral Lambert turned to sea and returned to Holland.

[From: "Dutch Jihad Diplomacy", McDonough Heritage Group,]


Traeh: Mohammad's Ruling on Raping Captive Women

Sunday, September 12, 2010

In the comments on an article on Jihad Watch, Traeh posted this:


From Sahih Muslim, one of the canonical hadith collections:
Book 008, Number 3371:

Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger [Muhammad] (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.

Notice that Muhammad did not say, "do not rape your captive women." He merely says it does not matter if his soldiers withdraw before ejaculation, because souls destined by Allah to be born will be born regardless.

From Sahih Bukhari, the most canonical hadith collection:
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 459:

Narrated Ibn Muhairiz:
I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, "We went out with Allah's Apostle for the Ghazwa [battle at which Muhammad was present] of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interruptus, we said, 'How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah's Apostle [Muhammad] who is present among us?" We asked (him) about it and he said, 'It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist."

Again notice that, in answer to his soldiers' queries Muhammad doesn't say "You must not force your captives to have intercourse with you." He says only that coitus interruptus, withdrawing prior to ejaculation, is pointless, because souls predestined to exist will exist regardless.

Again in Sahih Bukhari:
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 137:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle [Muhammad] about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection."

Thus Muhammad does not forbid his men to rape their captives, but merely says that it's better not to do coitus interruptus. His men should keep going till coitus is complete.

In the Qur'an "Allah" says at least 25 times that Muhammad is to be obeyed. That is one reason why the vast majority of Muslim scholars accept the Bukhari hadiths and a few other hadith collections as authoritative for Muslims: canonical hadiths show what Muhammad did and said, permitted and forbade.


Traeh: Extreme Discrimination Against Non-Muslims

In the comments on an article on Jihad Watch, Traeh posted this:


From page 590 of The Reliance of the Traveller/Umdat Al-Salik:

The indemnity [compensation for damages] for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man.

The indemnity for a Jew or a Christian is one-third the indemnity paid for a Muslim.

The indemnity for a Zoroastrian [the Persian pre-Islamic religion, to which some Iranians still adhere] is one-fifteenth of that of a Muslim.

From the back cover of Reliance of the Traveller:

"There is no doubt that this translation is a valuable and important work, whether as a textbook for teaching Islamic jurisprudence to English speakers, or as a legal reference for use by scholars, educated laymen, and students in this language." - Dr. Taha Jabir al-Alwani, president of the International Institute of Islamic Thought
The back cover also says the book the first translation of a standard Islamic legal reference in a European language to be certified by Al-Azhar, the Muslim world's oldest institution of higher learning. It presents an explanative interpretation of Umdat al-Salik, a classic Sunni manual of Sacred law...

According to Encylopedia Brittanica, Al-Azhar University is the "chief center of Islamic and Arabic learning in the world..."


Thomas Jefferson's Quran

Friday, September 10, 2010

THE FOLLOWING was written by Dr. Samuel L. Blumenfeld:

On Friday, August 13th, President Obama welcomed members of the Muslim community to the White House to celebrate the Islamic holiday of Ramadan with an Iftar banquet — the meal served after the sunrise-to-sunset fast. Ramadan is the ninth month in the Islamic lunar calendar.

In the course of his flattering remarks about the great contributions of Muslims to America, the President mentioned the presence at the banquet of two Muslim members of Congress: Andre Carson, Democrat from Indiana, and Keith Ellison, Democrat from Minnesota, the latter of whom took his oath on Thomas Jefferson’s copy of the Quran, which has been preserved in the Library of Congress.

What the President didn’t mention is why Jefferson bought a Quran in London and why he read it. In preparing for war, he read it to find out what kind of religion the rulers of the Barbary States on the coast of North Africa believed in.

For centuries the Muslim pirates had cruised the Mediterranean Sea, capturing ships and taking prisoners, forcing Christian nations to pay tribute for freedom of passage. To avoid such confrontations, some Christian nations were willing to appease the Islamic enemy by signing treaties requiring them to pay a certain amount of tribute each year. It was a form of extortion that Muslims could impose on frightened Christians.

The pirates also raided coastline villages and took prisoners. The reason why so many Christian Greek coastal villages were built up in the hills was to provide protection against the depredations of the Muslims. Millions of Africans and thousands of Christian Europeans and Americans were enslaved by these raiders, who killed many non-Muslim older men and women and kidnapped young women and children to be sold as concubines. The boys were often mutilated to create eunuchs for use in harems and as servants.

Congressman Keith Ellison, born in Detroit to a Catholic family, was converted at age 19 to Islam while at Wayne State University. In law school, he wrote articles in support of Louis Farrakhan, with whom he is no longer affiliated. He said he chose to use Jefferson’s Quran because it showed that “a visionary like Jefferson” believed that wisdom could be gleaned from many sources. Actually, it wasn’t wisdom that Jefferson gleaned from the Quran, but a realistic understanding of what the United States was up against with the Barbary Pirates.

In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and John Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Tripolitan ambassador to Britain. American merchant ships had been captured by the Barbary corsairs and their crews and passengers imprisoned. They could only by freed by the payment of large ransoms. The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty to spare their ships these piratical attacks. Congress was willing to appease the Barbary pirates if only they could gain peace at a reasonable price.

During the meeting, Jefferson and Adams asked the ambassador why Muslims held such hostility toward America, a nation with which they had had no previous contacts. Jefferson later reported to John Jay what the ambassador had told them: the reason for the Muslims’ enmity was that “It was written in their Koran that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman (Muslim) who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to [P]aradise.”

What was Paradise like? George Sale, the translator of the English edition of the Quran that Jefferson had purchased, wrote in his commentary:

[T]he very meanest in paradise will have eighty thousand servants, seventy-two wives of the girls of paradise, besides the wives he had in this world, and a tent erected for him of pearls, jacinths, and emeralds, of a very large extent; and, according to another tradition, will be waited on by three hundred attendants while he eats, will be served in dishes of gold, whereof three hundred shall be set before him at once, containing each a different kind of food...[T]here will be no want of wine, which, though forbidden in this life, will yet be freely allowed to be drunk in the next, and without danger, since the wine of paradise will not inebriate, as that we drink here...[T]he inhabitants of paradise will not need to ease themselves, nor even to blow their nose, for that all superfluities will be discharged and carried off by perspiration, or a sweat as odoriferous as musk, after which their appetite shall return afresh.

So Jefferson was well aware of the superstitious lunacy and irrationality that motivated the Muslims willing to die as martyrs for Mohammed. And when he became President, he resolved to repel force by force. Within days of his inauguration, Jefferson ordered four warships to sail to the Barbary Coast and blockade and attack any Barbary State that was at war with the United States. Jefferson and his Cabinet all agreed that American power was needed to protect the young nation’s commercial interests in the Mediterranean.

Joseph Wheelan writes in Jefferson’s War that the third U.S. President “pitted a modern republic with a free-trade, entrepreneurial creed against a medieval autocracy whose credo was piracy and terror. It matched an ostensibly Christian nation against an avowed Islamic one that professed to despise Christians…. Jefferson was willing to send a largely untried squadron across the Atlantic to go to war with a people whose customs, history, and religion were alien to the early American experience.”

The new President did not have a CIA to tell him what the enemy was like. He found that out by reading the Quran he had bought for his own edification. In other words, Jefferson’s copy of the Quran helped him understand the nature and mentality of the Muslim enemy. He was wise enough to do his own research long before the United States government had any intelligence apparatus.

The Barbary War was the first foreign war fought and won by the newly independent United States. After many attempts to appease the duplicitous Barbary Muslims, the U.S. finally decided that force was the only way to put an end to the piracy. And thanks to Jefferson, a new U.S. Navy was created to fight and win this war.

The result was that the United States and the Christian nations of Europe were then able to keep the Muslims at bay for over a hundred years. The French went so far as to invade Algeria and colonize it with Europeans. But in 1960, Charles de Gaulle undid it all — and now there are over five million Muslims in France. Indeed, the loss of Christian nerve has once more opened the gates of the West to a barbaric Muslim offensive.

It’s hard to believe that all this history is unknown to Congressman Ellison as well as President Obama, who knows full well what is in the Quran and what motivates the global jihadists. He doesn’t need the CIA to tell him what we are up against in this new phase of our never-ending war with Islam, for as long as the religion of Islam exists it will never disobey its Prophet’s command to conquer unbelievers and dominate the world.

Dr. Samuel L. Blumenfeld is the author of nine books on education including NEA: Trojan Horse in American Education, The Whole Language/OBE Fraud, and The Victims of Dick & Jane and Other Essays. Mr. Blumenfeld’s columns have appeared in such diverse publications as Reason, The New American, The Chalcedon Report, Insight, Education Digest, Vital Speeches, WorldNetDaily, and others.


Second Generation Muslims More Orthodox than Parents

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

From an article in the Telegraph about a recent study by the British think-tank, Policy Exchange:

A bleak picture of a generation of young British Muslims radicalised by anti-Western views and misplaced multicultural policies is shown in a survey published today.

The study found disturbing evidence of young Muslims adopting more fundamentalist beliefs on key social and political issues than their parents or grandparents.

Forty per cent of Muslims between the ages of 16 and 24 said they would prefer to live under sharia law in Britain, a legal system based on the teachings of the Koran. The figure among over-55s, in contrast, was only 17 per cent.

In some countries, people found guilty under sharia law face penalties such as beheading, stoning, the severing of a hand or being lashed.

Turning to issues of faith, 36 per cent of the young people questioned said they believed that a Muslim who converts to another religion should be "punished by death." Among the over 55s, the figure is only 19 per cent.

Three out of four young Muslims would prefer Muslim women to "choose to wear the veil or hijab," compared to only a quarter of over-55s.

The Policy Exchange report, Living Together Apart: British Muslims and the Paradox of Multiculturalism — says there is strong evidence of a "growing religiosity" among young Muslims, with an increasing minority firmly rejecting Western life.


Why Are People Suspicious of Muslims?

Monday, September 6, 2010

I loved the comment below by Robert Spencer (from this article). He said basically, you've got to be kidding me if you think people are angry at Muslims and suspicious of them because people like us are critical of Islamic doctrine. Has it ever occurred to them that people may be angry at Muslims and suspicious of them because of...

"Osama bin Laden? Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood jihadist? Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square jihadist? Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Christmas underwear jihadist? Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, who murdered a soldier at a Little Rock Army recruiting center? Adam Gadahn? John Walker Lindh? 9/11? The London jihad bombings? The Madrid jihad bombings? The Mumbai jihad bombings? The Beslan jihad massacres? The Bali jihad bombings? The thousands of jihad attacks that have taken place around the world since 9/11? Not to mention the arrogance and dishonesty of "peaceful" Islamic spokesmen like the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, his unctuous and glaringly insincere wife Daisy Khan, Honest Ibe Hooper, and Zead Ramadan himself? And so many others."


What Makes a Sociopath a Sociopath?

Sunday, September 5, 2010

THIS IS AN excerpt from an article on sociopaths:

I've been reading and writing about oxytocin lately (see the article, Peace, Love, and Oxytocin) and came across an interesting experiment. Paul Zak, one of the primary researchers in the field, found that when you give someone a dose of oxytocin, they tend to become more generous.

"Interestingly," wrote Joyce Gramza, "Zak found that oxytocin had no effect on two percent of the participants and that these students fit the personality profile of sociopaths."

Oxytocin is a naturally-produced hormone that creates feelings of closeness, comfort, relaxation, empathy for others, and trust.

The estimates given in the research on sociopaths is that one to four percent of the population is sociopathic. Now with this study, coming from an entirely different field, maybe we can be more specific and narrow it down to two percent. One in fifty. If you know more than fifty people, chances are you know a sociopath.


Is Sharia Law Complex and Difficult to Understand?

Friday, September 3, 2010

In the process of debunking a myth, Robert Spencer says something important about Sharia law. First the myth:

Mosques try to spread sharia law in the United States. In Islam, sharia ("the Way" to God) theoretically governs every human act. But Muslims do not agree on what sharia says; there is no one sharia book of laws. Most mosques in America do not teach Islamic law for a simple reason: It's too complicated for the average believer and even for some imams.

And now, Spencer's answer:

The Saudi, Iranian and Sudanese authorities don't seem to have notable trouble sorting it out. In any case, the idea that Sharia is some complex and nebulous collection of arcana is a myth that is growing increasingly popular as Islamic supremacists try to advance Sharia in the U.S. In reality, "the four Sunni schools of Islamic law, Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali, are identical in approximately 75 percent of their legal conclusions..." ('Umdat al-Salik, p. vii). Islamic law regarding the stoning of adulterers, the amputation of the hand for theft, the institutionalized discrimination against women and non-Muslims, is not hard to understand, and is not subject to notable disagreement.


No New Mosques

The following was written by Kinana Nadir, originally from the UK:

All non-Muslim countries should prevent the building of any new Mosques until that time we are assured that what is being taught inside them are not a threat to the values and liberties of the country.

Everyone knows that mosques facilitate the teachings of Islam and therefore the promotion of Sharia law. This outcome and these efforts must be rejected by all lovers of freedom. Until we see an Islam that totally rejects the teaching of the domination of Muslims over Non-Muslims, and rejects Sharia law we must error on the side of caution and reject all new applications for new mosques.

However, opposition to new mosques should not be seen as an attack on Muslims. I make no judgment on them, but the public have an obligation to look at the larger picture and so too do local and central government when deciding applications for new mosques. The proper authorities, entrusted to look at the needs of the community, need to consider the role of Islam in light of history and a wider geography. If such a view is taken, a very disturbing role of the mosque in the life of communities emerges. Islam is a belief system with an international following and therefore a decision cannot be based solely on local conditions or only on recent local historical evidence. Such myopia would be negligence.

I would like to share two quotes by people who know a thing or two about Islam.

“Mehrab [or Mosque] means [a] place of war, the 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.”

This quote is from Ayatollah Khomeini, 1981, on the commemoration of the birth of Mohammed.

The second quote is from the Prime Minister of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan who publicly read an Islamic poem including the lines: “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and Muslims our soldiers…”

Those who look favorably on a new mosque in their community should remember these quotes and feel the chill its shadow will cast on present and future generations.

These ideas are also expressed in two recent (April and July 2010) speeches by the English Defence League here and here.


Video About a Boston Mosque

Click here to watch the video.


The Verse of the Sword

Thursday, September 2, 2010

The following is from an excellent piece from Islam Review: on the infamous "Verse of the Sword" (chapter 9, verse 5 of the Quran):

There are 124 verses that call for tolerance and patience that have been cancelled and replaced by one, single verse. This verse is called the Verse of the Sword:

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)..." Surah 9:5

Verses that support the Verse of the Sword

1) “Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of believers” (Surah 9:14).

2) “O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque” (Surah 9:28).

3) “The Jews call ‘Uzayr a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God. That is saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate the Unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!” (Surah 9:30).

4) “O Prophet! Strive hard against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell – an evil refuge indeed” (Surah 9:73).

5) “O ye who believe! Fight the Unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him” (Surah 9:123).

Some of the verses abrogated by the Verse of the Sword:

1) “Those who believe (in the Qua’an), and the Christians and the Sabians – any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord: on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve” (Surah 2:62).

2) “Quite a number of the People of the Book wish they could turn you (people) back to infidelity after ye have believed, from selfish envy, after the Truth hath become manifest unto them: but forgive and overlook, till Allah accomplish his purpose” (Surah 2:109).

3) “But because of their breach of their Covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the Message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them – barring a few – ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind” (Surah 5:13).

4) “Leave alone those who take their religion to be mere play and amusement, and are deceived by the life of this world. But proclaim (to them) this (truth): that every soul delivers itself to ruin by its own acts: it will find for itself no protector or intercessor except Allah: if it offered every ransom, (or reparation), none will be accepted: such is (the end of) those who deliver themselves to ruin by their own acts: they will have for drink (only) boiling water, and for punishment, one most grievous: for they persisted in rejecting Allah” (Surah 6:70).

5) “But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah” (Surah 8:61)

6) “And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury); but say, ‘We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; our God and your God is One; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam)” (Surah 29:46).

7) “And remember We took a covenant from the Children of Israel (to this effect): worship none but Allah” (Surah 2:83).

8) “Say: Will ye dispute with us about Allah, seeing that He is our Lord and your Lord; that we are responsible for our doings and ye for yours; and that we are sincere (in our faith) in Him?” (Surah 2:139)

9) “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors” (Surah 2:190)

10) “But fight them at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there” (Surah 2:191)

11) “But if they cease, Allah is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful” (Surah 2:192).

12) “But there is no compulsion in religion” (Surah 2:256).

13) “So if they dispute with thee, say: ‘I have submitted my whole self to Allah and so have those who follow me,’ And say to the People of the Book and so to those who are unlearned: ‘do ye (also) submit yourself? If they do, they are in right guidance, but if they turn back, thy duty is to convey the Message” (Surah 3:20).

14) “Let not the Believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers; if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourself from them” (Surah 3:28).

15) “Those men – Allah knows what is in their hearts; so keep clear of them, but admonish them, and speak to them a word to reach their souls” (Surah 4:63) .

16) “He who obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah: but if any turn away, we have not sent thee to watch over their (evil deeds)” (Surah 4:80).

17) “But Allah records their nightly (plots): so keep clear of them, and put thy trust in Allah” (Surah 4:81).

18) “Then fight in Allah’s cause – thou art held responsible only for thyself” (Surah 4:84).

19) “Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: therefore, if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (guarantees of ) peace, then Allah hath opened no way for you (to war against them)” (Surah 4:90).

20) “O ye who believe! Violate not the sanctity of the Symbols of Allah, nor of the Sacred Month” (Surah 5:2).

Other verses that were abrogated by the Verse of the Sword:

Surah 5: 99
Surah 6: 66; 104; 106- 108; 112; 135; 158
Surah 7:183; 199
Surah 10: 41, 46, 99, 108, 109
Surah 11: 121
Surah 13: 40
Surah 15: 3, 85, 88, 94
Surah 16: 82, 125, 127
Surah 17: 54
Surah 19: 84
Surah 20: 130, 135
Surah 22: 68
Surah 23: 54, 96
Surah 24: 54
Surah 28: 55
Surah 30: 60
Surah 32: 30
Surah 33:48
Surah 34: 25
Surah 39: 15
Surah 41: 34
Surah 42: 6, 15, 48
Surah 43: 83, 89
Surah 44: 59
Surah 45: 14
Surah 46: 35
Surah 50: 39
Surah 52: 48
Surah 53: 29
Surah 58: 8-9, 11
Surah 73: 10
Surah 76: 8
Surah 86: 17
Surah 88: 22- 24
Surah 109: 6


The Abrogator and the Abrogated

Many of the verses in the Quran are abrogated. The following is some further explanation of the doctrine of abrogation from Islam Review:

This doctrine is based on two verses that Allah allegedly instructed Mohammed to put into the Quran.

"None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?" Surah 2: 106

"When We substitute one revelation for another, and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages), they say, 'Thou art but a forger:' but most of them understand not." Surah 16:101

The documentation for the information that I am offering in this piece is found in one of Islam's classical reference books in the Arabic language. It is titled "al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh" (The Abrogator and the Abrogated) and was authored by the revered Muslim scholar Abil-Kasim Hibat-Allah Ibn-Salama Abi-Nasr. The book goes through every Surah (chapter) in the Quran and cites in great detail every verse that was cancelled-out/overridden by particular verses that were written later. The author noted that out of 114 Surahs (chapters) of the Quran, there are only 43 Surahs that were not affected by this concept. The implications are very revealing. It means that those who would be inclined to accept the Quran as reliable can take only 43 chapters of the Quran at face value. The majority of its chapters cannot be taken at face value. The cancelled verses are mixed in with the authoritative verses and only schooled Islamist know which is which.

Read the whole, fascinating story of abrogation.


Freedom of Religion and the Ground Zero Mosque

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

MANY PEOPLE believe the question of whether the Ground Zero mosque ought to be allowed or not is a very simple question. This is America and we have a guaranteed freedom of religion. But as I was explaining to someone, this is not as simple as it seems. Here are the facts:

1. The First Ammendment guarantees freedom of religion.

2. Islam is legally considered a religion.

3. A fundamental part of Islam is the political goal of bringing every person on earth under the rule of Islamic law (Sharia).

4. That political goal, and the way this goal is pursued in most mosques in the United States, falls under the definition of sedition.

5. Sedition is illegal.

So which law should we follow? Should freedom of religion be protected? Or should sedition laws trump that right? Which is more important, freedom of religion or the survival of a government that guarantees freedom of religion?

If we had to choose, which would we choose? If we didn't have to choose, what alternatives could we pursue? Monitoring mosques? Does that violate the freedom of religion?

I believe in freedom of religion. But what do we do with a political ideology that promotes the sabotage of our government? Should a political ideology that encourages sedition be protected by the freedom of religion?


Subscribe to Citizen Warrior

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Visit the blog: Citizen Warrior.

And Concessions

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Visit the blog: Concessions to Islam.

  © Free Blogger Templates Columnus by 2008

Back to TOP