Category Archives: Muslims

An Exercise In Critical Thinking

“If Obama WERE a Muslim, how would his behavior be different than what it has been?”

excellent question….

Answer….he is a Muslim, always has been, NO Christian Hides images of GOD, Jesus or Christianity…..for ANY reason…obama is doing to the US, what Al Qaeda and the Taliban couldnt. ruining the Value of Our currency, and weakening our Military, making us just like Japan was in WWII, dependent on other Nations for it’s Oil and trying to disarm Americans with gun control legislation, and obama and ATF inspired schemes to make Guns the focus of Mexican Drug problems….

I really have nothing to add to this clarifying snippet I've appropriated from the comments section over at Logan's Warning.

Say what you will, but some people just have the special knack of going straight to the point. Tip of the cap to Chief Cabioch and Charles for this small but effective pinch of salt.

Bits Of Knowledge Go A Long Way Regarding Pakistan

Obamawar
Obama's War
In 1839, The empire-keen British sought to expand the borders of its colony of British India, by launching a war of conquest against the neighboring Pashtuns. The Pashtuns, as a fiercely independent tribal warrior people, resisted ferociously, so that the British conquest of them was not successful. The British were only able to conquer part of the Pashtun territory, and even that remained in constant rebellion against them. Meanwhile, the remaining unconquered portion of Pashtun territory became the nucleus for the formation of Afghanistan. In 1893, the British imposed a ceasefire line on the Afghans called the Durand Line, which separated British-controlled territory from Afghan territory. The local people on the ground however never recognized this line, which merely existed on a map, and not on the ground.

In 1947, when the colony of British India achieved independence and was simultaneously partitioned into Pakistan and India, the Pakistanis wanted the conquered Pashtun territory to go to them, since the Pashtuns were Muslims. Given that the Pashtuns never recognized British authority over them to begin with, the Pakistanis had tenuous relations with the Pashtuns and were consumed by fears of Pashtun secession.

When Pakistan applied to join the UN in 1947, there was only one country which voted against it. No, it wasn't India—it was Pashtun-ruled Afghanistan which voted against Pakistan's admission, on the grounds that Pakistan was in illegal occupation of Pashtun lands stolen by the British. Their vote was cast on September 30, 1947, and is a fact.

The world needs to compel the Pakistanis to let the Pashtuns go, and allow them to have their own independent national existence, along with the Baluchis and Sindhis. Humoring Pakistan and allowing it to continue using Islamist hatred to rally the people towards unity to counter slow disintegration is not the way to achieve stability in the region, or security for the world.
In 1948, in the nearby state of Kashmir, its Hindu princely ruler and Muslim political leader joined hands in deciding to make Kashmir an independent country rather than joining either Pakistan or India. Pakistan's leadership were immediately terrified of this precedent, fearing that the Pashtuns would soon follow suit and also declare their own ethnically independent state. In order to pre-empt that and prevent it from happening, Pakistan's founder and leader Mohammad Ali Jinnah quickly decided to raise the cry of "Hindu treachery against the Muslims" and despatched hordes of armed Pashtun tribesmen to attack Kashmir. This was his way of distracting the Pashtuns from their own ethnic nationalism by diverting them into war against Kashmir "to save Islam". These are the same Pashtun tribesman whose descendants are today's Taliban. Fleeing the unprovoked invasion of their homeland, Kashmir's Hindu prince and Muslim political leader went to India, pledging to merge with it if India would help repel the invasion. India agreed, and sent its army to repel the Pashtun invasion. Pakistan then sent its army to clash with Indian forces, and the result was Indo-Pakistani conflict, which has lasted for decades.

Pakistan's fear of Pashtun nationalism and separatism, which it fears can break up Pakistan, is thus the root of the Indo-Pakistani conflict over Kashmir and also the root of Pak conflict with Afghanistan, not any alleged Indian takeover of Kabul. This is all due to the legacy of 1839, which happened long before Pakistan was even created.

When a communist revolution happened in Kabul in the late 70s, Pakistan's fear of potential spillover effects on Pashtun nationalism caused Pakistan to embark on fomenting a guerrilla war against Kabul that led to Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Aligned with with the USA, Pakistan then proceeded to arm the Pashtuns while indoctrinating them with Islamic fanaticism. The USA was not allowed any ground role, and was told it could only supply arms and funds to Pakistan, which would take care of the rest. Pakistan then simultaneously embarked on destabilization of India by fomenting insurgency there.

After the Soviets withdrew, Pakistan again feared that the well-armed Pashtuns would turn on it and pursue secession. So Pakistan then created the Taliban as a new umbrella movement for the fractious factional guerrilla groups under an ultra-fundamentalist ideology. Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda then became cosy with Taliban, and the result was 9-11.

When the 9-11 attacks occurred, the cornered Pakistanis then did a 180 and promised to help the US defeat the Taliban and bring the terrorists to justice. Meanwhile they were racking their brains hoping to come up with a way to undermine the War on Terror from within. Now that they have succeeded in doing that, and in bleeding US/NATO forces, they hope to jump horses by kicking the US out and aligning with China.

Because of Pakistan's attempts to illegitimately hang onto Pashtun land, it has brought itself into conflicts with so many countries—first against its neighbors and then against more distant larger powers. This is the reason why Pakistan is an irredentist state and can never be an ally against Islamic extremism, because Pakistan depends on this very Islamism as a national glue to hold itself together, and keep nationalistic ethnic groups like the Pashtuns from breaking Pakistan apart.

At the same time, Pakistanis don't dare own upto the Pashtun national question at any level, nor its effect on their national policies, because any attempt to do so would open up the legitimacy of their claim to Pashtun land.

It's only later on, much after America's defeat, that some Americans will realize too late that they should have seen that the Pashtuns on both sides of the artificial line were actually one people. Pakistan knows it all too well, because they've been living with the guilt and fear of it ever since Pakistan's creation.
Sovereignty is a 2-way street, entailing not just rights but obligations. Pakistan only wishes to assert rights owing to it from sovereignty, and wishes to completely duck the issue of any sovereign obligations to apprehend terrorists on what it claims as its own territory. This is because the fundamental reality is that the Pashtun territory is not really theirs, is not really under their control, and the Pashtuns don't really recognize Pakistani central authority over them.

Pakistan uses Islamic fundamentalism to submerge traditional Pashtun ethnic identity in a desperate attempt to suppress Pashtun ethnic nationalism, and to stave off the disintegration of Pakistan. The Pashtuns are a numerically large enough ethnic group possessing the strength of arms to be able to secede from Pakistan at any moment, should they decide upon it.

The answer is to let the separatists have their way and achieve their independent ethnic states, breaking up Pakistan. It's better to allow Pakistan to naturally break up into 3 or 4 benign ethnic states, than for it to keep promoting Islamic fundamentalist extremism in a doomed attempt to hold itself together. Pakistan is a failing state, and it's better to let it fail and fall apart. This will help to end all conflict in the region and the trans-national terrorist problem. An independent ethnic Pashtun state will be dominated by Pashtun ethnic identity instead of fundamentalist Islam, and thus AlQaeda will no longer be able to find sanctuary there. Conventional ethnic identity is far more natural and benign than trans-nationalist Islamism with its inherent collectivist political bent. Supporting the re-emergence of 4 natural ethnic states—Pashtunistan, Balochistan, Sindh and Punjab—would be far better than continuing to support a dangerous and dysfunctional failed state like Pakistan which continues to spew toxic Islamist extremist ideology in a doomed attempt to hold itself together.

afghanistan_cartoon
Military Genius On Display
Following the failure of the Vietnam War, many Americans later recognized that war was really a war of ethnic reunification by the Vietnamese people. It wasn't a case of one foreign country attempting to conquer another foreign country—indeed, the north and south Vietnamese were not strangers or aliens to one another—they were 2 halves of a common whole. The question was whether they would reunify under communist socialism or under free democracy, but because a blinkered American leadership refused to recognize the Vietnamese grassroots affinity for one another and their desire to reunify, it pretty much ensured that Vietnamese reunification would take place under communist socialism.

Likewise, the Pashtun people live on both sides of an artificial Durand Line (Afghan-Pak "border") which they themselves have never accepted or recognized. It's a question of whether they will politically reunify under close-minded theocratic Islamism or under a more secular and tolerant society. Because today's blinkered American leadership is again blindly defending another artificial line on a map, and refusing to recognize the oneness of the people living on both sides of that artificial line, America is again shutting itself out of the reunification process, guaranteeing that Pashtun reunification will occur under fanatical fundamentalist Islamism as prescribed by Pakistan (much as Hanoi's Soviet backers prescribed reunification under communist socialism.) It's only later on, much after America's defeat, that some Americans will realize too late that they should have seen that the Pashtuns on both sides of the artificial line were actually one people. Pakistan knows it all too well, because they've been living with the guilt and fear of it ever since Pakistan's creation—but that's why they're hell-bent on herding the Pashtuns down the path of Islamist fanaticism, using Islamist glue to keep the Pashtuns as a whole hugged to Pakistan's bosom.

If only policymakers in Washington could shed their blinkers and really understand what's going on, then they might have a chance to shape events more effectively, and to their favor. Pakistan is rapidly building up its nuclear arsenal, as it moves to surpass Britain to become the world's 5th-largest nuclear state.The Pakistanis are racing to build up as much hard-power as possible to back up the soft-power they feel Islamist hate-ideology gives them.

The world needs to compel the Pakistanis to let the Pashtuns go, and allow them to have their own independent national existence, along with the Baluchis and Sindhis. Humoring Pakistan and allowing it to continue using Islamist hatred to rally the people towards unity to counter slow disintegration is not the way to achieve stability in the region, or security for the world.

—Article attributed to Sanman

Thanks to Sanman for this interesting and encouraging post. Your essay suggests what many in Europe have begun to realize about their own lives under the EU. Many Americans, thanks to the Tea Party and its forebears, are busily reconsidering the noble idea that smaller government based on common interests and liberty, can be much more effective, creative, and successful, and therefore superior to these many cobbled-together super states, usually bound by awkward if not outright oppressive regimes which seem to be failing for many of the same reasons all over the globe.

Earth dries, the spitting sun. Terrifying unsung winds,
latter day stormtroopers born for nightblindness, compost damages,
foul waters crashing through amber posts sleepy, crawling mud
broadcasting fire, terror, joblessness, crumbling infrastructure, recalculating
unholy numbers this awesome algebra of pain announcing itself
to the lands as a carrot, then mere thud.

Money, rage, religion...
bunking for blood worthless as sinking treasure,
fighting back glances, on undeserving glum faces
too haunting to measure case by case,
files floating, paltry putrid lessons
of a dead awful stick
left to rot.

Time is running out. All thinking people need to seriously consider the nuances and the noises of world history and one's own basic common sense in the context of the dangers we face as we choose our next leaders who must meet the patriotic mark and allow us to once again mobilize ourselves and our families and our friends to invigorate what we give witness to as the thriving contours of the next century. Each of us here in America and across the peaceful nations should recognize the dangers we face as a culture and a people, so to then act upon the emphatic impulse that there appears little room for error this time around.

The Show Me State Under Religious Assault

Missouri
Missouri

MISSOURI doesn't spring to mind when one thoughtfully ponders the American Islamic question, but the state is at the forefront of legislative action in making sure American law is the ONLY LAW that will rule its citizens. In Jefferson City, the Missouri House passed a bill that they hope will work in prohibiting state courts from using or recognizing Sharia law. The bill passed the Missouri House Wednesday on a 102-51 vote.

The legislation, which was sponsored by state Rep. Paul Curtman, R-Pacific, bans Missouri courts from utilizing foreign law or legal code in any ruling. Although it never specifically mentions the words “Sharia” or “Islam," Wednesday’s debate focused almost exclusively on Sharia law, which is the religious law of Islam.

“This bill is not all about Sharia Law,” Curtman said. "It’s Sharia Law, French law, Dutch law or anything else.”

Missouri's statehouse went red in the 2010 elections, with the exception of Governor Jay Nixon (D) whose term had not expired. Nixon said he won't sign this bill, but Republicans have a super-majority now so we don't care.

There was recently a row here over a woman wearing the burqa, hijab, and niqab in a store. The manager got fired over it, and a local radio host castigated the manager over disrepecting "religious garb." He used only the term 'burqa' to describe her dress.

The woman's husband agreed with the radio fool that nuns would also be targeted. But nuns don't cover their faces. Right now Republicans are trying to pass a picture ID for voting. This is part of it.

This incident occured in Manchester, MO, a suburb where the Dar al-Islam mosque is located. Every Friday is Halloween there now and stores are tired of these masked, fully covered creatures billowing in. The store manager said he could not verify her identity for a purchase, and HE WAS FIRED.

Medina

And to echo what has been said rather eloquently by us and many others: We believe that our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation—they do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime. In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them.

Good Bye America

Once something has been labeled a religion, no American will question, challenge or think objectively about it. Call yourself a religion and Americans turn into zombies letting you do anything you want, even “kill them”. The greatest military power in world history lays supine, lily livered, gutless and enfeebled, and it’s all because we have wrongly given Islam the protected status of a RELIGION. “Good Bye America it’s been nice knowin ya” Surely, this is the bleakest hour in American history when our nation cannot tell friend from foe, nor religion from invader.

There is no doubt that we Americans suffer from a collective mental illness, mental block, emotional imbalance, and psychological disorder, precipitated every time we hear the word religion. Let’s call it schizo-religionitis. Mention the word “religion” and we immediately become deaf, dumb and blind, suspending all rational thought and common sense. Here is the childishly insane logic Americans apply to their criteria for a religion:

Apple juice is a liquid and drinking a cup is good for you; therefore drinking a cup of hemlock must be good for you because it is also a liquid.

Read it all here, please. Strengthen yourself and shepherd your family. Instill in the them the original spirit of America, and know that we can work this mess out if we each give everything we got to save our nation from its enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Remember that individual Muslims are human beings trapped under a pernicious spell of evil and death, even as the beautiful ones smile, and the dogged ones snear. But also know that plotting beneath both facades is the raging lion of Islam, not radical Islam, but simply Islam.

Islam is the enemy, just as Monarchism, Communism, Fascism, and Naziism were our enemies. Accordingly, just as not all Japanese or Germans or Italians, or Russians or American Southerners were drunk on power and aggression, continental Americans took precautions, and defeated them each in their turn. Now comes Islam and do not be fooled for Islam is no pushover.

The political nature of Mohammedism has been practicing its dark arts of total aggression over the human spirit for 1400 years, having destroyed and consumed numerous cultures large and small along the way, and for the past sixty years has had its eyes set on the West with no intention of playing nice, but gripped with a lust for world domination in mind all along since its inception. This is not conjecture, but our own immediate future.

Therefore we must insist that it is now Islam's turn to be defeated, if possible destroyed, stripped of its power, redeemed for its humanity, and its survivors allowed to nurse and heal in proper countenance so that they may return to the promises we all seek, but can rarely find in our struggle against each other after being poisoned with words.

The Hosquatch List

HAVE YOU NOTICED HOW the patriotic American red, white and blue backdrop at "presidential" appearances is now often replaced by the Islamic gold drapes?

Have you noticed that the family dog, Bo, flies on a separate jet? (Dogs are considered "unclean" in Islam.)

Did you notice that the Obama family observes Muslim holidays but not Christian holidays?

Did you notice that President Barack H. Obama had his photograph taken with his feet atop his desk and the soles of his shoes on display when he was talking on the phone to PM Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel? ( That was a signal to the Muslim world that he was "dissing" the "dirty Jew". )

Have you noticed that Obama's administration usually sides with the Muslims in any dispute, especially disputes involving Israel?

Have you noticed that the Islamic book is "the HOLY Quran" but the Christian Bible is never referred to as "holy"...?

Did you notice that Obama referred to the Quran as being "revealed"...?

Do you agree that there is no more beautiful sound than the Muslim call to prayer in the morning?

Did you notice that John Brennan, Obama's National Security advisor, referred to Jerusalem as "al Quds", the Arabic name? (Brennan studied in Egypt, and may himself be a Muslim convert.)

Did you know that Obama has Islamic front groups training the US military in sensitivity to Islam?

Did you notice how the Ft. Hood shooting has been swept under the rug, since the shooter was a Muslim?

Did you know that Jeremiah Wright, Obama's former pastor, was closely associated with Nation of Islam head Louis Farrakhan, and that they traveled together to Libya to visit with Muammar Qaddafy?

Did you know they have shrines in Kenya, celebrating Obama's birth there?

Did you know that Obama's paternal grandmother claims that she witnessed his birth there?

Have you seen Obama's Kenyan longform birth certificate, signed by the British registrar who was in office at that time in Kenya?

How much more proof do you need about who, and what, this illegitimate "president" really is?

Have "we" elected the enemy?

Thanks, Hosquatch. Meanwhile, I'm listening to Rush Limbaugh quiz Donald Trump right now on his, Limbaugh's, radio show. Trump continues to spike my interest by asking the right questions about the current American crisis. For instance, why is a chunky 40% of the US defense budget essentially foreign aid? Why do we continue to spend billions in largesse on keeping our troops in Japan, Germany, South Korea, and now much of the Middle East? After the Second World War, Europe was able to build their titular social welfare states largely because they paid little for their own national defense, instead relying on US strength for safekeeping. With unrest on our southern border, and enemies within and abroad, we seriously need to rethink our approach and contributions to world stability. I don't know if Trump will answer the call of the presidency, or even if he can sustain the blistering gamesmanship a national campaign will certainly require of him, a man accustomed to making and having his own tactful way in the world of entrepreneurial business branding, and bravado. But how easy is it to concede that we can count on a hefty block of jubilant Tea Partiers ripe in the mood to pull that level, punch that chad, or mark the bleeping box that empowers them with the whiplash phrase, "You're fired!" that worked so well in 2010, they might as well fall in with the Donald who made it famous.

On the other hand, the basic Trump tends to champion the fabulously rich and famous, although he claims not to get along with the rich but instead gets along better with the middle class. Sounds like he's merely restating the fact that he finds it easier to get his own way with the underclasses than he does with those who might not give a damn, and have nothing to gain by kissing up. Nothing sinister with that. Just pointing out the obvious. All told though, there's no telling yet just how a President Trump will measure our nation's problems.

More The Same Of Those Subterranean Homesick Blues

Posted by: GeorgiaBoy61

Iran Barks Like Hyena
Iran Barks Like Hyena

I COULD NOT AGREE MORE with the substance of your column. Over and over again, I have asked myself since the 9-11 attacks, how it could be that virtually everyone in the [civilized] west, including many Americans, feels compelled to use euphemistic language when speaking of Islamic violence. Why is everyone walking on eggshells? The few who dare to voice their honestly-felt opinions about Islam are derided as racists, xenophobes, Islamophobes, etc. The whole phenomenon is still somewhat mystifying to me, but reading Mark Steyn's "America Alone" and other works has helped bring this strange behavior into focus somewhat. First, nearly all of our cultural elites and political/military leaders are either in denial, or have been co-opted in some manner.

Second, the pervasive influence of cultural Marxism—otherwise known as political correctness—is everywhere. Americans never used to apologize for voicing unpopular or unpleasant views or opinions; now they do—hence the triumph of P.C. Third, many of us have forgotten what the responsibilities of free people entail, c.f. eternal vigilance, protection of the Judeo-Christian heritage, et cetera.

Little-used, and dulled by years of easy affluence, many of us have forgotten how (if we ever knew in the first place) how to exist as free men. Fourth, cowardice. It isn't simply that many in the west are physically afraid of the believers of Islam; they are also intellectually and morally overmatched and intimidated. They lack the skills and fortitude to engage those bullying them.

Fifth, is apathy. Many people are too focused on the trivialities of modern existence to care about the renewed march of Islam. Of one thing I am certain—we cannot effectively oppose a foe we dare not name.

We risk the embarrassment of repeating ourselves among supposedly intelligent men and women, not because we think our readers are stupid, but because we believe our readers think we are stupid. Yet, nothing is so realistic in the realm of mathematical certainty than the political engines of blunt force survival.

Put another way, if Elohim wants to use an Objectivist to do His work, they will do so. Research the Voice of God to the Hebrew Jeremiah when describing the Babylonian King Nebecannezzar as His servant. Just one of many examples of conscription into The Great Plan. Belief in God is not necessary. There is no escape from God in that model.

The personal acts of disengaging from perishable folly to embrace the realities of this brutal race towards intelligent survival must not be underestimated, or too casually declined. Here are two more stringent points of view, compelling in their own intelligent way:

Ihis country better start circling the wagons of Christianity, and start re-developing a strong UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and holding our elected officials to the constitution or we are done! Rejecting militant Islam has to be a major priority!

If your grandfathers had taken to blathering on about "Naziofascists", "Nazionazis", "Nazists", "radical Nazis" and "Nazi extremists", let alone about "Hijackers of the Great Political Party of Peace", unless they were running a fever something just awful, their own mothers would have blistered their britches before General Patton could even get to them. —Bessie

You betcha! And from a board debating the essence of birthday girl Ayn Rand's Objectivist thought:

Following that logic, certain activities that have become profit-making are not necessarily meant to be so. It's funny that the example of saving a life was brought up—perhaps, according to Ms. Rand, healthcare should not be a profit-making enterprise, but she would place it more in the realm of social responsibility under direct government supervision—"morally" superior to the general welfare than the current Affordable Care Act that has so many Atlas Shrugged thumpers fit to be tied.

I disagree. A lot of these activities were started by churches and philanthropists, ie, hospitals, libraries, et cetera, and did not become money makers until government stepped in to regulate them. Even now, someone trying to feed hungry people cannot do so without permission from the government. Ask the people who were in Katrina who provided more direct help, the government or individuals. Government just does more advertising because they can then charge it to the taxpayers.

Alan Greenspan's statist policies would have never been supported by Ayn Rand. Anyone that has actually read Ayn Rand would never suggest that Greenspan held to her ideas. Her positions are the strongest that exist against any type of corruption...maybe too many business people are afraid that if they stand up for the moral virtue of profit, they will have to forgo the moral loopholes that are accepted in our current system.

Alan Greenspan, an initiated member of the Rand cult, used her totally misguided ideas to run this country into the ground. Besides that, all she did was give false legitimacy to soulless, compassionless, sociopathy. An a-moral crackpot through and though. But all is not lost, Wall Street losers. Your woeful ignorance of both Rand and Greenspan tell us much more about you than them.

To describe her philosophy and ethics as "a-moral" (as many believers in God, gods, unicorns, and gremlins do, claiming that only religionists—you know, those organizations created by men to control, keep ignorant, deny/suspend reality/reason as it suits, fleece, and murder hundreds of millions of others in God's name—possess a monopoly on morality denied to an a-theist) is a grotesque libel.

Put another way, if Elohim wants to use an Objectivist to do His work, they will do so. Research the Voice of God to the Hebrew Jeremiah when describing the Babylonian King Nebecannezzar as His servant. Just one of many examples of conscription into The Great Plan. Belief in God is not necessary. There is no escape from God in that model.

Objectivism and its Ethics shine as the greatest philosophical development yet of a proper morality for dignified men and the enhancement of life (as opposed to corrupt original-sinners who worship death and some imaginary afterlife). Ayn Rand's morality is of such comprehensive stature and sufficiently rigid in nature, that I have little doubt one of your self-humiliating ignorance would be incapable of fully comprehending—let alone living up to it.

Oh my, my beloved America has become such an arch-schizophrenic phenomenon!

1. Rand promoted the ideas that government control over the economy and money supply was immoral and would be ruinous to the economy.

2. Greenspan, a who at one time was friends with Rand, later headed the Federal Reserve, and exercised the exact controls that Rand had warned against—which resulted in the exact sort of outcomes that she warned against.

So, how do you conclude that Greenspan "used her totally misguided ideas to run this country into the ground"? Alan Greenspan's statist policies would have never been supported by Ayn Rand. Anyone that has actually read Ayn Rand would never suggest that Greenspan held to her ideas. Her positions are the strongest that exist against any type of corruption...maybe too many business people are afraid that if they stand up for the moral virtue of profit, they will have to forgo the moral loopholes that are accepted in our current system.

A society and government that believed in the same principles as Ayn Rand would tolerate none of the corruption we see today in business—and would demand personal responsibility from businessman, without loopholes to fall back on if times got tough or they wanted to be lazy or shortsighted.

Maybe too many of today's businesspeople are too afraid of the personal responsibility they'd have to take if they took Ayn Rand's stance on the morality of profit.

Past Observations On Present Problems

Thomas-Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson

IT'S ABOUT TIME YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS were made aware of the plethora of remarks we have coming from the likes of Winston Churchill, John Quincy Adams, John Wesley, Theodore Roosevelt, Sri Aurobindo, William Gladstone, Arthur Schopenhauer, the Nazis themselves and the rest of those who made famous quotes about Islam, and on top of this, make them aware of what of Ayatollah Khomeini and other Muslims have to say about Islam and how its adherents are to handle infidels. They ought to be damned shocked. Past observations on present problems with this moribund religion should be a starting point for those Westerners naively sympathetic to today's jihadists.

  • "Hatred of the non-Muslim is the pivot of Islamic existence." —Anwar Sheikh
  • "Since Islam regards non-Muslims as on a lower level of belief and conviction, if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim…then his punishment must not be the retaliatory death, since the faith and conviction he possesses is loftier than that of the man slain... "Islam and its peoples must be above the infidels, and never permit non-Muslims to acquire lordship over them." — Sultanhussein Tabandeh, A Muslim Commentary on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1970.
  • “The most successful lecherous man who used religion for his personal gain is Prophet Mohammed. Islam is a cult with its complete irrational belief in Allah created by Mohammed who was a liar, thief, murderer and rapist till his last breath”. —Dr Khushwant Singh
  • ”Allah is a cruel tyrant, a barbaric killer and a violent despot. Islamic Umma is the biggest criminal gang on earth and Allah is leader and guide of that criminal gang and is trying to establish himself as the God of the world (not of the universe) with the help of the mujahidin through terror and bloodshed”. —Dr R. Brahamchari
  • "The sword of Muhammad and the Quran are the most fatal enemies of civilization, liberty, and the truth which the world has yet known." —The eminent orientalist Sir William Muir (1819-1905)

Systemic Islam

ISLAM IS NOT PRECISELY A RELIGION nor is it precisely a cult. It is a complete system, a slick, stealth (until it isn't anymore), top to bottom, criminal enterprise controlled by totalitarian thugs using totalitarian methodologies. Greater Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a gray beard for all the other components. Islamization occurs when there are sufficient numbers of Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called religious rights.

When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to the "reasonable" Muslim demands for their religious rights, they also get the other components under the table. Here's how it works in all places and in all eras (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007).

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone.

In fact, they may be featured in articles and films and stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:

    United States—Muslim 1.0%
    Australia—Muslim 1.5%
    Canada—Muslim 1.9%
    China—Muslim 1%-2%
    Italy—Muslim 1.5%
    Norway—Muslim 1.8%

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:

    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.

They will push for the introduction of halal food (clean by Islamic standards), thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves—along with threats for failure to comply (United States).

    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 under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris, car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam, Mohammed cartoons).

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

After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burnings:

    Ethiopia—Muslim 32.8%

At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:

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

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:

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

After 80% expect state-initiated ethnic cleansing and genocide:

    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%
    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' or the Islamic House of Peace; there's supposed to finally be peace because everybody now is a Muslim:

    Afghanistan—Muslim 100%
    Saudi Arabi—Muslim 100%
    Somalia—Muslim 100%
    Yemen—Muslim 99.9%

Of course, that's not the case. Muslims continue killing each other for a variety of upmanship 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; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidels. - Leon Uris, 'The Haj'

It is good to remember that in many, many countries, such as France, the Muslim populations are centered around ghettos based on their ethnicity. Muslims do not integrate into the community at large, creating no-go zones for non-Muslims including the police, and other emergency forces such as firefighters and medical workers.

Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat.