August 19th, 2009 by admin

by D. L. Adams

When the most important book of the twentieth century was released in 1925 while its author sat in prison with his cronies for an attempted coup against the German government, few could foresee its horrific impact. Mein Kampf set out, in rambling hate-based prose, a program of war, hatred, mass murder, and global conquest. Over the years purchases of the book made Adolf Hitler a wealthy man, but few in the country read the book though most households owned at least one copy. Fewer outside of Germany read the book. Those whose lives would be directly affected by the implementation of the plans described in the book did not read it; and those who should have read it who were put most at risk by it did not read it.

The same scenario is repeated with the Sira of Mohammed. Those who most need to read it (non-Muslims), those most at risk from its message will not, in the main, read it; while those who have read it are those who embrace its themes and message of hate, intolerance, war, and conquest.

The most influential book of the 20th century went mainly unread with disastrous consequences. One of the most influential books in human history, the Sira of Mohammed, is widely known among Muslims though the West is almost entirely ignorant of its contents, and its profound importance for both Muslims and non-believers. Worse still most in the west are ignorant of its existence.

We know what a world looks like when the ideology espoused in Mein Kampf is implemented. The Sira of Mohammed, Mohammed’s biography, tells the story of what the world will look like when Islam is triumphant. The differences between a victory of Nazism and a global conquest of Mohammedanism are difficult to determine as the differences are so minuscule.

We know what the world looked like when Nazism was rising, global warfare and unparalleled suffering. We know from the history of Islam what the world looks like when Islam is rising- jihad, barbarism, hatred, war, conquest, enslavement, and a brutal endless war of elimination of all non-Muslim cultures and political systems.

Had the world paid attention to Hitler’s Mein Kampf, as it is not now doing with the Sira of Mohammed, perhaps WW2 could have been avoided. When we know nothing of Mohammed’s life and his ideology of endless jihad against all unbelievers everywhere and forever we cannot defend ourselves against this growing threat. The threat of Islam originates in the doctrine of Islam of which the Sira (Mohammed’s biography) is one part of a trilogy of doctrinal texts which also includes Koran and Hadith. We are as ignorant (and more) as the clueless of 1933.

One who has read both Mein Kampf and the Sira can make a valid comparison. One who knows the history of WW2, and the Holocaust as well as Islamic history and doctrine, can place these books into an historical and political context. With this understanding of history and doctrine one can know with a reasonable certainty what the future will look like. One can know because just as Mein Kampf made certain promises and laid out certain plans, the Sira of Mohammed also makes promises and plans.

The Sira is not difficult to read. Anyone can read it. In fact recently a 12 year old was asked to read it. The child felt compelled to stop reading because “Mohammed was killing too many people”. The message of hate, violence, intolerance, and cruelty is clear to a 12-year-old but somehow eludes our political, academic, and religious leadership across the West. It eludes them most likely because they have not read it and do not know it exists.

Our lack of understanding of Islam and its foundational concepts of conquest and jihad is indicative of a societal-wide moral, intellectual, and ethical failure that for our own survival, must be swiftly reversed.

When one reads the doctrine of Islam the world shifts, changes. Knowledge of the doctrine brings events into focus in a way that previously was impossible. Just as Mein Kampf is the guide to WW2 before WW2 began, the doctrine of Islam is the guide to present day events and into the future. This is not prophecy, this is a firm understanding of the doctrine and guiding principles of an ideology that is fundamentally opposed to our existence. We can know the future when we apply the doctrine of Islam (Sira, Koran, Hadith) to present and past events involving Islam and adherents of Islam. This is applied theology and political science.

Knowledge of the Sira of Mohammed opens doors. It opens doors to a world of conflict and war and horror that we would prefer did not exist. There is no avoiding this foundational reality of our world.

When one knows Sira, closely held beliefs of the nature of the human world, how people behave and interact, and most importantly our previous understanding of the “religion of peace” are all shattered.

Learning Islamic doctrine forces us to rethink important concepts of the structure of existence, ideas that make life livable and pleasant, and paints a portrait of the ongoing failure and destruction of the human potential of peaceful co-existence and tolerance.

The doctrine of Islam is clear – there is no peaceful co-existence for Islam with unbelievers. Because non-Muslims have the gall and effrontery to not accept Allah and Mohammed, because we are Christian, Jew, Hindu, atheist, Buddhist, etc., we are seen by Allah and Mohammed as having rejected Koran, Sira, and Hadith – for this we are all kafirs and we must be made to submit. If we do not submit there is nothing that Islam will not do to make us do so. There are no taboos for Islam where kafirs are concerned. This is a fundamental lesson of the Sira of Mohammed.

The Sira, like the Koran and Hadith, is a wake up call for all kafirs (unbelievers). We learn from the Sira all about Islam, all about Mohammed, but we also learn about our own cultures. The lessons are painful and they are immutable.

• We are at war.
  Islam is at war with kafirs everywhere and forever until Islam is defeated or triumphant. The triumph of Islam is the defeat of individual freedoms, women’s rights, gay rights, religious tolerance, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc., etc. The triumph of Islam is a total shift of humanity from reaching for freedom and tolerance to an embrace of submission, enslavement, and intellectual and spiritual deadness from which recovery is unfortunately unlikely.
• We do not live in a “post-historical” world.
  In fact, history haunts us like a hunter. It pursues us until we stand and defend or surrender. This is not the world of the “end of history” of Frances Fukiyama, Bill Clinton, and other multiculturalist fantasists. Islam overturns all of these utopian concepts and crushes them under the boot of endless jihad and dhimmitude.
• We are not “post-modern”.
  We are pursued by forces of 7th century Arabia. They are well-trained; their doctrine of war has been successful for them for 1400 years. We are late in responding. Americans consider themselves forward thinking and not “mired” in issues of the past. We think we are above all of “that”. We are wrong. Our arrogance as to the ascension of our concepts is so strong that in foreign policy matters we simply only have to “reset” and we are on a totally new path, a path without a past – a path outside of context. With Islam there is no “reset”. We live outside of context in a bubble, a bubble that is being deflated rapidly by the rise of Islam.
• Our world is a world of conflict.
  War pursues us because the doctrine of Islam commands that it be so. The forces of Islam are flush with oil wealth transferred to them by us to them in our ignorance of their doctrine. We did this because we did not know their doctrine. We have empowered our enemies because we did not know their doctrine and now the time of reckoning approaches. We are not ready. We are not ready because we know nothing of the doctrine of Islam (Sira, Koran, Hadith). If we do not know why and how our enemy fights us, we cannot hope to oppose him successfully. Everything we need to know about Islam is in the doctrine of Islam (Koran, Sira, Hadith). Knowledge of the doctrine of Islam is now a survival imperative; it is the patriotic duty of all lovers of freedom in the West to educate themselves and others about the doctrine of Islam. Ignorance of Islam is a moral, intellectual, ethical, and patriotic failure.
• Multiculturalism is wrong.
  In fact, multiculturalism is used by our enemies to immobilize us, keep us confused and unable to respond. Multiculturalism is wrong because the doctrine of Islam demonstrates that it is wrong. Islam is intolerant, we are tolerant; Islam is misogynist, we embrace equality between the sexes; Islam is about aggressive war, we are not. Islam denies the value of the individual, we believe that the empowered individual is the foundation of a healthy society and culture; Islam believes that only Islam is valid, we believe in religious pluralism and tolerance; Islam will not be analysed, criticized, satirized – we believe in humor, criticism and open debate. We believe that open debate is the foundation of intellectual honesty and truth. In Islam debate is not allowed. We do not believe in slavery, Islam strongly believes in slavery and dhimmitude of the unbeliever. The list is extensive. Multiculturalism’s core idea that all cultures are equal is destroyed by the existence and message of the doctrine of Islam (Koran, Sira, Hadith). Truth is this: some cultures are superior in relation to others. Not all cultures are the same. This means that multiculturalism is a fraud and a failed utopian concept that must be delegitimized and destroyed. The product of Islam is jihad. The products of Western culture that enhance the value of existence, empower individuals, and create opportunity and wealth are too numerous to mention here. We do not war against others because they do not believe what we believe. Some cultures are better than others. Multiculturalism is dead, the only problem is that few have noticed its demise.

In Islam the model of the life of Mohammed (Sira) and the things that he said and did according  to his friends (Hadith) are the perfect model of behavior for all Muslims to follow in perpetuity. If Mohammed had been a nice fellow this would be a boon for all humanity, but it is not so. Mohammed was not a nice fellow. In Islam it is said that what Mohammed did is considered “Sunna” that means acceptable and good; what Mohammed disallowed is “haram” or forbidden.

Had Mohammed been a humanitarian this article would not be so lengthy. The Sira and Hadith dictate what is Sunna. Foundationally, jihad is Sunna. This means that anything done to the kafir if it advances the cause of Allah/Islam is Sunna. This includes every negative thing one can imagine. There are no taboos for the kafir.

When one reads the Sira one sees that we in the West are in serious trouble. It is interesting to note that “year one” of the Islamic calendar is not the year in which Mohammed received his first “revelations” from Allah through the angel Gabriel. Rather, it is the year in which Mohammed emigrated from Mecca to Medina. In Mecca Mohammed was an argumentative and disruptive but non-violent “preacher” – he got 150 converts in 9 years. When he went to Medina as an immigrant Mohammed became a warlord. When he was finished there were no enemies left, he was the ruler of all Arabia. All of his opponents had been slaughtered in battle or by assassination or had converted (submitted) to the “religion of peace”.

“Year one” of the Islamic calendar shows definitively that Islam is not a religion only, but a political ideology of conquest and barbarism, totalitarianism and cruelty fronted by a fake “religion of peace”.

“Year one” is a designation of a political event in Mohammed’s life not a religious one. The so-called “religion of peace” is a clever front for a political totalitarian ideology of control, control of Muslims and non-Muslims. Islam’s understanding of control of humans is without peer.

The world’s great cycles of history turn on knowledge, ignorance, and anti-knowledge. Our culture of multicultural ignorance is one of anti-knowledge. Ignorance empowers Islam. Islam is our enemy, it says so in the Sira of Mohammed.

Multiculturalism says that Islam is equal in value and import to our Western cultures of freedom and tolerance and inclusiveness. Multiculturalism empowers our existential enemy.

Multiculturalism must be destroyed so that we can discuss, debate, and condemn evil where necessary. We refuse to learn from doctrine and we ignore the history of jihad at our peril.

The fate of humanity will be decided upon our understanding of the doctrine of our enemies. They know us well, we know little to nothing of them. The old saying, “You may not believe in the devil, but he believes in you” is applicable here. You may not care about Islamic doctrine but it cares very much about you. The majority of Islamic doctrine is about the kafir, us.

Islam is a doctrine whose purpose is the conquest and annihilation of the unbeliever everywhere. We ignore it because we have difficulty accepting that it can be real; we have difficulty letting go of our concepts that we live outside of war and outside of history. We are all too enlightened for all that.

Our enemies do not see the world as we do.

Some in the multicultural West are so ignorant of history that they find the concept of “enemy” excessive and difficult to accept. Such people are outside of history because they are ignorant of history and of human nature. Such people believe that if we are “tolerant” and show how “nice” we are to our enemies that they will love us, and stop hating us.

Our enemies are pleased that we are “tolerant” and “nice” because this makes their mission of conquest all the easier.

These are the bubble people, those who live on  wishful thinking and ignorance. This ideology of ignorance has infected our leadership and institutions to such an extent that when scholars quote the Sira of Mohammed they are excoriated as “bigots”. This discussion of Islamic doctrine is not a matter of opinion. If you do not like the discussion you must take the matter up with Mohammed and make your complaints to him as the messengers (those who discuss doctrine) are only repeating his lines and his example to show the dire nature of our situation. The scholars of the doctrine of Islam bring a message of dire warning.

The fate of humanity turns on the pages of unread books. Mein Kampf was on most every shelf in Germany but few read it; few abroad read it. In the pages of that book was laid out the plan for conquest and murder that would become the 2nd World War.

The Sira of Mohammed is unread widely in the West. It is not difficult to read. The Sira is a plan for domination of all unbelievers everywhere. It is a book of cruelty and violence that often surpasses Mein Kampf in horrors as the stories are (supposedly) an historical record of atrocities while Mein Kampf was essentially a twisted “wish list” of domination and barbarism.

We in the West must study the doctrine of Islam – it is not difficult. We must acknowledge the truth about the “religion of peace” and we must accept unpleasant realities though they shatter our illusions. We must acknowledge that we are at war.

Mohammed’s life is not the kind of life that any decent person anywhere on this planet would want to emulate. His life and actions are the model for all Muslims to aspire to forever. This model of cruelty, hate, intolerance, rape, torture, murder, war, pedophilia, theft, deceit, enslavement, conquest, and misogyny is the model for all Islam forever. “We have a litttle problem” is the most profound  understatement of the millennium.

August 8th, 2009 by admin

by D. L. Adams

There are two critical impediments that prevent the West from engaging effectively, or at all, in this existential conflict with Islam. Ignorance and multiculturalism (proto-legitimized moral relativism) must be deconstructed and delegitimized.

It is a moral and ethical failure to be ignorant of the purposes and doctrine of political Islam. Ignorance of an existential enemy is shameful and indefensible. Multiculturalism must be exposed for the disastrous pseudo-philosophy of ignorance that it is. Founded upon ignorance and silly utopianist anti-intellectualism, multiculturalism prevents us from responding to political Islam because to do so in our morally bankrupt multicultural world is seen as intolerance. Defending your nation from cultural and literal annihilation is not “intolerance” it is the height of patriotism and rationality.

The fundamental dual concepts of multiculturalism are “tolerance” and “inclusiveness”. These very “nice” concepts are founded upon the idea that all cultures are of equal value and that differences between cultures are to be applauded and “accepted” rather than condemned when such condemnation is appropriate. The idea that a culture can be corrupt or even evil is dismissed as “bigotry” in the multiculturalist’s broken anti-knowledge world. Multiculturalism is the soiled garden in which Islam grows.

People who know the doctrine of political Islam and have the effrontery to discuss it in public are accused of bigotry by multiculturalists and the ignorant. The doctrine of political Islam as found in Sira, Koran, and Hadith is inherently intolerant and exclusive but this does not deter the multiculturalists. There is an unspoken superiority in their world; they believe themselves superior because they are so inclusive, accepting, and “nice”. The forces of evil see this welcoming inclusiveness from the cultures of the West as the actions of fools. These foolish actions are of great value to political Islam because in their false feelings of superiority multiculturalists are the perfect “dhimmis” for Islam, perfect servents of a totalitarian ideology whose purposes are entirely destructive of inclusiveness and tolerance. Multiculturalists are anti-knowledge useful idiots for the forces of cultural and literal annihilation that is Islam.

There has long been a concept very popular in the United States regarding immigration and assimilation which is that if we show new-comers to our shores how nice, welcoming, and good we are, they will all become Americans. This model has worked for generations with European, Asian, South Americans and immigrants from across the world. Islam does not fit this model.

The model has failed because Islam does not assimilate. Islam does not assimilate because Islam is about submission. The word “Islam” translates to “submission”. Adherents of the so-called “religion of peace” are not interested in assimilation, they are interested only in bringing the entire world under Allah’s “religion”. For adherents of this miserable and cruel political ideology of hate and conquest only one religion, one political system, and one culture is allowed – that of Allah and Mohammed.  All other religions, cultures, and political systems are to be annihilated.

Because multiculturalists are willfully ignorant about the cultures that they defend – to them all cultures (no matter how abysmal they may be) are worthy of defense simply because they are “different” – Islam sees that the cultures of the West cannot defend themselves against them.

In fact, multiculturalism is the tool by which Islam infiltrates our institutions and political systems. Islam is at war with all non-believers everywhere and forever, this is called “jihad” or “fighting in Allah’s cause”. Jihad is so foundational to Islam that it is mentioned over 150 times in the text of the Koran. Because multiculturalists have no need to know anything about any culture (after all, all cultures are “equal” therefore knowledge of any one culture is of little necessity, value, or import) they do not understand that they are under attack.

Multiculturalism and ignorance, the two walk hand in hand together, are the greatest weaknesses of the cultures of the West.

The model of assimilation has failed. It has failed because resurgent Islam and its jihad has no interest in assimilation. Multiculturalists do not know this, and when they are told the truth, they refuse obstinately to believe it. Acceptance of the truth of Islam is to accept the failure of the fundamental concepts of multiculturalism.

We in the West must judge cultures and adherents to such cultures when we make immigration decisions. We must accept the literal truth that some cultures are unpleasant and have belief systems that are contrary to ours. The idea that everyone loves freedom is a broken and confused concept. It is a ruined shell because in Islam the only freedom that is considered of value is the complete submission to Allah and Mohammed (and the doctrine of Islam). Islam sees freedom in total submission to the doctrine of Islam.

When we open our doors to Islam, we open ourselves and our nations to forces that reject our concepts of tolerance and inclusiveness. This is the absurdity and horror of multiculturalism- it is a failed philosophy of self-destruction.

We must learn the doctrine of Islam. Knowledge of the doctrine is akin to having the “playbook” of the opposing team in a sporting match. But this is not sport for us, it is about nothing less than our existential survival as non-Islamic countries and cultures. We must learn the doctrine of Islam to dispel our ignorance of Islam. Without knowledge of Islam we cannot oppose it; without knowledge some do not even realize that they are at war with us and therefore we are at war with them.

The banishment of ignorance through knowledge is critically important if we are to survive as freedom-loving, tolerant, and “nice” cultures. It is a patriotic duty to learn the doctrine of Islam and educate others about it.

We must destroy multiculturalism; deconstruct it, delegitimize it, and acknowledge it as the utopian self-destructive fantasy that it is. All cultures are not equivalent. Some cultures are better than others, and some are our enemies and some our friends. This is reasonable, rational thinking. The foundational concept of multiculturalism is that all cultures are of equal value and worth. This is inclusiveness, tolerance, and “niceness” taken to the extreme. This is anti-intellectualism and irrational thinking that will result in the entire loss of our civilizations. Multiculturalism must be destroyed and swept into the dustbin of absurdity where it belongs.

Failure to destroy multiculturalism, delegitimize it and its adherents as the intellectual imposters and fools that they are is a national failure whose consequences are beyond unpleasant. Multiculturalism is the tool by which Islam gains access to our countries for the purpose of the destruction of the host culture.

The doctrine of Islam is clear on these points as are the adherents of the so-called “religion of peace”. Jihad is a responsibility for all Muslims. It is the command of both Allah and Mohammed. Mulsims who do Jihad are “good” Muslims because they follow the commands of Allah and Mohammed; those who do not do jihad are “extremists” because they reject the commands of the doctrine of Islam. Those who reject jihad are perfect fodder for jihadists because they are not “good” Muslims. This concept must be understood clearly. Our conceptions of good/evil, right/wrong do not apply in the Islamic worldview.

Multiculturalism must be destroyed. Multiculturalists must be mocked and criticised for the self-destructive fools that they are. Their philosophy is used by our enemies to gain entree and power in our institutions and cultures. Multiculturalists, in their utopian ignorance, are tools of the enemy – their philosophy must be rejected, repudiated, and deconstructed so that rational thought can again be the dominant mode of thought across the West. To do any less is failure.

When we know nothing of Islam, we lose. When we say that all cultures are equivalent and we can no longer identify good and evil, right and wrong, we lose. Ignorance of Islam is not acceptable, it is a moral and ethical failure.

Multiculturalism is a tool of Islam; it is a disastrous ideology of false “nice” that is used to stifle critical thought and open debate. Multiculturalism is a complete failure as it is used by our enemies to destroy us. It is a failed fake intellectual concept for “nice” people to abjure their responsibilities to themselves, their cultures and countries. Multiculturalism must be destroyed.

May 3rd, 2009 by admin

by Vijay Kumar

The brazen, unhindered advance of Taliban militants in Pakistan threatens the world once gain with the specter of universal jihad.

The consolidation of Islamic imperialism in the Pakistani heartland underscores the futility of U.S. efforts to prop up Pakistan’s ruling generals with massive amounts of foreign aid. The military, riddled with Taliban sympathizers in its lower ranks and corruption at the top, has looked the other way while the militants gained strength, and has ceded swaths of territory to them.

Given Pakistan’s complicity with the Taliban, it is foolhardy for the Obama administration to attempt to buy security. Money sent to Islamabad will fall into the wrong hands and come back to haunt the U.S. and its allies. It will be used in attacks on U.S. troops in Afghanistan; it will be used to terrorize India and Israel.

It is only a matter of time until the Taliban has imposed its ironclad will on the people of Pakistan, much as it did in Afghanistan before 9/11. U.S. bankrolling of a Pakistani regime rife with Taliban proxies will not succeed; it is like putting a Band-aid on leprosy. America needs to unite and work with nations that historically have been victims of jihad, not those that are its progenitors.

Radical Islam is implacable. Its ideology does not admit competitors. It is the enemy of democracy wherever it encounters it. The Islamists will not be content until they have Talibanized the world, imposing their fundamentalist variant of Sharia law on true believers and infidels alike. Terrorism is a means to that end for the Islamists, who have a long, successful history of ideological conquest. America’s “War on Terror” has erred by treating terrorism as an end in itself.

The time has come for the world’s infidels to unite against the tidal wave of jihad before it engulfs them. Because demographic conquest is the most permanent form of conquest, it is imperative that the West halt all immigration from Sharia-practicing nations before it is subverted from within.

The only lasting solution to the threat of universal jihad is to demilitarize, secularize and democratize the nations that promote it, specifically Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Unless this axis of jihad forgoes its fundamentalist and militarist theology and joins the world of secular humanity, the world will have no lasting peace. The West cannot buy its way out of this threat with another stimulus package.

This article appeared in the Tennessean today. Mr. Kumar was a candidate for Congress in the 5th Congressional District (Davidson County/Nashville) in 2008.

May 2nd, 2009 by admin

by D. L. Adams

Islam is so strong because we are so weak.

• Islam is not strong because it is a loving religion; Islam hates all unbelievers (kafirs).
• Islam is not strong because it is inclusive; Islam hates all other religions and political systems, and cultures. No other religion is acceptable to Islam, only Islam is acceptable.
• Islam is not strong because it is forgiving; all unbelievers must become Muslim, this is the mission of jihad – destroy all kafir religions and states so that they become Muslim.
• Islam is not strong because it is kind to women; Islam is a misogynist ideology. Men have multiple wives, women must have one husband. Women are not considered equal to men in any aspect of life in Islam. Men can beat their wives. Women are considered chattel, slaves.

Mohammed was quite clear on the matter of women. 

“When I stood on the door of hell, I saw most of its inhabitants were women.”

“Women lack brain and religion.”

“If a man summoned his wife for intercourse and she refused, the angels will curse her till the dawn.” (Hadiths, Bukhari)

Islam is not strong because it is just; Islam is a slave holding system. Islam believes that all kafirs are potential slaves. Sharia law of Islam is cruel and brutal; Gays and accused adulterers are tortured and executed.

• Islam is not strong because it is compassionate; Islamic charity is reserved only for Muslims to other Muslims.
• Islam is not strong because Islam is friendly; Muslims are forbidden from befriending any non-Muslims, this is a sin in Islam.
• Islam is not strong because it is forgiving; Mohammed held grudges for years, never forgetting a slight and taking revenge years after the slight itself had occured.
• Islam is not strong because it is the religion of peace; all Muslims are obligated to fight the unbeliever forever and everywhere. This is an obligation for all Muslims. Non-participation in jihad is a sin.

Islam is not strong because of anything about Islam itself.

Islam is strong because we are weak. Western nations that do not defend their borders, control immigration, identify Islam as a threat, and protect the institutions and foundational concepts that make them particularly American, British, French, Danish, Dutch, Swedish, Spanish, Canadian, Norwegian, etc. are nations in twilight to the rise of Islam.

Islam grows because we will not learn, will not accept the truth of Islam, and will not defend ourselves and our friends from this existential threat.

Islam does not need bombs, or terrorism; Islam needs only for us to not appreciate our own countries and cultures and defend them.

Islam grows because we are weak; we mistake the processes of democracy for Democracy itself and Freedom and thus sow our own disasters and destruction by empowering anti-freedom ideologies (lslam). We cannot allow the processes of democracy to bring about the end of Freedom. This is national and cultural suicide and this is exactly what is happening. There is no ideology or religion that is more intolerant, warlike, cruel, and brutal as Islam. There is no ideology that is more anti-freedom than Islam. This is not opinion, this is the doctrine of Islam itself. All humanity that does not believe in Islam and that Mohammed is Allahs messenger are kafirs; Islam is at war with kafirs forever.

The following quote from a new biography of Mohammed is important. Living by the point of my spear, Zaki Ameen, is written by a former Imam. If anyone should understand the true nature of Islam and Mohammed, an Imam is considered such a person.

Apparrently, they (the Bedouin tribes) did not understand the real meaning of Mohammed saying: ‘I have been sent to kill humans til they say there is no god except Allah and Mohammed, Allah’s messenger.’He did not specificy a single people, he did not say ‘I have been sent to kill ‘Bedouins’ or ‘Arabs’ so he was literally fighting everybody who didn’t believe that he was Allah’s messenger. This was a big misunderstanding by the Bedouin tribes.

page 74
(quoting Ibn Hisham, pt 4, p179.)

Islam is not strong because Islam is great, Islam is strong because we will not defend what is dear and true and good. This is national and cultural suicide it must stop and quickly!

April 20th, 2009 by admin

You are watching the fall of Sweden, if this process of multiculturalism, national suicide, Islamization is not stopped, quickly.

This is our future.

Film courtesy of a friend in Ohio. Islam is a totalitarian ideology that will not assimilate. Assimilation is contrary to the foundations, purposes, and goals of Islam. We must learn and know Islam’s ideology in order to stop this horrific process of the loss of our cultures, and our countries to Islamization.

April 9th, 2009 by admin

Several days ago Bill Warner, one of the leading analysts and scholars of political Islam and Islamic doctrine posted an analysis of the “Bush Doctrine of Islam”. Mr. Warner suggested strongly, and laid out the case, that former President Bush’s assertion that Islam is the “religion of peace” hijacked by “extremists” is the foundation of the left’s and the dhimmi’s failure to understand the reality of the cruelty and fundamental hatred of America and freedom that lies at the core of the doctrine of Islam.

Our wide-ranging lack of knowledge of Islamic doctrine, our inability as a culture and society to come to terms with the fact that Islam is fundamentally opposed to everything that Americans hold most dear is at the root of the advance of Islam in America. Mr. Warner calls out the media and academics for towing this entirely false line based upon ignorance and wishful thinking. Academics are essentially anti-intellectual in their defense of political Islam and their often harsh criticism of those who attempt to discuss the doctrine of Koran, Suna, and Hadith and the oppressive “legal system” of Islam, sharia.

The article elicited the following response from a former FBI special agent and now current professor. Apparently, he wanted to show Mr. Warner and his readers that not all professors are self-destructive dhimmis and apologists for political Islam. The author presents a fascinating and important socialogical study of jihadists and how they are created. The article convincingly details how 2nd and 3rd generation Muslim immigrants to the West have become jihadist killers. These are the people that immigration theorists considered to be the foundations of assimilation for the future. The theories are wrong, because the theorists did not know Islamic doctrine.

This is a frightening look at how otherwise pleasant and apparently settled Muslims can be brought readily into their doctrine, and taught that to bring about the perfect world of Dar al-Islam it is perfectly acceptable and beneficial to kill unbelievers. The comparison with SS true-believers is not at all out of context. There is a sense of “cult” in the way that otherwise pleasant people are turned to killers. This is the most dangerous, yet fastest growing cult on this planet. This article posted courtesy of Mr. Warner at politicalislam.com. (Note: Daniel Pipes, another noted scholar of Islam and terrorism has identified this apparently sudden shift from pleasant immigrant to jihadist as “sudden jihad syndrome“.)

Intro from Bill Warner: A reader responded to my charge that university professors are dhimmis. He maintains that not all professors are apologists and sent me this well-done article using a sociological basis of analysis. This is the type of work that reflects both knowledge of doctrine and critical reasoning.

The Sociology of Jihad, How Rational People Commit Atrocities
John Andrews

The Salafists believe that only Jihad can reestablish a true Muslim state that will abolish all injustice from the earth and bring people out of the servitude to others and into the servitude of God. It is the duty of Islam to destroy all political systems which prevent people from freely choosing it and experiencing universal freedom (56). The sword (Jihad) must clear the way for the preaching and destroy those elements which limit mankind to living in a world of evil and chaos (62). This sword would be carried by a restored Caliphate based on the traditions of the Prophet. The Caliphate would be a leader the masses could trust, understand and follow. He would provide a simple message well suited to Muslims, not well schooled in traditional Muslim teachings. This message is liberating the Umma from its external enemies, the infidels and Jews (al-Zawahiri, 2001: part 11).

It is difficult to generalize about the characteristics of the Salafist. Most of these individuals, approximately 80 percent, went to secular schools as children. Over 60 percent had some form of college, many attending in the West, and most were trained in the sciences, not philosophy or religion. However, a majority considered themselves religious as children; 73 percent were married and most had children. The majority were from overprotected families with doting parents and stable households. They did not suffer from any major mental disorders. If they had antisocial personalities, they would have been weeded out because of their inability to work well in an organization and their lack of dedication, perseverance and ability to sacrifice for the cause. The 9/11 hijackers are perfect examples. They were not hostile, violent or macho throughout their yearlong stay in the U.S. However, when the moment came they killed enthusiastically. They were able to do so because of their social networking and group morality, which was developed over years. These individuals were not predisposed to do harm individually, but did not hesitate to perform monstrous acts collectively (Sageman 2004: 74-82).

This original group joined the Jihad in their mid-twenties in a country where they had not grown up. Although they were, for the most part, religious as children, they became considerably more devout immediately before joining the Jihad (92). The subsequent group of Salafists were second- or third-generation Muslims living in the West. Many of these individuals felt excluded from the society they grew up in, had no discipline in their lives, and pursued petty crimes, drank and took part in drug use. They grew up with little or no religious training (100-101). We will go into greater detail later on this second group, but for now it is important to note a similarity between both groups prior to joining the Jihad. They felt alienated in their current society. This was true for the first group who had immigrated to another country and the second group who felt alienated in the country of their birth. They both sought a cause that would give them emotional relief, social community and spiritual comfort (97). They eventually drifted towards like-minded local individuals.

The original group sought out the mosque in the foreign country where people from their homeland were. These prospective converts may initially have had strong reservations about the group’s doctrines, but began developing strong ties of friendship with members of the group. There they began to form networks of friendships that solidified over a period of time. Sub groups were formed within the mosque where the intensity of their beliefs spiraled upward in an apparent game of one-upmanship. They found rules and structure that went beyond religion and became psychological and personal (108-109). They became embedded in a socially disembedded network, which, because of its lack of anchor to any society, is free to follow abstract and apocalyptic notions of a global war between good and evil (151). Instead of a top-down process of recruitment, it became a bottom-up process of young people volunteering to join the organization. They joined as a group, not as individuals. The East African embassy bombings and the Lackawanna Six involved individuals were close friends prior to joining the Jihad. Most of these relationships go back to childhood or are familial in nature, including in-laws and spouses. The crucial element is that social bonds predated formal recruitment into the Jihad. (110-113)

This process is rarely a fully conscious one. These sub-groups do not start out as terrorist groups. They evolve in that direction as their mutual relationships deepen, in a spiral of greater loyalty, mutual devotion, self-sacrifice and intimacy. They begin to believe that their actions are taken on behalf of God. Although outsiders focus on their willingness to kill, the insiders focus on their willingness to die. Their awareness of their own readiness to transcend their own self- interest fosters a special view of themselves and others like them that increases the value of friendship within the group and diminishes outside relationships. These feelings may compete with, and even be stronger than, those of love.

Ziad Jarrah’s fiancé testified about her progressive loss of her fiance’s love to the Hamburg terrorist cell which planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks. The loss of love to this type of friendship demonstrates its powerful bond. Positive emotions motivate people to carry out horrific acts more easily than negative emotions. Killing in defense of family, friends or country is acceptable and encouraged. Perhaps the 9/11 perpetrators carried out their horrendous actions out of in-group love rather than out-of-group hate (155-157). As was previously stated, the Jihad strives in the cause of God to abolish all injustice from the earth in order to bring people to the worship of God alone and to bring them out of servitude to others-to abolish those oppressive political systems, which prevented people from freely choosing Islam.

Islam is one of the most communal of all religions, with many orchestrated, shared rituals. Salafi Islam is very strict in its code of conduct and prescribes dress, diet and conduct. The elegance and simplicity of its interpretations attract many who seek a single solution devoid of ambiguity. Salafi Islam uses tactics developed by other totalitarian ideologies, such as fascism and communism. It promotes a visual apartheid to distinguish its adherents from the rest of society. The specific uniform consists of beards, shirts falling down to the knees, and baggy pants with a cloth cap. They also carry worry beads. Women cover their hair, avoid bright colors, and, in some instances, wear the burqa, which is head-to-toe covering. They have simple answers to complicated problems, and they divide the world into good Islam and bad non-Islam (116).

There is another subtle factor that makes Islam attractive. Traditional masculine roles are well preserved in Islam. Western men find it difficult to express their “manhood” in increasingly neutered societies. Islam possesses what are seen as masculine virtues from the seventh century when men walked the earth, sword in hand, accepting no insult, and conquering infidel neighbors. In comparison to Christianity, which states “turn the other cheek and pray for those who persecute you,” Islam comports more closely with man’s primordial lusts for war, booty and women (Ibrahim, 2006).

People will often seek a new religious or social affiliation after some significant change disrupts their old social networks, e.g., a new country, imprisonment, and alienation from friends and family. There is a period of social isolation in which the existing social and emotional ties are called into question and loosened until finally there is a total negation of everything that existed before (Sageman 2004:116). The religious revivalist organization possesses superior attractiveness over a secular political group. The Salafist emphasizes brotherhood, mutual sharing and spiritual support, which becomes the functional equivalent of an extended family.

New adherents progressively accept the new faith because it makes sense in their new interpretation of the world and their role in it. This learning process involves intense social interaction and introspection. The adherents distance themselves from their original network of friends and family or are rejected by them because of their new, highly visible behavior. The mastering of their friends’ beliefs comes after a long period of intense day-to-day interaction with them. In many cases they begin living an isolated lifestyle, which intensifies the social bonds of the members. This leads to a spiral of further isolation from the outside world, the development of a collective identity, and total commitment to the group. Muslims may engage in the Jihad because they share certain norms, values and worldviews which are shaped under the guidance of a Salafi imam preaching the benefits of the global Jihad. Social interactions at these mosques build and reinforce ideological commitments to the Jihad, which these new friends further encourage (117-121).

This social jihadism has worked with second- or third-generation Muslims and new immigrants as well. This development is a paradox to many sociologists, who figured that radical Islam was confined to newcomers who brought it with them. With time, the theory went, immigrants and their children would moderate their views. Instead, it is Europe’s second- and third-generation Muslims who are the most radical. Many of these individuals believe their European society is against them. They are growing up in a world of high unemployment and lack of integration in their homeland. Some begin drinking, doing drugs, becoming members of youth gangs and engaging in crimes with no moral compass or goal in life. They then become introduced to an individual who talks to them about the world, their place in it, and the religion of their ancestors. They are provided with audio and videotapes of preachers who advocate a stripped-down form of Islam that emphasizes the culture’s past glories and a handful of simple religious regulations.

Soon they are meeting with like-minded contemporaries, getting rid of jeans, t-shirts, drugs and alcohol and wearing the white gowns, skullcaps and beards. They become indoctrinated into political Islam, which preaches a Utopian view of society where all citizens are part of a just and fair Umma. There is no separation of church and politics. Life centers on the mosque not just for religious instruction, but for everything. Society should be founded on Islam, and all those who are different are held in contempt. Inside the mosque talk isn’t of integration, but rather how to protect oneself from harmful European society. Those members of the mosque who do not agree with this political Islam are shunned or forced out. The group dynamics change alienated young men into terrorists.

Basically, these individuals, with the help of their friends, recruit themselves. They do not necessarily attend terrorist camps or have experience on the battlefields (Johnson and Carreyrou: 2005). Their source of knowledge and indoctrination comes from the Internet. The Internet both appeals to and fosters disembeddedness. On the one hand, it appeals to isolated individuals by easing their loneliness through connections to people sharing some commonality. On the other hand, it leads them to spend more time with this virtual community at the expense of interaction with the immediate social environment. The chat rooms are egalitarian and appeal to those with limited theological background. It is a perfect compliment to the elegant simplicity and clarity of Salafism. The virtual community is not tied to any nation but to the abstract concept of the mythical umma of Salafism. This community is just, egalitarian, full of opportunity, unified in Islam, purged of national peculiarities, and devoid of corruption. It is the ideal world that Jihad strives for (Sageman, 2004: 161-163).

“He is a great guy, one of the nicest people I’ve ever met. He is a loving husband and he has a wife and parents in town. They are a great family. He is a very kind person. You would meet him on the street and he would want to hug you. He was a normal guy always laughing. We went partridge hunting together. He was into partying. We hit some pretty wild clubs in Hollywood.” These are all quotes from people who knew individuals convicted of killing hundreds of people in suicide attacks or conspiring to provide money, recruits and equipment to the international Jihad.

Were they really decent fellows? They would never commit a murder or crime of any kind for personal gain or self-interest. Their ideology convinced them that the murders were committed for a good purpose. They were committed for the sake of a societal vision of building a good and just world. They are not unlike the SS during the Third Reich. Heinrich Himmler told a group of SS leaders:
“Most of you know what it means to see a hundred corpses lying together, five hundred or a thousand. To have gone through this and yet-apart from a few exceptions which are examples of human weakness-to have remained decent fellows, this is what has made us hard. This is a glorious page in our history that has never been written and shall never be written … ”

These people are not raving maniacs. We must go beyond calling them terrorists and examine their ideology. They do not perform these acts in a vacuum. They are building a society and will use any means to achieve it. They do so not because they are sociopaths who hate people, but because they are true believers who want to save people. And so we are continually surprised when they turn out to be nice guys after all. Decent fellows. Like the SS (Spenser, 2007).

REFERENCES
Al-Zawahiri, Ayman. (2001) “Knights Under the Prophet’s Banner.” Serialized in eleven parts in Al-Sharqal-Awsat (London) December 2.

Ibrahim, Raymond. (2006) “Islam’s Appeal or Boys Will Be Boys.” www. victorhanson.com. September 19.
Johnson, Ian and Carreyrou, John. (2005) “In France, Political Islam Preaches Intolerance, Challenge to Secularism.” Wall Street Journal, July 11.

Qutb, Sayyid. “Milestones.” N.D.
Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Mother Mosque Foundation.
Sageman, Mark. (2004) “Understanding Terror Networks.” University of Pennsylvania Press, Philedelphia.

Spenser, Robert. (2007) “Why’s a Nice Guy Like You Doing a Terrorist Act Like This?”. www.FrontPageMagazine.com. April 18. 8

March 30th, 2009 by admin

On January 27, 2009,  the President signed a Presidential Determination outlining the multimillions of dollars that the United States will spend to repatriate Palestinians to the United States. As a Gateway city, Nashville is sure to see an influx of Palestinians running from the violence and squalor of their failed Palestinian Authority and the destruction of Gaza that they themselves caused through their endless rocket fire against Israel (and murder of its people). One can hardly blame them.

But there is a potential problem; a serious problem for folks in Nashville and across the US. We know that Hamas is a terrorist organization. We know this because our own Department of State lists them as a terror organization and we know from their statements and their so-called “constitution” that they are cruel and hyper-violent terrorists; but more importantly we know from their actions of killing innocents indiscriminately across Israel (including Americans) that they are a terror organization. This is their path, and their purpose.

Sections of Hamas “Constitution” (source):

4. Regarding peace, its Article 13 is totally negative: “Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion. Its members have been fed on that. (.) There is no solution to the Palestinian question except by Jihad. All initiatives, proposals, and International Conferences are a waste of time and vain endeavours.”

5. Religious hatred of Jews (not only of Israel) is expressed by a hadith or ’saying’ that concludes Article 7: “The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews) when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say: O Muslims (.) there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. “Only the gharkad tree [evidently a certain kind of tree] would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (this hadith, quoted from al-Bukhari and Muslim, both considered as highly reliable sources for the hadith or ’sayings’ of the Prophet Muhammad).

6. Article 8, the slogan of the Islamic Resistance Movement – Hamas (widely quoted by clerics and others) is a blueprint for jihadist terrorism: “Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its Constitution; Jihad is its path, and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.”

 The text of the Presidential Order is as follows (see the document: presidential_documents_c2bb_federal_register_fr_doc_e9-2488_sun_mar_29_2009):

DOCID: fr04fe09-106
DOCUMENT SUMMARY:
[[Page 6115]]
Presidential Determination No. 2009-15 of January 27, 2009
Unexpected Urgent Refugee and Migration Needs Related To Gaza

Memorandum for the Secretary of State
By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 2(c)(1) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 (the “Act”), as amended (22 U.S.C. 2601), I hereby determine, pursuant to section 2(c)(1) of the Act, that it is important to the national interest to furnish assistance under the Act in an amount not to exceed $20.3 million from the United States Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund for the purpose of meeting unexpected and urgent refugee and migration needs, including by contributions to international, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations and payment of administrative expenses of Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration of the Department of State, related to humanitarian needs of Palestinian refugees and conflict victims in Gaza.
You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.
(Presidential Sig.)
THE WHITE HOUSE,
Washington, January 27, 2009

Plans are in place, monies are to be spent not to exceed “20.3 million” to help with the “urgent and unexpected refugee and migration needs” of the Palestinians of Gaza. Now, the first question is why don’t the Palestinians from Gaza relocate to the West Bank? If they prefer not to live so close to Israel, why not relocate to any number of Arab states? This is something of a conundrum and we’ve not the space to cover such weighty matters in this post.

What is important is this: Hamas won their democratic election to govern Gaza by a landslide. While it is true that Palestinian voters had the difficult choice between one corrupt terrorist group and another corrupt terrorist group, they chose the corrupt terrorist group with no interest in peace with Israel and that supports active violent jihad against the US. The election of Hamas was a mandate for endless jihad against Jews, and all-unbelievers – especially if they happened to live in Israel.

As Hamas came to power in a landslide electoral victory, most Palestinians supported them, worked for and with them, voted for them, or are Hamas members. How will US government immigration authorities vet Palestinian “refugees” from Gaza so that no Hamas members are allowed into the country, and anyone with Hamas and jihadist sympathies is excluded from coming to the United States? What safeguards will be put in place to protect the people of Nashville or any other American city or town in which Palestinians are to settle when the millions of our tax dollars are spent rescuing them from their own self-destructive course of warfare, terrorism, violence, hatred, jihad, and murder? What assurances will the Obama Administration give to host state and local authorities that newly arrived Palestinian “refuges” are not jihadist terrorists, Hamas members and Islamist supremicists whose goal is the undermining of the United States, its government, religious freedom and tolerance, and culture? There is no language in the document above funding Palestinian relocation to the US that could provide any answers, but these are the answers that must be provided to authorities in Nashville and other cities who will host these new-comers to our shores.

We must be assured, there must be surity, and certain proof provided that these new-comers come in peace –  prepared to accept our laws and our religions, and culture. If no such proofs are provided this program is another step in our self-hating program of pretending that political Islam and its adherents are not a great and existential threat to our country and our people and democratic way of life.

Such a course is nothing less than national insanity, and national suicide.