Rapport, Connection and Thanksgiving

In the United States, almost everyone is anticipating a Thanksgiving feast later this week. Most people will spend the day with their family. For many of us, our families have been the most difficult people to educate about Islam, and it is a painful fact that in many ways some of our own family members are "aiding and abetting" the enemy (without knowing it, of course).

Family get-togethers may seem like a good opportunity to make your case, but I caution you against it. First of all, talking politics in those circumstances can easily ruin the event for everyone. And an argument certainly will. Second, persuading someone in a group situation is much more difficult than one-on-one (unless most of the people there are on your side of the argument). And third, many of your fellow infidels will be drinking alcohol, and that doesn't help with good listening or clear thinking.

The family gathering can, however, help our cause. You can use the occasion to observe and gain rapport. I suggest you focus this Thanksgiving on one person. Who is the most likely to be persuaded who will be attending the feast? Who is the most undecided? Pick one person.

Now, during your family occasion, try to discover which representational system the person favors (click here if you don't know what that means).

And second, use your body to gain and maintain rapport throughout the day with everyone there, especially the person you picked (click here to find out how to do that). I suggest you do this at family gatherings of any kind.

These things will set you up beautifully for future one-on-one conversations with the person — conversations where you'll have a good chance of bringing them to a new understanding of Islam. In many ways, your task is mostly done as soon as you are in strong rapport. Sometimes taking your focus off convincing and persuading can make you more convincing and persuasive. Sometimes not approaching something directly improves your ability.

I have seen a demonstration that perfectly illustrates this principle. In fact, I've done the demonstration myself several times after seeing it in a seminar. Here's how it goes: I toss something to someone, and they miss it. And they say something like, "I'm terrible at catching." So I tell them I'm going to test something. "I'm going to toss you this ball," I say, "but this time don't try to catch it. Instead, I want you to tell me which way the ball is spinning." Then I toss the ball, and to their great surprise, they catch it easily.

How does this work? They take their attention off trying to catch the ball, and instead pay close attention to the ball itself, and their body responds naturally and easily and catches it.

In the same way, if you take your attention off making people believe you, and instead pay close attention to their favored representational system and pay close attention to their body posture and match it, you have a good chance of making them believe you — easily and naturally — without even trying.

These two missions I've given you for your family gathering are not time-consuming, difficult, upsetting, or conflict-creating. You can do these things and fully enjoy the day too. Have a happy Thanksgiving.

We Can Bankrupt the Global Jihad

After the "Arab Spring," Saudi Arabia gave its citizens a raise. Saudis citizens don't pay income taxes. Most of them don't even work. The Saudi government pays them, and to avoid the fate of the leaders in Egypt, Libya and elsewhere, the Saudis increased their citizens' pay and pensions. They committed future funds to these payoffs.

This has presented the counterjihad movement an opportunity to strike a decisive blow into the heart of the global jihad.

Jihadist projects are funded largely through Saudi Arabia and Iran, two OPEC nations. The Taliban is a Saudi oil-money project, for example. So is the Muslim Brotherhood and the OIC. Hezbollah is an Iranian oil-money project.

OPEC is a cartel formed of primarily Islamic countries. OPEC was founded for the purpose of raising world oil prices. Jihadist activities around the world have been on the rise because jihadist funding has been on the rise. The source of that funding is oil profits, which have been on the rise.

What keeps the whole thing functioning is oil's monopoly over the most important commodity on earth — transportation fuel.

In the 1980's, because the rising cost of oil, many new programs were started to create a freer fuel market. Brazil launched its ambitious ethanol program, many new ethanol distilleries were built in America, Roberta Nichols created a massive methanol experiment in California, etc. But in the mid-80's, OPEC flooded the world market with oil in order to drop world oil prices, which made all of these potentially-competitive fuels no longer competitive on price, which crashed Brazil's program, put half the U.S. ethanol facilities into bankruptcy, and prompted California to abandon its methanol experiment.

It was a classic monopolist move. It's the oldest trick in the monopolist's book: Drop your price to send the competition into bankruptcy.

Once their competitors were sufficiently crippled, OPEC started raising the world oil price again.

But competing fuels have recently begun to reappear. Brazil permanently changed to flex fuel vehicles (rather than ethanol-only vehicles) for example, which has protected them from OPEC's manipulations (when oil prices drop, drivers buy gasoline; when oil prices rise, drivers buy ethanol). Brazil's economy is booming.

In the United States there is a growing clamor to use methanol as a fuel, ideally in flex fuel vehicles. Methanol can be made inexpensively from America's abundant natural gas, and can be sold for half the cost of gasoline without any subsidies. If it was available as a fuel, people would buy methanol because it would save them a lot of money. But right now, it is not available as a fuel in the U.S. One bill now in Congress is trying to change that.

So let's say the bill passes into law and methanol becomes available, and people start using methanol for fuel. Gasoline would have to drop in price to compete, or it wouldn't sell. Everything would be wonderful. But...

Wouldn't OPEC just drop the world price of oil to crush this new competitor?

This is where things have changed in an important way. This is our new opportunity. Saudi Arabia controls what OPEC does. The Saudis are sitting on the easiest oil to produce in the world, and therefore theirs is the cheapest oil to produce. Because of this, they dictate what the rest of the OPEC nations will do. But if methanol becomes a fuel in America, Saudi Arabia (and the global jihad movement) will be between a rock and a hard place — and it could be the end of both OPEC and the third jihad.

If the Saudis decide to lower the world price of oil to make the U.S. lose interest in methanol, they would not make enough money to fulfill their commitments to pay off their subjects, who would probably rise up and throw the monarchy out. But if the Saudis keep the price of oil high, they would lose their income, because who would buy gasoline at $4.00 a gallon when methanol is available for half the price of an equivalent gallon? Not many.

Gal Luft, the co-director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, wrote:

Since the beginning of the Arab Spring, Saudi King Abdullah almost doubled his Kingdom's budget, committing billions in subsidies, pensions and pay raises in an effort to keep his subjects from storming the palaces.

This expensive response effectively raised the price of oil needed for the Saudis to balance their budget from under $70 a barrel before 2011 to at least $110 a barrel by 2015.

When oil is $100 a barrel, gasoline is about $3.50 to $4.00 a gallon. Methanol can sell at about $2.00 an equivalent gallon. Oil would have to be $50 a barrel to compete.

In other words, what happened in the 1980's can no longer happen. Saudi Arabia can no longer afford to drop the price of oil low enough to eliminate the competition. If we introduce vigorous fuel competition now in America, it will be the end of oil's monopoly for good, and funding for the global jihad would evaporate as Saudi Arabia and Iran would be forced to struggle to simply stay afloat.

This is an unprecedented opportunity. And you can help make it happen: If you are an American, join the fuel competition revolution. Go to openfuelstandard.org and sign up for their updates and urge your Representative to co-sponsor the bill. If you are in any other country, let your fellow counterjihadists know about this bill and what it could mean for the world, and let everyone around the world urge Americans to pass this bill. The U.S. is the largest consumer of transportation fuel in the world. If fuel competition happens here, it will spread to other countries. And it will be the death knell of the third jihad.

It’s Time to Shock O.P.E.C.

The following important article is by Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy:

Forty years ago this week, America received a harsh lesson about the dangers of relying on others for energy. President Nixon’s decision in the midst of the Yom Kippur War to resupply Israel with U.S. weaponry gave members of the OPEC cartel an excuse to embargo oil supplies to this country and drive up prices worldwide. It became known as the “oil shock” of 1973.

Ever since, politicians of both parties have promised to reduce our dependency on unreliable foreign sources. To that end over the past four decades, they have invested untold sums on various schemes – from imposing price controls, producing synthetic fuels and subsidizing ethanol production, curbing demand and diversifying overseas sources of supply for oil and natural gas.

Thanks largely to private sector initiatives and funds, however, real progress has lately been made on this longstanding national objective. Finally, the widespread application of technology like horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (better known as fracking) and a series of discoveries of vast quantities of natural gas around the United States and off its coasts have transformed our situation from one of energy dependency to potentially that of the largest energy exporter in the world.

The geopolitical and economic significance of this transformation will be the focus of conferences sponsored by two influential, bipartisan groups in Washington this week. Former Cabinet and sub-Cabinet officers, senior military personnel and other experts will convene on Tuesday under the auspices of the U.S. Energy Security Council and on Wednesday under that of Securing America’s Future Energy (SAFE) to discuss the oil embargo, the intervening years and where we are today vis a vis those who used energy as an economic weapon against us in the past.

It is very much to be hoped that these conversations will not simply repeat nostrums about the inadvisability of being dependent upon unreliable – to say nothing of  actually hostile – energy sources. Or, worse yet, simply revel in the change of fortunes that will, in the absence of further Obama administration obstructionism, enable us to become again a huge net producer of energy. (Regrettably, between its pursuit of cap-and-trade restrictions on carbon emissions, overreaching EPA regulations, the campaign to destroy the coal industry and further shenanigans with respect to the Keystone XL pipeline, there is ample reason to expect more official impediments to our energy security, not fewer.)

What is needed now is a strategic approach to using our newfound energy leverage to cause some oil “shocks” of our own.

For starters, the windfall of natural gas deposits being found in this country opens up an opportunity to transform the sector in which we are still almost entirely dependent on oil and its byproducts: the transportation of people and goods via automobiles, buses and trucks.  If natural gas can become widely used in eighteen-wheelers and turned into methanol for use in most modern cars, we could dramatically reduce the amount of gasoline we are obliged to import from the Islamists of OPEC.

What is more, as Nobel laureate George Olah observed in an op.ed. article he co-authored in the Wall Street Journal last week, recent breakthroughs in chemistry are allowing another vast U.S. resource – carbon dioxide – to be cost-effectively converted into methanol. Far better to burn it in our automobiles and in modified surface transportation and maritime diesel engines than to pay exorbitant sums, as Team Obama has in mind, to try to store it underground.

Best of all, by enabling these alternatives to oil and gasoline to become available across America, we can create fuel choice for consumers – and competition for the cartelists. The predictable effect would be to drive oil prices down, especially as the scores of other developing nations capable of manufacturing their own alternatives to gasoline begin to do so, as Brazil has already done with ethanol.

The result could be to break the back of OPEC, once and for all. That, in turn, would help dry up the funding that has done so much for decades to power jihadism and undermine our economy.

This is no longer simply a desirable thing to do. It is absolutely imperative. As Center for Security Policy Senior Fellow Kevin Freeman has observed, Mideast oil producers seem determined to join the Chinese and Russians, among others, in terminating the U.S. dollar’s status as the world’s international reserve currency. Should they succeed in this gambit, the profound and debilitating economic and strategic ramifications will make the oil shock of forty years ago look like the good old days.

Adopting bipartisan Open Fuel Standard legislation and taking such other steps as are necessary to enable fuel choice can help us withstand as well disruptions in oil supply and/or skyrocketing price increases in the event of a new regional war in the Middle East. We can and must be in a position to deliver the next oil shock, not be its recipient.

Separating Kafirs from Muslims

The following was written by Bill Warner, Director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam:

When the al Shabaab jihadi group from Somalia attacked the mall in Kenya, they gathered the crowd together and asked who were Muslims and let them go. According to the media, they then started killing the non-Muslims who were left. But non-Muslims is not the word what the terrorists would have used. No, they would have called them Kafirs (actually they would have called them the Arabic plural of kafir, kuffar. Kafirs is the standard English plural form).

Why did members of al Shabaab do this? Why did they ask the Muslims to leave and keep the Kafirs and start killing them? Let’s start with the word terrorists. Members of al Shabaab are not terrorists, they are jihadists or mujahedeen. That is what they call themselves.

So what difference does it make which words we use? Non-Muslim or Kafir? Terrorists, militants, jihadists or mujahedeen? It makes all the difference in the world. You cannot think precisely with imprecise words and a Kafir is much more than a non-Muslim.

The word “non-Muslim” does not imply anything, except not being a believer in Islam.

Kafir, on the other hand, has enormous implications. Kafir is the actual word that the Koran uses for a non-Muslim. Indeed, one of the many remarkable things about the Koran is that over half of its text is devoted to the Kafir. Think about that: most of the Koran is not about how to be a Muslim, but about the Kafir. Every single verse about the Kafir is not just bad, but terrible. Allah hates Kafirs and plots and schemes against them. The cruelest punishments await the Kafir in hell, but who cares about that? The real problem is what is promised to the Kafir in this life — torture, hatred, death, ridicule, rape, enslavement, political domination and deception.

It is the same with mujahedeen or jihadist as opposed to militant or terrorist. The words militant or terrorist do not tell anything about the motivation of the militant or terrorist, only that they are using violence.

Notice that the words non-Muslim and terrorist are not related to each other; they stand alone. There is no implication of one by the other. But that is not true about Kafir and jihad. Jihad is only carried out against Kafirs. Jihad implies Kafir and vice versa.

Jihad and Kafir are all part of a system of Islamic politics. Mohammed preached the religion of Islam for 13 years and garnered 150 followers. When he turned to politics and jihad, he died ruler of all of Arabia, and every Arab was a Muslim. The religion of Islam was a failure, and Islam triumphed by the use of politics and jihad, war against the Kafir.

Islamic doctrine is found in the Koran, Sunna (Mohammed) and Sharia law and divides all of humanity into Muslim and Kafir. There is no middle ground. Unfortunately, both Christian and Jewish leaders have bought into the fiction that they are all People of the Book and are brothers in religion. When you read the fine print (as none of them have done, being professionally ignorant), they are brothers in Abraham who must be politically and religiously subjugated, but that is a small detail.

If jihad, mujahedeen, and Kafir are pure Islamic doctrine, we can now understand why the media refuses to the correct words that Muslims use — it is all too horrible to contemplate. We are not just having independent terrorist events, such as the West Gate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya or the Boston Marathon bombing; we are in the middle of a civilizational war with a historic enemy — an enemy who is winning because we are in total denial.

Published as an article on American Thinker.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink: http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/separating-the-kafirs-from-the-muslims/
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com
Use as needed, just give credit and do not edit.
www.politicalislam.com

Remembering 9/11 with Erick Stakelbeck

If you are anywhere near Tennessee, you are invited to an event you won't want to miss. Read more about it here. The event will take place on September 11, 2013 at the Embassy Suites in Cool Springs (the VIP event begins at 5:30pm and the General Event begins at 6:45pm).

The "Remembering 9/11" event will include the following speakers:

• Erick Stakelbeck - Author of "The Brotherhood: America's Next Great Enemy" and "The Terrorist Next Door: How the Government is Deceiving You About the Islamist Threat"
• Rabbi Jon Hausman - Ahavath Torah Congregation Rabbi in Stoughton, MA
• Cathy Hinners - former Law Enforcement Officer and Activist
• State Senator Bill Ketron
• State Representative Judd Matheny
• J. Lee Douglas - 9/12 Project Tennessee

VIP tickets for this event are currently sold out (though a waiting list is being compiled). There are still tickets left for the general event that will feature the bulk of the program. You can register for the event below:

General Event - Remembering 9/11
VIP Event - Remembering 9/11

You Are the Cure

On our Facebook page, someone wrote (I'm paraphrasing), "I'm not able to say how disgusted and angry orthodox Muslims make me feel. No words can convey it. I'm just hoping mankind can find a cure for this deadly social cancer."

That last sentence is a very common comment by people who have discovered the intolerance and hostility and calls to violence embedded in core Islamic doctrines. My answer to the commenter is a message I want to give to everyone:

YOU are the cure. When someone is running a scam on people, what's "the cure?" Can you track them all down and stop them? Not a chance. Can you eradicate scams once and for all? No, you can't. Can you "ban" scams? It wouldn't do any good. But you don't need to even try any of these things. You only need to blow the lid off the game.

Here's how we deal with scams: We share information when we find out about a scam, and then other people are wise to the scam and don't fall for it. That's all we need.

Orthodox Muslims are making inroads in the free world only because too many of us don't know the scam. Too many of us don't understand the true nature of Islamic doctrine. That's where YOU come in. We can't rely on the media. We sure as hell can't rely on politicians. That leaves personal relationships.

Reach people. If you are having trouble doing that, here is a handbook on the subject: Getting Through.

A Justifiable Concern Among Non-Muslims

The following is a letter to the editor by Edward Kesler that was published in the August 23, 2013 issue of the Tribune Star.

Demands Reforms in Muslim Teachings

Many non-Muslims feel threatened by the hateful teachings of the Koran, a Muslim holy book. For example, the Koran calls Jews the “children of apes and pigs” and calls on Muslims not to befriend Jews or Christians. It demands that Muslims “slay the idolaters”, Buddhists, Hindus, followers of any religion not comporting with their view of Allah and Mohammed. It calls on Muslims to wage Jihad (wars) against non-Muslims to collect war booty and to impose Jizya taxes on them as a part of the imposition of shariah (Muslim) law on the defeated non-Muslims. Jizya can be received in many forms, such as welfare, etc.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees American residents (including non-citizens) complete religious freedom. This is a freedom to worship, not to spread hatred of our society, culture and mores in the presumably religious settings and environments of mosques and Islamic centers.

The indoctrination of Muslims, young and old, with hate-filled, violent ideas are a justifiable concern among non-Muslims. It is disconcerting for Christians, Jews or any other non-Muslim to understand that local mosques and Islamic cultural centers are teaching these hateful values to their Muslim neighbors and their children.

The recent rapes, tortures and murders of Coptic Christians in Egypt and the continued barbaric savagery committed against Christians in Nigeria and across Africa should be instructive. More than 100 million Africans, 160 million Christians, Buddhists and Hindus have been killed by Islamic Jihad. Entire Jewish populations have been destroyed in Muslim countries.

Non-Muslims have a right to demand that Muslims in America undertake serious reforms of Islam ideology. As Americans, we must demand these issues be addressed immediately.

— Edward Kesler

The Poor, Persecuted Muslim Brotherhood!

Before you read the article below, I'd like to give you some background about the author. Henri Boulad has been a Catholic priest for over 40 years in Egypt. He's now 82 and still writing and speaking worldwide. He has long spoken out about the persecution of Christians in Islamic countries, and about living as a non-Muslim in a Muslim country. A man of courage and integrity, caring, warm and intelligent, he speaks the truth from his lifetime of experience.

The Poor, Persecuted Muslim Brotherhood!

by Henri Boulad, SJ, Cairo, August 17, 2013

 

The entire Western world is outraged, offended and scandalized because the Egyptian Army has dared to dislodge the Muslim Brotherhood from the two bastions of Rabia and Nahda, where they had been barricaded for several weeks. Bottom line: more than six hundred dead in the two camps.

In no time at all, the right-thinking Western media uttered cries and whimpers asking the Security Council and international human rights associations to condemn this savage aggression with the utmost firmness.

The poor Muslim Brothers! Victims of violence! Those gentle lambs, well known for their sweetness and innocence! The object of unacceptable brutality. Consequently, it’s a duty to defend them against the devouring wolves of the Egyptian army and police. The USA, Great Britain, France, Germany, Turkey, the UN...then, should rise as one man to denounce injustice, defend those innocents, and invite the world to fly to their rescue. The international media instantly leapt upon Pegasus to charge at the guilty ones…

This lifting of shields to claim and proclaim the right of all citizens to protest "peacefully" has something tragicomical about it.

Consider the facts:

1. The Rabaa mosque, where the Brothers were holed up was a real armory where an incredible arsenal of war was discovered. No denunciations from the West. 

2. For weeks, the Brotherhood’s militias, armed to the teeth, sowed terror among the whole population of Egypt: killings, abductions, kidnappings, ransom demands, abductions and rape of girls forcibly married to Muslims. No reaction from the West. 

3. More than 20 police stations looted and burned; nearly fifty policemen and officers killed and tortured in the most savage way. Silence from the West. 

4. Sufi mausoleums destroyed and Shiite families massacred raise NO international emotion. 

5. Some 50 churches, schools and Christian institutions burned in the single day of August 14. No protest on the part of the West. 

6. Priests and Christians attacked and killed — including children of tender age — for the sole reason that they were Christians. No Western denunciation appeared which might be accused of "Islamophobia", which today is the crime of crimes. 

7. Nearly 1,500 people massacred by Morsi militias during its one-year reign. Silence from the media. 

8. Secret agreements from Morsi to sell Egypt, piece by piece to its neighbors: 40% of the Sinai to Hamas and the Palestinians, Nubia to Omar al-Bashir, and the western portion of the territory to Libya... This is a gift for the West, since it is their doing…

When Egypt finally decides to react and put some order in the house...the West cries ‘persecution’, ‘injustice’ and ‘scandal’!

It’s a secret to no one that the presidential elections were a broad farce and that the election was tainted by massive fraud. Nevertheless, the media persisted in asserting that Morsi was the first president in Egyptian history to be 'democratically' elected and that he achieved 'legitimacy'.

The Egyptian people are easy to blame, since they agreed to play this game, saying to themselves: ‘Let’s see what they actually do.’ The result was so catastrophic — insecurity, unemployment, inflation, bread and gasoline shortages, the economy in free fall, moribund tourism — that at the end of one year the entire population requested Morsi to clear out.

Within two months, the Tamarrod movement collected more than 22 million signatures calling for his departure. In vain! Facing his obstinacy, tens of millions of Egyptians — the majority of which were the humble people who had been his former supporters — turned out on the streets of major cities to demand his departure. Still in vain!

The Army — neutral until then — decided to intervene to support the people and toss the bums out, keeping them under house arrest. During long hours of interrogation, the Army got revelations of exceptional wrongdoings that compromised both the Muslim Brotherhood and a number of foreign countries.

Faced with the Army’s power grab, the West immediately cried ‘coup d’état’.  If it had been a ‘coup d’état’, it was a ‘people’s coup’, rather than military one. The Army had merely acquiesced to the will of the people. The people were fed up with a president who had betrayed, flimflammed and hoodwinked them, and they reacted with a survival reflex, calling for his departure.

A delightful little story illustrates what I am saying. A guy buys a can of something at the grocery which, once opened, appears to be spoiled. What’s he going to do? Eat it or toss it? Toss it, obviously.

It's kind of what did the Egyptian people did after Morsi and the Brothers promised the moon and the stars. Once the can was opened, they realized that it was all rotten. And so they reacted by rejecting them.

Following Morsi’s house arrest, the Army still wanted to have the Muslim Brotherhood contribute to the new Government, offering them to team up with other parties. That met with systematic and stubborn refusal.

After numerous unsuccessful attempts of dialogue and negotiations with them, a new provisional government was set up.

It was then they decided to go underground and sow terror; in this they were highly successful. But this strategy has only increased their unpopularity and we can say today that the Egyptian people despise and abhor them.

Equipped with the most sophisticated weapons, the Brothers are everywhere burning, attacking, killing, destroying…

The Army then decreed a State of Emergency and imposed a curfew from sunset to sunrise. But the Muslim Brotherhood considered themselves exempt from compliance. Yesterday, August 16, in my room near Ramses Avenue and Ramses Square (that were swarming with their militias), I heard explosions, single shots and submachine gun fire from the surrounding streets.

After several warnings to young people to go home, the Army decided to send in tanks to enforce the curfew. Seeing the collateral damage, well-thinking Westerners indicted the Army for having the nerve to attack 'peaceful’ demonstrators!

Whom are they trying to kid?

A September 11th Event You Won't Want to Miss

The Tennessee Freedom Coalition and ACT! for America of Middle Tennessee have been working together on a "Remembering 9/11" event over the past few months. They are now at the pre-registration phase where you can reserve your spot at the event.

The event will feature many excellent speakers along with periods of remembrance and reflection. The speaker lineup includes Erick Stakelbeck, author of The Brotherhood: America's Next Great Enemy, Rabbi Jon Hausman, State Senator Bill Ketron, State Rep. Judd Matheny, 9/12 Project's J. Lee Douglas, and Cathy Hinners.

There are two registration groups: One for the general event list and another for the VIP event list. The general event is $20 and the VIP event is $50 (includes a meet-and-greet with Erick Stakelbeck and premium seating). We strongly encourage you to pre-register for this event. It promises to be a meaningful remembrance of the events of 9/11.

The event will take place on September 11, 2013 at the Embassy Suites in Cool Springs (the VIP event begins at 5:30pm and the General Event begins at 6:45pm). You can find more information by following one of the links below:

General Event — Remembering 9/11
VIP Event — Remembering 9/11

Does Lack of Education Cause Terrorism?

The following was written by Ramachandra B. Abhyankar, an American from India. He has gotten several letters to the editor published in the Tribune Star. Below is another one. It's short, specific, understated and persuasive. This is the kind of thing that can help change the minds of our fellow citizens.

Wrong on Roots of Terrorism

In his Aug. 8 piece, “I said it before …”, Ronn Mott suggests that the cause of terrorism among Muslims is “a lack of education.” The facts do not bear this out.

Terror icon Osama bin Laden had a degree in engineering. Mohammed Atta, who participated in the 9/11 attack on America, had a graduate degree in engineering. Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, is a psychiatrist. Terror mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, “the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks,” has a degree in engineering. The current leader of al-Qaida, Ayman Al Zawahiri, is a pediatrician.

Clearly, Mr. Mott’s statement is incorrect.

— Ramachandra B. Abhyankar

You can see the original in the Tribune Star here.

What Counterjihadists do Saturday Nights in Santa Monica

The following was originally published in The English Review:

Most folks chill out on Saturday nights; shopping at malls, dining out, or catching a movie at a multiplex. That is most folks. A group calling itself Counter Jihadists Coalition of Southern California spend Saturday nights at a booth in the busy Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica engaging in what I call anti-Da'wah — countering the call to Islam.

They endeavor to get the word out about what is inside the Qur'an, the Hadith, Mohammed's exemplary bio, and the ever-reliable guide to Islamic doctrine and Sharia, The Reliance of the Traveller. They number among their group some members of the West Coast branch of The United West. They even have a Coptic Christian member who can translate Arabic spoken by Muslim passersby who either walk by muttering or engage the doughty band.

Last Saturday evening marked the culmination of Ramadan with the Feast of Eid al-Fitr. So the group set up their booth laden with pamphlets and related materials elucidating the totalitarian creed that lies within the Islamic doctrine — a creed that denigrates all unbelievers and denies civil and human rights for women, those who leave Islam by choice, gays, and, of course, The People of the Book (Christians and Jews).

As Ramadan had ended the group prepared a poster from a recent score card of violence that occurred in the Ummah and elsewhere during Ramadan that they downloaded from the Religion of Peace website, The Ramadan Bombathon Scorecard for 2013. The Religion of Peace website notes:

TheReligionofPeace.com has been reporting on the number of people killed and injured in the name of religion throughout the month of Ramadan, which just ended. Here are the totals for 2013. All but one were carried out by Muslims, and that one didn’t result in any deaths or injuries.

Tell your Muslim friends you are happy Ramadan is over along with the yearly spike in Islamic terror attacks around the world.

What follows is a report from one of the leaders of the Counter Jihad Coalition, Steve Amundson: 

Scenes from a Saturday Night
at a Pedestrian Mall in Santa Monica 

The Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica, CA, is one of the busiest pedestrian malls in Southern California. Hundreds of tourists and locals stroll the mall to shop, watch the street performers, and to take in the ethnic and cultural variety that makes Santa Monica so vibrant.

A group of activists called the Counter Jihad Coalition is also there to inform the public about the many ways Islamic ideology threatens the American way of life. We are armed only with a collection of illustrated brochures addressing as poignantly as possible the major concerns about Islamic ideology. Here is a list of some of the most popular brochures:

Islam in a Nut-Shell (which you can see here)
   
The Muslim Brotherhood
   
The Three Stages of Jihad

Are you a Muslim Born in a Foreign Country? (Containing challenging questions for Muslims who have never experienced freedom of speech and thought)

Women who marry into Islam may have to abandon all rights

An African-American Muslim is a Slave to a Racist Ideology

Is it “Un-Christian” to speak out about Islam?

There is no excuse for domestic violence, except Islamic Sharia Law

We attract visitors to our information table by posting large graphic signs about recent Islamic outrages — like the Boston Marathon bombing or the daylight beheading of Lee Rigby by Quran-quoting terrorists. Last Saturday, we used a 3’ by 4’ blow-up of the 2013 Ramadan Bombathon Scorecard published by www.thereligionofpeace.com.

This poster with the smiling jihadi holding an automatic got lots of attention. Passersby were signing up for the local American Congress for Truth (ACT), complementing us for speaking out, and (Muslims, of course) complaining how we have misunderstood their ideology. Having an Arabic-speaking Copt Christian and a woman on our team went a long way to diffusing the usual red-herrings dragged across our message.

As we engage the public, we are learning a number of things that other anti-Islamic activists must take into consideration: 

1) Most non-Muslims are woefully uninformed about Islam to the point that many could not determine if we were for or against Islam.

2) CAIR and other Islamist propaganda organizations have been relatively successful in convincing American non-Muslims that Islam is a “religion” protected by the First Amendment instead of a political ideology operating under the cover of religious protection.

3) Muslims are terrified at even touching anti-Islamic fact sheets or looking at selected verses of the Quran in English translations provided by mosques and other Muslim sources.

4) Muslims are obsessed with displaying their Islamic “gang symbols” in public to show that “we are here and you have to accept us.”

No we don’t. Tolerance of the intolerant is cultural suicide.

Why the Peaceful Majority Might be Dangerous

The following is an article from Paul Marek (author of the outstanding piece, Why the Peaceful Majority is Irrelevant). Reprinted with permission.

Mubarka is a Canadian born woman of Pakistani parents. She grew up in Toronto among other Canadian children and attended university where she received a degree in commerce. Today she holds a prominent position with a transportation company.

Mubarka used to be as mainstream as any Canadian young adult can be; in fact, those who met her for the first time may have been struck by her vivacious personality. Her effervescence went hand in hand with her distinct Asian beauty which she shamelessly displayed with stylish clothing including the occasional low cut top. Mubarka used to converse for hours over topics as varied as business practices in Canadian politics to contemporary music.

It comes, therefore, as a shock, when one learns what path Mubarka has recently chosen for herself. She will be wedding a Pakistani man...a devout Muslim, whom she has never met but who was chosen for her when she was an infant. Not only that, but she has donned the Hijab for the first time in her life and is strictly observing Muslim tenets. She has chosen subservience to a man and subservience to his religion over the gender freedom offered her by the Western democracy she grew up in, and she's done so without so much as a whimper of protest.

When asked why she has picked the life of Sharia, Mubarka simply states that it is as Muhammad would will, and that there is no greater prophet than Muhammad. When asked how she will raise her children, Mubarka makes it clear...they will be raised as Muslims first, and Canadians second.

Hardi is perhaps one of the most pleasant Canadian women anyone could ever meet. In her capacity as a caregiver of seniors, she is gentle, loving, and incredibly patient. She laughs deliciously at the kind of comical moments that only seniors can deliver and her mood seems to be permanently stuck on happy. Hardi is an angel.

Those who encounter Hardi for the first time will be struck not by her character, that comes later, but by the fact that she is virtually covered from head to toe by traditional Indonesian Muslim attire. She covers her entire body with colourful costume that leaves only her hands and face exposed. Hardi is devout, in fact, so devout that during Christmas any appreciation given her by way of gifting must be void of any reference to the season. Furthermore, during quiet moments when Hardi is free to discuss her Muslim faith, it becomes clear she believes wholeheartedly in the strict observance of Sharia. For her, Islam in its pure non-secular form, is truth.

Both Hardi and Mubarka present us with a perplexing conundrum because they are members of what has become known as the "peaceful" Muslim majority. They don't have a violent bone in their bodies, and are clearly law abiding and productive members of Canadian society. But, they are also both part of a very small minority within Canada where they and their fellow Muslims have very little effect on Canadian politics or on the evolution of Canadian cultural norms. What if though, Hardi and Mubarka were part of a Muslim majority where they and their co-religionists held the power?

Both women are Muslims first and Canadians second. No matter how much respect one may have for either woman's character, there is little doubt where either would place her loyalty if faced with choosing between the Canadian traditions of liberty for all, or Sharia. There is also little doubt that if they were part of a majority, they would acquiesce to the demands of the Muslim clerical class and choose Sharia for all Canadians.

It is therefore irrelevant in the grand scheme of things whether or not Hardi or Mubarka are "good" people; most people on the planet are, no matter their religion, race, or culture. What matters in the greater sense, is that as parts of the Muslim collective, neither woman would set aside her Muslim beliefs in order to safeguard and protect the full rights of non-Muslims to live as they choose. What's even more disturbing, is that both women have experienced the gender freedoms afforded them in Canada, yet both have voluntarily resigned themselves to the greater Muslim collective.

As long as each woman is part of a small minority within Canada, she offers Canada much; but once she becomes part of a significant minority, or heaven forbid, a majority, she becomes dangerous. Why? Because Muslims wherever they form a majority choose Islamic norms over the broader more tolerant standards of the West. If given a chance, as has been clearly demonstrated the world over, they would unravel hundreds of years of hard fought human rights gains and replace them with the medieval practices of their faith. As such, both Hardi and Mubarka are simply bit players in a monstrous and destructive Muslim vortex that would drag civilization backwards hundreds of years.

Seeing More Headscarves

When I was a kid, I never saw Islamic-style headscarves worn by anyone in my town. I first saw one a few years ago. Now I see them all the time. And it bothers me. Does that make me a racist?

People all over the free world are seeing the same thing, and are feeling disturbed by it. Concerned. Frightened even. Does that mean we are xenophobic bigots? The answer is no. I'm sure there are racist xenophobes among us, but for those of us aware of Islamic ideology and Islamic history, the reason we are uncomfortable with a growing number of Muslims in our midst is simple and reasonable: It has traditionally spelled doom for the existing culture. Islam annihilates cultures.

Islamic headscarves are indicative of ideology. If a Muslim woman believes in Islamic ideology, she will wear a headscarf. A headscarf is one of the few publicly visible signs of Islamic devotion. And if she believes in Islamic ideology, she will probably have lots of children and indoctrinate her children with the ideology too (Islamic texts encourage fecundity and indoctrination). And Islamic ideology is dangerous to non-Muslims. The higher the percentage of Muslims in a given population, the more dangerous they are (because of Islam's rule of numbers).

But I'm not a bigot or a xenophobe, and here's how I can tell: When I see a Hindu woman in a headscarf, it doesn't bother me a bit. Hindu ideology is not dangerous to non-Hindus. When I see a Buddhist monk, I don't feel concerned. If I saw a growing number of Buddhist monks in my town, it wouldn't bother me at all.

And I'm not a racist. If I saw more and more Japanese people in my town, it wouldn't disturb me at all.

It's the ideology. Anyone who understands what it says in Islamic texts should be concerned at the growing number of Muslims in our midst.

Religious Practice Versus Imposition

Earlier tonight an acquaintance said he had heard that during Ramadan in Dearborn, Michigan, there's a high school football team that does their football practice from 11:00 p.m. until 4:00 a.m. because some of the devout Muslim players can't eat or drink anything during the daylight. He said this without any judgment at all. It looked like he felt absolutely neutral about it.

I said, "in other words, the Muslims are imposing their practices on non-Muslims." I said it with a face that clearly displayed disapproval.

He was casually dismissive. "Well, other religions do crazy stuff too," he said.

I said, "they don't impose their stuff on me. Are there religious people who impose something on you? Or try to get you to grant a concession? Or try to make your values yield to theirs? To practice a religion is personal and private. If someone wants to go without food, what do I care? They can go right ahead. But when it impinges on people who are not members of the religion, that's no longer religious. It's political. So all the high school students who want to play football at that school have to practice in the middle of the night because Muslims are thrusting their Islamic practice into the non-Islamic public sphere. Those non-Muslim kids have to disrupt their normal sleep cycle because the Muslims won't bend and the non-Muslims will. And step by step, inch by inch, orthodox Muslims gain one concession after another as our tolerant culture yields to their intolerant culture. Is that okay with you? It's not okay with me."

I had to leave, but this brief conversation inserted an idea I got from Bill Warner. And my acquaintance looked like he heard something he had never even thought about. I wish I'd had time to explain to him that religious supremacism is the belief that a particular religion is superior to others and entitles members of the religion to control or dominate non-members. That's what these Muslim football players were doing.

But maybe it was better that I didn't go into any more detail. Sometimes less is better. Sometimes it's actually more effective to let things sink in a little at a time.

Given how many people are becoming aware of the disturbing nature of Islamic texts, these kinds of brief conversations must be taking place all over the free world. Let's keep it up. We should think in terms of small bits and long campaigns.

ACT! for America Wins Victories

If you haven't yet signed up for ACT! for America's email updates, it's time to do yourself the favor. Their updates are top quality, they often give you action alerts to let you know how to take a specific immediate action that will make a difference, and sometimes their reports include good news, like the one they sent out yesterday. Here's what it said:

This year, the governor of Oklahoma signed into law American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) legislation.

The Alabama legislature passed ALAC and has sent it to the voters for approval in 2014 to add ALAC to the state constitution.

South Dakota passed the Free Speech Defense Act.

A school board in Northern Virginia rejected a charter school application from a group affiliated with the Islamist Gulen Movement.

A principal in Washington state removed a flawed, biased textbook from the school.

Kansas said "no" to sharia law and passed anti-Female Genital Mutilation legislation.

And ACT! for America helped make every one of these 2013 victories possible.

They have the largest national security grassroots citizen action network in the country, with over 260,000 members and 800 chapters, and growing.

They've got chapters now in other countries too: Argentina, Canada, Australia, Britain, India, Germany, etc. Sign up for their email updates here.

No One Would Listen

Elie Wiesel speaking at NYU, April 2011

If you haven't read the powerful book, Night, by Elie Wiesel, you really should. It is his account of what happened to him during WWII. He was a young teen living in a small village in Hungary when, in 1942, the Hungarian police arrived to announce that all foreign Jews had to leave. The police loaded them all into trains and took them away.

The people in the town were disturbed, of course. It was a sad day. But after a few months, the memory began to fade, and life eventually returned to normal. They felt they were far enough removed from the war that it would end before it ever came to their remote village.

Then one day, one of those foreign Jews found his way back to the village. His name was Moishe. He was an old man, but the young Elie Wiesel had known him fairly well. Moishe had an extraordinary story to tell. He said when the trainload of Jews crossed the border into Polish territory, the Gestapo loaded them into trucks and took all the Jews into a forest where they were forced to dig huge trenches, and then they were all shot! Moishe himself was shot in the leg and left for dead. But he escaped and had been struggling to get back to the little village so he could warn people of what happened. He was urging everyone to flee; to get away before the Germans came.

He went "from one Jewish house to the next," wrote Elie Wiesel, "telling his story..." And he repeatedly and urgently told his story at the synagogue.

But nobody believed him.

They thought he must have lost his mind. Why would the Germans just kill Jews like that? Germany was a modern, industrialized, enlightened country. They wouldn't simply murder people so heartlessly and for no reason. Moishe must have lost his mind.

Moishe was insistent. He begged people to listen to him. He cried. He pleaded. But not one person believed him. They didn't want to believe him, and that's a formidable barrier to communication.

Our message — that what is written in Islamic texts is dangerous to non-Muslims — is also something many people do not want to believe. The implications are too heavy. The people of Elie's village didn't want to contemplate what it would mean if Moishe's story was true. It would mean tragedy and heartache and a loss of faith in humanity. It would mean a drastically different future for everyone. If they believed Moishe, the wise course of action would be to immediately pack up or sell everything they own and move somewhere they'd never been before. They'd have to start over. The journey would be fraught with uncertainty and danger. Most of them had lived their whole lives in that little village.

But they had another option, didn't they? They could explain away Moishe's terrifying story. They could decide there must be some other explanation.

That's what we run into also, isn't it? People are desperately trying to explain it away. If it's true that the doctrines of Islam are dangerous to non-Muslims, we should all drop what we're doing and address it. What's the point of going on about our lives, as they did in Elie's village, if it will all go terribly wrong in a few years? No, there would be no return to normal. If someone truly and fully grasps the real situation, they're in a whole new world, and the "important goals" they were busy trying to accomplish up until now would be abruptly abandoned in order to handle this new (and far more pressing) reality.

But they have another option, don't they? They can decide there must be some other explanation. You must not understand it correctly. You must be taking the Koranic passages out of context. Muslims who believe in Islamic doctrines must be a very small minority. There must be some other explanation.

I invite you to read Night and think about this: What would you have done if you were in Moishe's situation? Do you think you could have gotten someone to believe you? How would you get through to people? Or would you have given up, as Moishe did, and leave them all to their fate?

In 1944, the German Army arrived at Elie's village and immediately initiated new policies to limit freedoms for Jews. The noose closed in tighter and tighter, one policy at a time, until one day all the Jews of the village were imprisoned in a ghetto and ordered to board the transport trains. People were terrified. What did this mean? They were busy in Elie's house frantically packing up food for the trip when Moishe came up to the front door and shouted, "I warned you!" Then he turned and left without waiting for anyone to respond.

It was too late to do anything about it. They were transported to Auschwitz, and all of them suffered terrible, unbelievable physical and psychological torment. Most of them ended up dead.

If Moishe had been able to make people believe him, everyone in the village would have had plenty of time to flee.

Let's not repeat the same mistake. Let's get through. Not with force. Not with crying or pleading or intensity. Let's find out what allows our message to penetrate, and let's use it with ever-growing skill. If you need help, it is available here: Tools.

They Oppressed the Wrong Woman

Waris Dirie

Waris Dirie was born in the desert of Somalia. Her family were Muslim nomads. When she was 13 years old, her father announced to her he'd found her a husband and she would soon be wed. Her "groom to be" was an old man. She protested and begged, but the old man had already paid her father, so the deal was done.

The next morning, before her father awoke, she ran away. She took off into the desert knowing only that somewhere was a city named Mogadishu and somewhere in that city she had an aunt. Amazingly, after a very difficult journey, she found her aunt and stayed with her a short time. Then one of her uncles became the Somalian ambassador to the UK and would be stationed in London. Waris begged her uncle to take her with him to be a maid. He consented.

She eventually became a fashion model whose face adorned the covers of many glamour magazines.

At one point in her career, Waris had been interviewed many times. The interviews were always about how a barefoot Somalian nomad became a famous model. But one day as another of these interviews was beginning, Waris took a bold step. She said the rags to riches story had already been told. "Would you like a real story?" she asked.

She told the interviewer about the day she experienced female genital mutilation (FGM), an ancient practice of removing a woman's clitoris, labia minora, and labia majora. Waris was then sewn up with a small hole for urination, which is usually how it's done. This procedure guarantees that she will be a virgin when she gets married, and it ensures she will not feel pleasure during sex (and thus helps prevent infidelity). A girl is not considered marriageable if she is "uncut" — she is considered no better than a whore, so parents make sure she undergoes FGM.

The interviewer was moved and shaken by Waris's story. And the magazine had the guts to print it. This was the beginning of an increasing global awareness of FGM and a movement to do away with it, in the same way that binding girl's feet was banned in China in the early 1900s. Already several countries have committed themselves to eradicating the practice.

Banning FGM would not only save millions of girls from the horror, pain, and death caused by this barbaric practice (it is done to 8,000 girls a day worldwide, with one out of four girls dying from the procedure), it would also help to marginalize, discredit, and disempower orthodox Islam.

The practice is over 4000 years old, and it was taken for granted during Muhammad's lifetime that all women underwent FGM, so he mentioned it a few times as a forgone conclusion, and his mention was written down, so it has now been enshrined in Islamic doctrine as an Islamic practice. Fundamentalists want it to continue because whatever Muhammad said is right for all time.

Banning the procedure would stop this orthodox practice, which would help disempower the fundamentalism itself. Everywhere we can prevent an orthodox practice, like covering women or beating them for disobedience or FGM, we weaken the forces of orthodoxy. If some Islamic fundamentals can be abandoned or seen as wrong, other fundamentals might be more easily abandoned as well.

I encourage you to help your friends and family become aware of FGM. You don't even have to mention the word "Islam." Read Waris's story in her excellent book, Desert Flower (written with Cathleen Miller). And then share the book with people you know. Talk it up. And watch National Geographic's movie by the same name and share that too. This is a way to help innocent girls, a way to pit humanistic empathy against Islamic domination, and a way to get people involved in marginalizing orthodox Islam — people who might never otherwise get involved. The Islamic oppression of women can and should be stopped. Let's start by saving the weakest and most innocent victims: Girls.

A Country Without Muslims

The following article was written by Dr. Mordechai Kedar (Ph.D. Bar-Ilan U.), an Israeli scholar of Arabic and Islam, a lecturer at Bar-Ilan University and the director of the Center for the Study of the Middle East and Islam, Bar Ilan University, Israel. He specializes in Islamic ideology and movements. He served for 25 years in IDF Military Intelligence specializing in Arab political discourse, Arab mass media, Islamic groups and the Syrian domestic arena. A lecturer in Arabic at Bar-Ilan U., he is also an expert on Israeli Arabs. Watch a YouTube video of Dr. Kedar on Al-Jazeera: Jerusalem and Islam. The article below was originally published at Middle East and Terrorism. It was translated into English by Sally Zahav.

____________________

There are countries in the world, mainly in Europe, that are presently undergoing significant cultural transformations as a result of Muslim immigration. France, Germany, Belgium and Holland are interesting examples of cases where immigration from Muslim countries, together with the Muslims’ high fertility rate, effects every area of life.

It is interesting to know that there is a country in the world whose official and public approach to the Muslim matter is totally different. This country is Japan. This country keeps a very low profile on all levels regarding the Muslim matter: On the diplomatic level, senior political figures from Islamic countries almost never visit Japan, and Japanese leaders rarely visit Muslim countries. The relations with Muslim countries are based on concerns such as oil and gas, which Japan imports from some Muslim countries. The official policy of Japan is not to give citizenship to Muslims who come to Japan, and even permits for permanent residency are given sparingly to Muslims.

Japan forbids exhorting people to adopt the religion of Islam (Dawah), and any Muslim who actively encourages conversion to Islam is seen as proselytizing to a foreign and undesirable culture. Few academic institutions teach the Arabic language. It is very difficult to import books of the Qur’an to Japan, and Muslims who come to Japan are usually employees of foreign companies. In Japan there are very few mosques. The official policy of the Japanese authorities is to make every effort not to allow entry to Muslims, even if they are physicians, engineers and managers sent by foreign companies that are active in the region. Japanese society expects Muslim men to pray at home.

Japanese companies seeking foreign workers specifically note that they are not interested in Muslim workers. And any Muslim who does manage to enter Japan will find it very difficult  to rent an apartment. Anywhere a Muslim lives, the neighbors become uneasy. Japan forbids the establishment of Islamic organizations, so setting up Islamic institutions such as mosques and schools is almost impossible. In Tokyo there is only one imam.

In contrast with what is happening in Europe, very few Japanese are drawn to Islam. If a Japanese woman marries a Muslim, she will be considered an outcast by her social and familial environment. There is no application of Shari’a law in Japan. There is some food in Japan that is halal (kosher according to Islamic law) but it is not easy to find it in the supermarket.

The Japanese approach to Muslims is also evidenced by the numbers: in Japan there are 127 million residents, but only ten thousand Muslims, less than one hundredth of a percent. The number of Japanese who have converted is thought to be few. In Japan there are a few tens of thousands of foreign workers who are Muslim, mainly from Pakistan, who have managed to enter Japan as workers with construction companies. However, because of the negative attitude towards Islam they keep a low profile.

There are several reasons for this situation:

First, the Japanese tend to lump all Muslims together as fundamentalists who are unwilling to give up their traditional point of view and adopt modern ways of thinking and behavior. In Japan, Islam is perceived as a strange religion that any intelligent person should avoid.

Second, most Japanese have no religion, but behaviors connected with the Shinto religion along with elements of Buddhism are integrated into national customs. In Japan, religion is connected to the nationalist concept, and prejudices exist towards foreigners whether they are Chinese, Korean, Malaysian or Indonesian, and Westerners don’t escape this phenomenon either. There are those who call this a “developed sense of nationalism” and there are those who call this “racism.” It seems that neither of these is wrong.

And third, the Japanese dismiss the concept of monotheism and faith in an abstract god, because their world concept is apparently connected to the material, not to faith and emotions. It seems that they group Judaism together with Islam. Christianity exists in Japan and is not regarded negatively, apparently because the image of Jesus perceived in Japan is like the images of Buddha and Shinto.

The most interesting thing in Japan’s approach to Islam is the fact that the Japanese do not feel the need to apologize to Muslims for the negative way in which they relate to Islam. They make a clear distinction between their economic interest in resources of oil and gas from Muslim countries, which behooves Japan to maintain good relations with these countries on the one hand, and on the other hand, the Japanese nationalist viewpoints, which see Islam as something that is suitable for others, not for Japan, and therefore the Muslims must remain outside.

Because the Japanese have a gentle temperament and project serenity and tranquility toward foreigners, foreigners tend to relate to the Japanese with politeness and respect. A Japanese diplomat would never raise his voice or speak rudely in the presence of foreigners, therefore foreigners relate to the Japanese with respect, despite their racism and discrimination against Muslims in the matter of immigration. A Japanese official who is presented with an embarrassing question regarding the way the Japanese relate to Muslims, will usually refrain from answering, because he knows that a truthful answer would arouse anger, and he is both unable and unwilling to give an answer that is not true. He will smile but not answer, and if pressed, he will ask for time so that his superiors can answer, while he knows that this answer will never come.

Japan manages to remain a country almost without a Muslim presence because Japan’s negative attitude toward Islam and Muslims pervades every level of the population, from the man in the street to organizations and companies to senior officialdom. In Japan, contrary to the situation in other countries, there are no “human rights” organizations to offer support to Muslims’ claims against the government’s position. In Japan no one illegally smuggles Muslims into the country to earn a few yen, and almost no one gives them the legal support they would  need in order to get permits for temporary or permanent residency or citizenship.

Another thing that helps the Japanese keep Muslim immigration to their shores to a minimum is the Japanese attitude toward the employee and employment. Migrant workers are perceived negatively in Japan, because they take the place of Japanese workers. A Japanese employer feels obligated to employ Japanese workers even if it costs much more than it would to employ foreign workers. The traditional connection between an employee and employer in Japan is much stronger than in the West, and the employer and employee feel a mutual commitment to each other: An employer feels obligated to give his employee a livelihood, and the employee feels obligated to give the employer the fruit of his labor. This situation does not encourage the acceptance of foreign workers, whose commitment to the employers is low.

The fact that the public and the officials are united in their attitude against Muslim immigration has created a sort of iron wall around Japan that Muslims lack both the permission and the capability to overcome. This iron wall silences the world’s criticism of Japan in this matter, because the world understands that there is no point in criticizing the Japanese, since criticism will not convince them to open the gates of Japan to Muslim immigration.

Japan is teaching the whole world an interesting lesson: There is a direct correlation between national heritage and permission to immigrate — a people with a solid and clear national heritage and identity will not allow the unemployed of the world to enter its country; and a people whose cultural heritage and national identity is weak and fragile has no defense mechanisms to prevent a foreign culture from penetrating into its country and its land.

How to Save the World With a Computer

One of the best ways to marginalize, discredit and disempower orthodox Islam is to talk to your friends and family in person. But that's not the only thing you can do. Some good work can be done online to advance the cause.

The first thing I recommend to Americans is to sign up for the ACT! for America email alerts. They give you lots of opportunities to write letters, call, and apply pressure to politicians for anti-Sharia legislation. And they give you good articles to share with your friends and family. Many other countries have similar organizations, like the Q Society in Australia and ACT! for Canada.

Another good thing you can do with your computer is visit web sites or popular blogs or Facebook pages where the "Islam issue" is being discussed, and make persuasive arguments with courtesy and class, give good information, and provide links to more information. I'm not talking about counterjihad sites. I mean anywhere you find Islam being discussed where you could add to the discussion with some real information. You might even sign up for Google News Alerts with the search terms, "counterjihad" or "Islam means peace," and then jump into those conversations.

Another good way to inform people is to go to Yahoo Answers and watch for questions to come up that you can answer with good information about Islam, and make really good answers.

And also adding information to Wikipedia or even writing pages for Wikipedia.

Yahoo Answers and Wikipedia are often the first results on a Google or Bing search, so if you can get something there to answer questions when someone is searching, that's a great place to reach people. The result will be seen and you're providing the information at the perfect time: When someone wants to know.

The place where you will have the most impact is reaching people who are arguing in favor of Islam, or at least against counterjihadists. What we're trying to do (and where our impact will be greatest) is reaching those who don't already know that Islam is not a religion of peace.

It's tough work because sometimes people are hard to reach, but many times people have told me that they were at one time against counterjihadists and thought they had it all wrong but eventually something got through to them and they started investigating it for themselves, and that's the beginning. As soon as someone really starts looking into Islam, they will become counterjihadists, because the facts speak for themselves. Our job is to make the "undecideds" curious enough to see for themselves. This is best done in person. But a close second is what you can do online.

We've Got a Mission For You, Should You Decide to Accept It

Why won't you listen to me?!!

We need to harness the energy, the intensity, the panic and anger people feel when they discover that Islam is not a religion of peace, and that its influence is growing worldwide. It freaks people out. They don't really know what to do. We need to channel that energy in the direction of informing the misinformed. And doing this intelligently and skillfully.

This is our most urgent task. Too few people are becoming informed because those who find out are so freaked out by what they learn that they turn the misinformed away from this information instead of bringing them in. People find out and then try to tell others about orthodox Islam, but their intensity seems hateful and fanatical to the misinformed (people who are as yet unacquainted with orthodox Islam).

So your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to go to other counterjihad sites like Jihad Watch or Atlas Shrugs or Bare Naked Islam, and interact in the comments. Tell people what they can do about Islam. Tell people they should try to inform their fellow non-Muslim citizens, and tell them how. Leave links. Quote articles. Answer people when they seem to be searching for answers. Argue in favor of getting through to the innocent and misinformed people of the world, and doing it with compassion and courtesy.

And when you see people are discouraged or demoralized because nobody will listen to them, help them overcome their demoralization. Often this is the real problem. People are so frustrated and discouraged when they fail to get through to people, they become angry at every misinformed person they talk to, which prevents them from getting through to anybody except those who already know.

If you do this and someone argues with you and you don't know how to reply to them, feel free to email us and we'll help you with a response.

The Case of Eric Allen Bell

The following article was written by Greg Hamilton on his blog, The Malsi-Tung Social Virus. It articulates an insight we could use at least some of the time when we talk to people unacquainted with Islam.

At the beginning of 2012, Eric Allen Bell (EAB) was a staunch defender of Muslims and Islam in America. He was making a documentary about the resistance of people in Murfreesboro to a mosque with a capacity for 45,000 people being built in their town. EAB was firmly on the side of the Muslims for, as a man with strong liberal views, this was a clear case of reactionary prejudice against a minority culture. By the end of 2012 EAB had become an outspoken critic of Islam and firmly committed to opposing its growth and influence.

What had happened to change his mind? What processes had caused such a reversal of sentiment towards Muslims and Islam?

We can understand a significant amount about EAB by looking at the typical configuration of moral foundations for liberals. As I have shown in a previous article, the liberal character is strongly influenced by the Care foundation. This Care foundation is triggered by perceived threats to vulnerable groups such as minorities, immigrants, gays, etc. The liberal often stands in opposition to what he sees as the dominant culture that he belongs to and stands up for sub-cultures that do not sit easily within the dominant culture. The liberal is uncomfortable with dominance and seeks to compensate by helping and protecting the interests of supposedly weaker elements.

It was this Care foundation that was at work when EAB was supporting the Muslims of Murfreesboro to build their mosque. They were the weaker, non-dominant party in the conflict and a typical beneficiary of liberal goodwill and protectiveness based on the Care foundation.

It is almost impossible to change people’s attitudes when they are aligned with moral foundations in this way. The intuitive part of the mind is extremely quick and powerful and uses the ego to rationalize the emotionally moral position that is habitually adopted by someone. In his book, The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt calls this “the elephant,” the automatic and habitual aspect of the brain which “leans” one way or the other on controversial and emotive issues. We judge according to intuitions, then look for respectable reasons to justify how we feel.

Nonetheless, EAB did change his position, so what happened?

Well, it just so happened that EAB took a ride in a taxi driven by an Egyptian Coptic Christian. EAB asked him if he was excited about the removal of Hosni Mubarak, to which the taxi driver replied “no, I am very worried for my family and other Coptic Christians.” EAB inquired further and discovered a little bit more about the plight of non-Muslims in Muslim majority Egypt.

The plight of the Copts triggered Eric’s Care foundation since he is a person who is genuinely concerned about the treatment of vulnerable people. He was able to switch sides emotionally and see Muslims in the role of persecutors rather than the persecuted — which is how he had habitually seen them until then. It is this emotional shift that counterjihadists need to foster in those still blind to Islam’s depredations. Liberals are dominated by their Care foundations and you have to find ways to trigger this foundation to effect a change of perspective. You will get nowhere talking about threats to the dominant culture as liberals frequently see this as paranoia or scaremongering. The “elephant” will be extremely quick in finding ways to defend against a different way of looking at things. But once you have triggered the Care foundation on a different target, the mind becomes receptive to information which confirms the emotional position. Intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second.

This is one of the lessons to be drawn from moral foundations as expressed in the liberal mind. Trigger the emotions of the Care foundation in relation to vulnerable groups suffering from Muslim persecution and the liberal mind will become far more receptive to information critical of Islam and Muslims. This is one of the reasons why Raymond Ibrahim's monthly report on Christian persecution and Political Islam's Bulletin of the Oppression of Women are so valuable.

Once this emotional shift has occurred, the way is open to a more honest look at the teachings of Islam and the character of Muhammad. EAB had both the integrity and the courage to do this — even as a high-profile figure with a great deal to lose by doing so.

Liberals have traditionally seen themselves as occupying the moral high ground and tend to treat people with different views in a condescending manner. They have often been the people drawing attention to the hypocrisy of others. But the tables have now turned and it is the counterjihad movement who should be calling liberals out on their hypocrisy: Why do they turn a blind eye to the persecution of minorities in Muslim countries; to the human rights abuses between Muslims; to the status of women in Islam? Why do they claim to be in favor of universal human rights yet give Muslims immunity from their critiques? Why do they lack the courage to ask themselves probing questions about the compatibility of Islam with universal human rights?

But still, until their Care foundation is redirected towards the victims of Islam they will always find ways to avoid dissonant information; to argue (however absurdly) that it's none of their business; to believe the fairy tale accounts of Muhammad's life and character (in books by authors like Karen Armstrong, for example) and the implausible accounts of Muslim multicultural tolerance in the Middle Ages.

Footnote: It is significant that the crucial exchange in the above account took place in the relative intimacy of a taxi and during a non-confrontational conversation. Such encounters open us up to new ways of looking at the world and allow us to experience different emotional reactions to our personal norms. Once we are engaged in a heated or tense debate our animal brains are locked in combat and we are unable to alter our perspective. This is a hopeless position from which to effect change in others. It is also noteworthy that the taxi driver expressed a poignant personal response to the Arab Spring which triggered the opening up to a different view of the situation to the one Bell had previously held. This echoes a quote from Goethe:

What's uttered from the heart alone will draw the hearts of others to your own.