CAIR Targets Washington State Prisons via Volunteer Program

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) chapter in Washington State is seeking religious Muslim volunteers to work with state prison inmates. That has veteran corrections official Patrick Dunleavy concerned that the program could result in the radicalization of prisoners and create security problems.

It's not the presence of Muslim volunteers, but the track record of the people and organization involved.

Syed Arsalan Bukhari, executive director of the Washington CAIR chapter, issued an Internet call last week saying that "Muslim volunteers" are "direly needed in the 20 or so state institutions across our state to lead study/discussion/halaqah sessions for inmates, lead prayers and just generally insure that inmates are receiving the services they need."

CAIR's ties to Hamas and its chronic support for alleged terrorists and their financiers might give corrections officials pause about the wisdom of such a relationship with the organization. Those ties appear to be the focus of a federal grand jury investigation in Washington, D.C. Bukhari's own statements might add to that concern:

• In December 2009, the Seattle Weekly reported that Bukhari was discouraging Seattle-area Muslims from cooperating with the FBI's efforts to investigate Al-Shabaab terrorist recruitment. "There's nothing to gain from talking to law enforcement," he said. "I can't emphasize enough…you have the right to remain silent, so use it."

• In May 2009, Bukhari objected to a racial awareness program produced by the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, claiming the group has "an anti-Muslim agenda." Bukhari and CAIR said the Wiesenthal Center should be disqualified from training Seattle police because of the organization's role in producing "Ever Again," a film on anti-Semitism and European Jihadists.

• At a CAIR-Washington January 24, 2009 banquet, Bukhari refused to condemn terrorism:

"How many of you are asked, 'why don't you condemn, I won't use the 'T' word. I call it 'political violence.' I assure you that every Muslim organization has condemned 'political violence.'"

• In May 2008, Bukhari and other CAIR officials met with the chief of the Port of Seattle to express their concerns about a course entitled "The Threat of Islamic Jihadists to the World," conducted by Security Solutions International. They complained that the course, which claimed to be based on "Israeli experience" fighting terrorism, would "promote stereotypes and religious and ethnic profiling."

Such statements set off alarm bells with Dunleavy, who spent 26 years working in New York State's Department of Correctional Services. In that role, he witnessed first-hand the radicalization of inmates. Radical Islamists like Warith Deen Umar were placed in charge of hiring prison imams, and terrorists like Rashid Baz and El Sayyid Nosair were given privileged positions as Muslim religious leaders. Dunleavy, who served as Deputy Inspector General of the New York State Department of Corrections, was part of a special investigation called Operation Hades that monitored radical Islamist recruitment inside prisons.

Dunleavy (who now lives in Washington State) said he has two major problems with the regulations instituted by the Washington Department of Corrections: As written they contain inadequate vetting procedures for volunteers and insufficient security safeguards, and the role of CAIR in the state program.

In New York, corrections officials have been fighting a difficult uphill battle to maintain security and prevent radicalization of Muslim inmates for close to 30 years. Essential to this effort are limits on the ability of volunteers to interact with inmates, he said.

As a result, volunteers are barred from being on an inmate's visitor list and may not correspond with an offender. They are also prohibited from accepting telephone calls from inmates or allowing a released offender to live in their homes. But the Washington State regulations, Dunleavy pointed out, expressly permit volunteers to engage in these activities.

These restrictions (which apply to correctional officers in Washington and virtually every state) are necessary "for the protection of the volunteer, the inmate and the facility," Dunleavy told the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

"Inmates are always looking for a way around the rules," he added. If an inmate is able to say, "Take a letter for me; make a phone call for me" and a sympathetic volunteer complies, "that raises significant security problems." A volunteer could easily find himself or herself "bringing a package to an inmate not knowing if there are drugs, guns or other contraband in there."

The FBI has cut off communication and cooperation with CAIR that doesn't involve a criminal investigation amid mounting concern about the organization's roots in a Hamas terror-support network. The decision to end contacts with CAIR was quietly made during the summer of 2008 as federal prosecutors prepared to retry the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, an Islamic charity whose senior officials were convicted of providing money to Hamas and sentenced to long prison terms.

CAIR and its recently retired chairman emeritus, Omar Ahmad, were named unindicted co-conspirators in the HLF case. Both Ahmad and CAIR's current executive director, Nihad Awad, were revealed as having been active participants in Hamas-related meetings in the United States. But Washington State prison officials have given no indication thus far that CAIR's questionable record will disqualify it from sending volunteers into state prisons.

When asked, a spokesman reacted dismissively to Dunleavy's concerns and expressed surprise over questions about CAIR's role in recruiting. "We're not going to check whether somebody is a member of an Islamist group," said Chad Lewis, a spokesman for the state Department of Corrections (DOC). "We're not going to check whether somebody is a member of Hamas or Hizballah…or Al Qaeda," he said. Corrections officials are much more worried about gang violence, he added.

It's not clear what background checks Washington officials will run on the prospective volunteers. Former New York Police Department Deputy Chief John Cutter said that Washington State's regulations allow "applicants with a past felony or gross misdemeanor conviction" to participate in the prison volunteer program and allow former convicts to participate so long as they had been out of prison for a year.

"So they are saying that if you killed someone or committed another violent crime two years ago" you are eligible to participate, said Cutter, who worked closely with New York corrections officials in their efforts to stop Islamist radicalization. A better approach would be to say "if you have any history of violence, you cannot participate in the volunteer program."

Dunleavy noted that in 2004, the Justice Department's Inspector General issued a report urging the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to take steps to bolster its defenses against Islamist radicalism. The report recommended that the BOP take steps to examine "religious volunteers' doctrinal beliefs to screen out anyone who poses a threat to security" and ensure that volunteers do not endorse violence "or support terrorism or other anti-U.S. activities." New York and many other states responded by strengthening their rules to bar religious extremists from prison volunteer programs. The Washington State regulations, by contrast, appear to "negate" efforts to keep radicals out, he said.

Cutter, who formerly ran NYPD's criminal intelligence section, believes DOC officials misunderstand the main danger posed by Islamist radicals volunteering in prisons: that they will use their access to radicalize inmates.

To some extent prison officials welcome the presence of radical Islamist organizations because "they keep a great deal of control of their people" when they're behind bars, he said. Muslim radicals usually don't want violence in prisons because "they understand the larger picture. This is a place to build something." The violent Islamist, Cutter said, "has a longer-term goal - recruiting a new generation of radicals."

Real Stories of Muslim Dominance in Europe: a Warning to America

I am here to warn Americans about two Muslim war strategies: the salami method, slice by slice so no one opposes; and secondly, the dominant behavior method of the Muslims. They have used these two strategies in Denmark and Europe for 30 years now. In fact, Islam would never have achieved such a stronghold in Europe if it had not been for the European dhimmies.

What is a dhimmi then?

The basic understanding of a dhimmi is a person who is under Islam’s so-called protection and pay Muslims, “jizya”, a kind of "protection money". A lot of Christians live under very bad conditions as dhimmies all over the Muslim world but today I will use the word dhimmi in another way.

We use dhimmi to describe mainly left-wing multicultural people who are Muslim appeasers. When I think about these dhimmies I always think of the old Winston Churchill quote: "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."

They are ready to do anything to please the Muslims and meet their demands in order to avoid any trouble or tensions. In fact they are ready to sell out Western values to "live in peace". It is another way of paying “jizya”. In fact they have not only allowed the salami method – they have encouraged it.

In the beginning when there were not so many Muslims, there were no demands, but when the numbers increased they started to demand special treatment for Muslims. Here follows a few examples of the salami method in Europe:

Muslims demanded special times for Muslim women only to use the public swimming pool because Muslim women are not allowed to swim together with men.

That was one slice.

Muslim men demanded curtains in the changing room in the shower section because Muslim men are not allowed to show themselves naked in front of other men. They have got their curtains.

Yet another slice.

The Muslim children are not allowed to take showers with the other children after gym hours in school.

Yet another slice.

The Muslims can't even be dead together with the so-called non-believers in the mortuaries in the hospitals. Muslim relatives have demanded special rooms for their dead family members. And they have got it – paid for by our tax money.

Yet another slice.

In some cemeteries, the dead are buried facing Mecca – Muslim or not.

In England, a church was converted into a mosque and the Christian graves there were bulldozed to oblivion. Only the Muslim dead are to be respected in dhimmi Europe.

Pigs were removed from children’s books and banks have removed the children’s piggy banks because they offend the Muslims’ feelings.

Banks now offer Sharia banking because Muslims are not allowed to pay interest. This gives Muslims the control of where the money goes and Muslim so-called charities are financed.

Muslims have demanded praying rooms in the schools and have got it.

Everybody is obliged to take any kind of job offered when getting social welfare, but unemployed Muslim women are allowed to say no to certain jobs where they could come in contact with men – or with pork meat.

At Christmas time, big supermarkets have removed the Christian Christmas decorations, just because it could offend the Muslims.

Oxford, in England, has changed Christmas into the Winter Festival, to avoid offending Muslims, but the mosque is allowed to use loudspeakers five times a day for calling to prayer.

Ninety-nine percent of all poultry in Denmark is now halal-slaughtered, and a fee is paid to Muslim organizations for each poultry that is slaughtered that way.

Large food chains such as KFC now only offer halal meat in some stores.

In many big towns, institutions don’t serve pork meat for the children any longer. So, even though the Danish economy is largely based on pork exports, Danish children are no longer allowed to eat all the different and common pork dishes.

Some of the schools in Copenhagen have recently introduced mothers-only parent-teacher meetings. The fact is that they are appeasing the Muslim men who do not allow their wives to take part in any meetings where men are present. Therefore, Danish fathers have to stay home when women-only meetings take place.

Because of the cartoon crisis, journalists no longer dare to publish Muhammed cartoons in the newspapers. Books have been rewritten because of fear of violent Muslims and recently, an auction house didn't want to sell a drawing made by Kurt Westergaard, the artist who drew the Muhammed cartoon, because of fear from Muslim protests. Clearly, Sharia censorship is creeping in.

The appeasement politics carried out by the European dhimmis has not made Muslims more satisfied with the Europeans. In fact, it is the contrary. Because the many Muslim demands are being met, they feel that they have enough power now to move to the next step and that is to use a well known Muslim weapon: dominant behavior towards everybody who is not a Muslim.

This dominant behavior is intended make non-Muslims convert to Islam so the Muslim and the formerly-non-Muslims can live in peace. We see this dominant behavior in the rise of the crime rate committed by the non-Western population. They want to show that they are in charge of the whole infidel kuffar system. For instance, Muslims throw stones and bottles at police, firemen and rescue teams when they enter the Muslim-only ghettoes. Ambulances and firemen have to wait for police escort.

In Denmark we have the right to demonstrate in any public place we like. As long as the demonstrations are peaceful the police cannot forbid them. But because of the increasing Muslim population, the police have now ordered the demonstrations to stay out of certain areas with many Muslim inhabitants.

The reason: the police fear Muslim violence and vandalism.

In other words, we now have areas where Muslims control the streets and where Danish law no longer applies. We have to hire professional security for our own legal demonstrations.

Muslim criminal gangs are ruling the streets in many of the major cities in Europe where their dominant behavior spreads fear amongst the people living there. In Copenhagen, Muslim gangs have made special zones where people will be body searched if they want to pass through.

The police have not yet succeeded in stopping it.

This dominant behavior spreads to non-Muslim areas as well. If a person meets a group of young Muslims on the street and dares to look them in the eyes, the Muslims take that as a provocation and attack the person. This happens every day. Most Danes now look down when passing Muslim groups as a result of their dominant behavior.

Rape is also a part of the dominant behavior. Rapes have increased over the last 20 years and many do not report the rape because of threats. Sweden is the most compliant nation of all European countries and they have one of the highest rape rates in Europe. Most of them are committed by Muslims.

The more you appease the Muslims, the more dominant behavior you will suffer. In Norway, dhimmi politicians said women must dress in such a way that they do not invite Muslim men to rape them. What happened to the rights women have fought for? Homosexuals are also feeling the Muslim dominant behavior. Attacks on them are the most common hate-crimes in big cities.

Greenland is part of the Danish state, which is why there are many Greenlanders in Denmark. Some of them have been stoned out of Muslim areas, and they have actually been expelled from Gellerup, a Muslim area in the second biggest town Århus.

Jews are being hunted down and beaten up in Europe these days. Many Jews dare not to wear their kippa in certain areas because they fear violent attacks from Muslims. In fact many Jews have now left Europe because it is no longer safe to live in major cities in Europe as a Jew. Jews have also left Denmark because of that. It hurts to watch this development in Denmark, because Denmark is known for our rescuing of numerous Jews during World War II. Now, Police Intelligence has openly declared that they cannot even guarantee their safety anymore.

With all this in mind, a special quote comes to my mind which fits Islam exactly in Europe:

The way to march a thousand miles, and still win the battle, is to make the other side march the thousand miles.

The dhimmies and their dhimmi attitude have marched – and are still marching – for Islam.

How can we stop this suicidal development? How can we turn this quote around and use it against the Islamization of Europe?

SIOE (Stop the Islamization of Europe) was founded in 2007 as a European model of SIAD, Stop Islamization of Denmark. One of the cornerstones in SIAD is our provocations.

We are fully convinced that if we should have a chance to wake up our population, we need to provoke, in order to get the truth well known and widespread.

By provocations, we mean it in the understanding of Roman law: to act as an advocate in a courtroom to provoke the accused until he reveals his true face.

SIAD and SIOE have carried out numerous demonstrations and, especially the ones that took place in certain Muslim areas, we made the Muslims show their true face so the people could be informed that Islam is not the religion of peace.

SIAD held a demonstration in 2006 in a Muslim area in Århus with the title: The Genociders Hamas out of Scandinavia. 800 furious Palastinians turned up, fired crysantemum-bombs and fireworks at the police and journalists, threw stones and made so much disturbance that the police had to escort our little demonstration away before it was finished.

SIOE held a demonstration and commemoration on September 11th 2009 in Harrow, London to oppose the building of a big mosque. There was only Stephen Gash and around 20 others, but around 2000 furious Muslims turned up and made riots in the streets. Stephen Gash was arrested and the demonstration was prevented. SIOE was called fascist and far right by media and even government ministers.

Contrast this with the response to a Muslim demonstration in London the previous January where Muslims rioted. Nobody called them fascists and the BBC described the demonstration as peaceful. SIOE demonstrated again in Harrow in December, to show we were not defeated. Hardly any Muslims showed up. Since September 11th 2009 five mosques have been stopped from being built in England, including the world’s largest planned for the 2012 Olympics in London.

So action does work.

Remember, the shoe-bomber and other terrorists were sent out from these mosques.

Socialism, Communism and Islam are collectivist totalitarian doctrines, which is why they support each other. The biggest totalitarian project is the European Union. The European Union acts secretly, deceiving the European people about its development. Democracy is being deliberately removed, the latest evidence of that being the passage of the Lisbon Treaty.

However, the plan goes much further with the ultimate goal being a Eurabian superstate, incorporating Muslim countries of North Africa and the Middle East and the European Union. This was already initiated with the signing of the Barcelona Treaty in 1995 by the EU and 9 North African States and Israel, which became effective the 1^st of January 2010. It is also known as the Euro-Mediterranean co-operation.

In return for some European control of oil resources, Muslim countries will have unfettered access to technology and movement of people into Europe. The price Europeans will have to pay is the introduction of Sharia law and removal of democracy.

Believe me, America is not far behind, and we think you are overtaking us.

Violent, economic, cultural and stealth Jihad is the knife slicing the salami of freedom. It is time for us to snatch the slicing-knife of jihad, stop mosque building, stop Sharia law and stop Sharia finance, for we are free – not dhimmis – and we will never be dhimmis. And we will never surrender!

That is why the Western World needs to stand together and fight evil, and fight for freedom and democracy!

Global Terrorist Gives Terror Warning to America

The first things you notice as you approach Saad al-Faqih's home are the CCTV signs. There are several of them posted around his London property as a warning to potential intruders that their every move is being monitored by security cameras. And for good reason. Shortly after my cameraman, Ian, and I arrived at al-Faqih's residence on a recent Sunday afternoon, he informed us that we had just missed a visit by British authorities. "They were here to warn me about an assassination plot being hatched against me by the Saudis," he said. My initial reaction to that news was that I would definitely not be sitting near the window during our interview.

But I can't say I was surprised by al-Faqih's admission. I had come to London to interview men the U.S. government considers extremely dangerous; Islamist ideologues with intimate knowledge of al Qaeda's inner workings. And according to intelligence sources, al-Faqih surely fits that bill.

A former medical surgeon, Al-Faqih now makes a living as one of the world's most vociferous enemies of the Saudi regime. He wants to see the Saudi royal family removed from power (by peaceful means, he says) and replaced with an even more extreme Islamic government than the Saudi Wahhabis currently operate. The Saudis, naturally, do not like this, and have been pressuring Great Britain for years to deport al-Faqih back to Saudi Arabia to stand trial. But the Brits, as I explained in my recent CBN News report and in an appearance with Sean Hannity on Fox News, refuse to extradite al-Faqih and other wanted Islamic terrorists back to their home countries over human rights concerns. Basically, they fear the Saudis will torture al-Faqih and the others, most of whom gained asylum in the UK during the 1980s and ‘90s and now walk the streets of London and other cities as free men.

Al-Faqih has built up a dubious reputation during his time in Britain. He was designated by the United States and UN as a global terrorist in 2004for his links to al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Among the charges against him is that he paid for a satellite phone that was later used by bin Laden to help carry out the 1998 Africa Embassy bombings. Here's more on that, from PBS's Frontline:

Saad says he's never met bin Laden, but he is connected somehow. For one, the satellite telephone that bin Laden allegedly used to plan the Nairobi and Dar es Salaam bombings was purchased from a merchant in Columbus, Ohio, on Saad's own credit card.

An intelligence source with intimate knowledge of the U.S. government's case against al-Faqih told me recently that the Saudi exile is "bad with a capital B" and confirmed his direct links to al Qaeda.

So as al-Faqih poured Arab tea for us in his sparsely decorated living room, I didn't know quite what to expect. Would he be the firebrand who calls for the Saudi regime's demise and fiercely criticizes America and Israel? Or would he play it closer to the vest, so to speak, and assume the "anaylst's role" that he often takes on in the British media? In the end, we got a little bit of both.

Al-Faqih made clear from the outset that he did not want to appear on camera and was highly suspicious of CBN's Christian orientation. But he got over his initial misgivings quickly enough and in a wide ranging, hour-plus interview, went on to answer my questions about a variety of topics. Here are some of the most intriguing observations I took from our interview:

Al Qaeda "Can Never Collapse"

Al-Faqih told me al Qaeda's structure "can never collapse." He says it consists of three circles. Inside the first circle is what he calls "the real al Qaeda team who have given homage to Osama bin Laden or other leaders." Inside the second circle are those who have trained with al Qaeda but have not formally been accepted into the group. The third, and largest circle, according to al-Faqih, is made up of Muslims who are ready to join al Qaeda and are looking for the means to enroll in the group (there is no shortage of this type on U.S. soil). Al-Faqih stressed that there are "always new recruits" eager to link up with bin Laden and co. He attributed al-Qaeda's popularity to there being "no movement in the middle that can satisfy the Muslim world's hunger for dignity" after years of being, in his words, humiliated by the West. In short, he believes al Qaeda is the vanguard of Muslim resistance to the hated West, and that there is no other credible alternative to the group. "There has been a failure of Muslim leaders to channel their people against America," Al Faqih said. 'But bin Laden has shown people that he can do it."

Al Faqih blasts America's longstanding support of the Saudi regime and Israel and labels it as the main cause of Muslim rage against the U.S. This is essentially the same screed we hear time and again from bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, in their audio and videotapes. Sadly, it is often enticing to the ears of the Left, many of whom seem to believe that if we just ditch our support for Israel, the terrorists will leave us alone. This ridiculous, naïve view discounts 1,400 years of Islamic jihad and military conquest against the West, most of which, obviously, occurred before Israel was reborn as a nation in 1948. But I digress.

"British Authorities Respect My Work"

When I asked al-Faqih why he was designated as a terrorist by the United States, he became visibly annoyed. "The American federal system makes it much easier for their political operators to be manipulated by lobbies," he said. According to al-Faqih, the Saudi lobby in the U.S. pressured American officials to designate him as a terrorist. "My website is not radical," said al-Faqih. "It is a bulletin board where we focus only on Saudi-related issues. We never involve ourselves in any other country except Saudi Arabia. We remove anything that would incite violence."

He bristled when I reminded him that American investigators say material on his site glorifies al Qaeda and Islamic terrorism, and that numerous websites he has operated have been used by Islamic terrorists to network with each other.

"Saudi agents put that material on the sites," he said. "They would then call the media to tip them off. I challenge anyone to find a single sentence on my website that calls for or glorifies violence. If it were not for us, more Saudis would join al Qaeda. We have informants at every level of the Saudi government."

"I meet with British authorities to discuss the issues, and they respect my work," he continued. "British politicians are more experienced than the Americans and have a tradition of considering long term interests."

I'd like to be a fly on the wall when American and British officials discuss al-Faqih, because there are obviously serious differences in their assessments of him. Needless to say, given the Brits' extremely shabby track record on Islamic extremism thus far, I'm not terribly optimistic that theirs is the right one.

For more information about al-Faqih's websites, former and current, click here.

AQ Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki is "Very Impressive and Sophisticated"

When our conversation turned to some of the top radical Islamic clerics, al-Faqih mentioned al Qaeda's spiritual leader in Europe, Abu Qatada. "He presents his message in a sophisticated framework," al-Faqih told me. Qatada, who lived freely in London and collected government welfare benefits, is now in prison and awaiting deportation to Jordan, where he has been convicted on terrorism charges.

"But Abu Qatada's writings are very extreme," al-Faqih continued. "And not as polished as (Jordanian jihadist ideologue) Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, who is much better and more subtle. He sticks to scholarly arguments."

Al-Faqih's highest praise, however, was reserved for Yemen-based al Qaeda cleric/recruiter, Anwar al-Awlaki, a man who has captured numerous headlines in the U.S. over the past few months for his relationships with both Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hassan and the Underwear Bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

"I highly recommend that you read him in English," al-Faqih said of al-Awlaki, who lived in New Mexico for a time and also attended college in the U.S. "He is a jewel for you. He is very impressive and sophisticated, very linguistic. He is very powerful. His message is that America must change its entire foreign policy. You cannot defeat him."

I found Al-Faqih's glowing praise of al-Awlaki very significant. It's obvious that the 38-year-old Awlaki is moving into the top echelons of Islamic ideologues in terms of global influence. This ascension has serious ramifications for the West. As mentioned, al-Awlaki spent significant time living in the U.S., is fluent in English and knows American culture and customs very well. This has increasingly made him the "go to" cleric for radical young Western Muslims who are seeking to join al Qaeda.

New Attacks "Even Bigger" than 9/11 Coming

Al-Faqih closed our lengthy conversation by calling us a taxi. As we got up to leave, I asked him how he saw the conflict between the West and the Muslim world playing out over the next few years.

"No matter what Muslim leaders do, there will be more friction with the West – regardless of al Qaeda," he told me. "There will be more confrontation between the West and Muslims, with attacks even bigger than in 2001."

I exited al-Faqih's home a bit unnerved by that last comment. And thinking not so much about what he told me that afternoon as what he didn't.

This is Islam, Plain and Simple

What is Sharia Law? A Must See - The Strict & Scary Islamic Way of Life

Islam and its Sharia law belongs to the dustbin of history. All Muslims need to know is learn the truth about Muhammad and his marauding bandits and thieves called "Sahaba". Once Muslims learn the truth, they will leave that barbaric and evil ideology. Please watch..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngJ4MTeH14k

Muhammad’s Evil Tactics of ‘Virgins in Paradise’ for Decieving Youths

How Muhammad devised the diabolical idea of Virgins in Paradise to decieve the rash and daring youths, full of emotions, romanticism and craze for opposite sex, for achieving his ends at the risk of their lives....

---

Muhammad’s evil mission started in 610 CE, when he was approximately 40. He propagated his new version of religion in Mecca for about 12 years before migrating to Medina (Hijra) in 622 CE. It is a well-known fact that before the Hijra, Muhammad was not able to convert many; he had 100-150 converts by then.

After migration to Medina, the situation suddenly changed in his propagation of Islam. In about 7 or 8 years after the Hijra, his mission of converting infidels turned hugely successful. The number of converts were so high that, as history tells us, some 10,000 to 12,000 Muslim fighters joined him, when he went to capture Mecca in 630 CE.

This is a big riddle for many historians as to why the same prophet couldn’t convert the pagans to his religion with the same pace as he was able to do so after emigration to Medina. But soon, we will learn how Muhammad became successful by diabolical tactics.

Psychology of youths

The psychology of human nature tells us that the element of enthusiasm and fervent in youths is very high especially in teenage days. In early teen years, a youth is very emotionally, but lacks wit and maturity. They gamely go through a danger-situation that a person of 25 or above will think twice before going through. Male teenagers are emotionally very romantic for opposite sex. Hence, many teenagers dream of romanticism and are willing to do any heroic action to impress their opposite number. As a result, some of them lose their lives; some get seriously injured. This psychology is not new to us; everyone goes through these experiences, and that is why a youth is usually easier to manipulate than a mature and older person.

72 virgins in heavens

Muhammad knew who can be the easy victims of his snare. With this mentality, he focused on teenagers to enlarge his aggressive force against everything that he feared to come in his way. The concept of 72 or more virgins in Paradise was his major tool to gain his valid and invalid ends. This concept was specially created for the young and teenage males, so that they could fight more gallantly in battles. The bounds on humanity were lifted up; no one had to be blamed to kill anyone, who goes against their master Muhammad. They were allowed to rob the traders and caravans in the name of Allah.

As teenagers are emotionally very romantic, they believed in any story that related to opposite sex. The repetition of the verses of Virgins in Paradise in the Quran made them believe in another ever lasting world with many heavenly Virgins and luxuries. The poor young victims of Muhammad, without probing the veracity of Muhammad’s claim of Virgins in Paradise, embraced death just for the greed of boundless sexual orgies with many Virgins and other luxuries in heaven.

The point to be noted here: During early years in Medina, Muhammad had no well-organized army, but a small band of plunderers and depredators, comprised mostly of youngsters. The story of Islam, no doubt, has been twisted down to us over a long period of time. The cowards have been made heroes, while the names of real heroes have been vanished or discredited. This is the main reason, none of Muhammad’s companions, who later became caliphs, fell into his dangerous trap; that is, they did not take on Muhammad’s most dangerous missions to risk their life, as they were mature.

Usama bin Harith and Muhammad’s last expedition

We can assume now, how Muhammad put his belief in youths and trusted them, because they were rash, adventurous and not selfish for any means. At the same time, those youngsters were dreaming for the Virgins in heaven. Their romantic craze for gaining access into Paradise to be in the company of those Virgins could be raised higher and higher quite easily. And Muhammad was spot on in devising his tactic: Die quickly on the trail of Jihad for Allah, and without delay, get your hand on your lot of Virgins.

Usama bin Harith is an example; Muhammad made him the general of his army for the last mission he was planning. He was only 17. Earlier to mission to Palestinian border territory had failed. And youthful Osama, undoubtedly pumped up by his desire for the Virgins, fought valiantly, and won the battle.

Conclusion

Today, I was reading a Pakistani news-story about a 14 or 15 year-old boy, who blew himself up as he entered a hotel.

I know such news is nothing new; but as I went through it, I started to understand Muhammad’s psychology and his evil tactics of prying on emotions of innocent youths. Modern-day Jihadi masterminds continue the tactic (a sunnah): Like Muhammad, they never put themselves in harm’s way, but send in young boys instead.

I wonder how many more innocent youths will be the victim of satanic-minded Muhammad.

The Crusades: A Response to Islamic Aggression

One of the most potent myths of our age is that the Crusades were little more than an unprovoked attack by a barbarous Europe against a quiescent and cultured Islamic world.

---

According to conventional ideas, the seventh and eighth centuries constitute the great age of Islamic expansion. By the eleventh century – the time of the First Crusade – we are told that the Islamic world was quiescent and settled and that, by implication, the Crusaders were the aggressors. Indeed, the Crusaders are routinely portrayed as a horde of barbarians from a backward and superstitious Europe irrupting into the cultured and urbane world of the eleventh century Near East.

This at least is the populist language often employed on television and in newspaper articles. In my recent book Holy Warriors: Islam and the Demise of Classical Civilization, I have shown however that before the advent of Islam Christians had no concept of “Holy War” at all, and that it was from the Muslims themselves that Europeans took this idea. I showed too that the Crusades, far from being an unprovoked act of aggression on the part of Christian Europe, was part of a rearguard action aimed at stemming the Muslim advance which, by the start of the eleventh century, was threatening as never before to overwhelm the whole of Europe.

Notwithstanding the evidence presented in Holy Warriors, the consensus among the majority of medieval historians is that the threat from Islam had very little, if anything, to do with the Crusades; the Muslims were simply the convenient targets of a savage and brutal Europe, mired in a culture of habitual violence and rapine. The “energies” of Europe’s warrior-class, it is held, were simply directed by the Papacy away from internal destruction onto the convenient targets of the Islamic world. This, for example, is the line taken by Marcus Bull in his examination of the origins of the Crusades in The Oxford History of the Crusades. In an article of almost ten thousand words, Bull fails to consider the Muslim threat at all. Indeed he mentions it only to dismiss it:

“The perspective of a Mediterranean-wide struggle [between Islam and Christianity] was visible only to those institutions, in particular the papacy, which had the intelligence networks, grasp of geography, and sense of long historical tradition to take a broad overview of Christendom and its threatened predicament, real or supposed. This is a point which needs to be emphasized because the terminology of the crusades is often applied inaccurately to all the occasions in the decades before 1095 when Christians and Muslims found themselves coming to blows. An idea which underpins the imprecise usage is that the First Crusade was the last in, and the culmination of, a series of wars in the eleventh century which had been crusading in character, effectively ‘trial runs’ which had introduced Europeans to the essential features of the crusade. This is an untenable view.”(Marcus Bull, “Origins,” in Jonathan Riley-Smith (ed.) The Oxford History of the Crusades, p. 19)

With what justification, we might ask, does Bull dissociate the earlier Christian-Muslim conflicts of the eleventh century in Spain, Sicily, and Anatolia from the First Crusade? The answer can hardly be described as convincing. “There is plenty of evidence,” he says, “to suggest that people regarded Pope Urban II’s crusade appeal of 1095-6 as something of a shock to the communal system: it was felt to be effective precisely because it was different from anything attempted before.” (Ibid) Of course it was different: the Pope had called a meeting of all the potentates and prelates of Europe to urge the assembly of a mighty force to march to Constantinople and eventually to retake the Holy Land. It was new because of its scale and its ambition. But to thus dismiss the connection with what went before in Spain and Sicily – and Anatolia – is ridiculous. Such a statement can only derive from a mindset which somehow has to see the Crusaders as the aggressors and to thereby detach them from the legitimate defensive wars which Christians had been fighting in Spain and throughout the Mediterranean in the decades immediately preceding 1095.

The fact is, in the twenty years before the First Crusade, Christendom had lost the whole of Anatolia, an area greater than France, and a region right on the doorstep of Europe. In 1050 the Seljuk leader Togrul Beg undertook Holy War against the Christians of Anatolia, who had thus far resisted the power of the Caliphs. We are told that 130,000 Christians died in the war, but that, upon Togrul Beg’s death in 1063 the Christians reasserted their independence and freedom. This was however to be of short duration, and no sooner had Togrul Beg’s nephew Alp Arslan been proclaimed Sultan than the war was renewed. In 1064 the old Armenian capital of Ani was destroyed; and the prince of Kars, the last independent Armenian ruler, “gladly handed over his lands to the [Byzantine] Emperor in return for estates in the Taurus mountains. Large numbers of Armenians accompanied him to his new home.” (Steven Runciman, The History of the Crusades Vol. 1 (Cambridge, 1951) p.61) Indeed, at this time, the entire Armenian nation was effectively transplanted hundreds of miles to the south and west.

But the Turkish attacks continued. From 1065 onwards the great frontier-fortress of Edessa was assaulted yearly. In 1066 they occupied the pass of the Amanus Mountains, and next spring they sacked the Cappadocian metropolis of Caesarea. Next winter the Byzantine armies were defeated at Melitene and Sebastea. These victories gave Alp Arslan control of all Armenia, and a year later he raided far into the Empire, to Neocaesarea and Amorium in 1068, to Iconium in 1069, and in 1070 to Chonae, near the Aegean coast. (Ibid.)

These events make it perfectly clear that the Turks now threatened all the of Empire’s Asiatic possessions, with the position of Constantinople herself increasingly insecure. The imperial government was forced to take action. Constantine X, whose neglect of the army was largely responsible for the catastrophes which now overwhelmed the Empire, had died in 1067, leaving a young son, Michael VII under the regency of the Empress-mother Eudocia. Next year Eudocia married the commander-in-chief, Romanus Diogenes, who was raised to the throne. Romanus was a distinguished soldier and a sincere patriot, who saw that the safety of the Empire depended on the rebuilding of the army and ultimately the reconquest of Armenia. (Ibid.) Within four months of his accession, Romanus had gathered together a large but unreliable force and set out to meet the foe. “In three laborious campaigns,” writes Gibbon, “the Turks were driven beyond the Euphrates; in the fourth, and last, Romanus undertook the deliverance of Armenia.” (Decline and Fall, Ch. 57) Here however, at the seminal battle of Manzikert (1071), he was defeated and captured and all of Anatolia was irretrievably lost.

Any honest reading of these events leaves us in no doubt whatsoever that the aggressor was Alp Arslan and his Turks, and that Romanus Diogenes’ march into Armenia was a last-ditch counter-attack by the Byzantines to prevent the loss of all of Anatolia. Yet observe how the battle is described in the recently-published Chambers Dictionary of World History: “The Byzantine Emperor, Romanus IV Diogenes (1068/71), tried to extend his empire into Armenia but was defeated at Manzikert near Lake Van by the Seljuk Turks under Alp Arslan (1063/72), who then launched a full-scale invasion of Anatolia.” (Bruce Lenman (ed.) Chambers Dictionary of World History (London, 2000) p. 585)

We see in the above a graphic example of the disinformation disseminated by the mentality of political correctness, where the victim is transformed into the aggressor and the aggressor portrayed as the victim.

Alp Arslan was killed a year later, and the conquest of Asia Minor, virtually all that was left of Byzantium’s Asiatic possessions, was completed by his son Malek Shah (1074 – 1084). These conquests left the Turks in possession of the fortress of Nicaea, on the southern shore of the Sea of Marmara, and the survival of Constantinople in question.

These then are the major political events which prefigured the First Crusade. Within a space of thirty-five years the Turks had seized control of Christian territories larger than the entire area of France, and they now stood poised on the very doorstep of Europe. We are accustomed to think of the Crusades as first and foremost an attempt by Christians to retake the Holy Land and Jerusalem; but this is a mistake. The Emperor Alexius Comnenus now made his famous plea to the Pope, not to free Jerusalem, but to drive the Turks from his door, to liberate the huge Christian territories in Asia Minor that had so recently been devastated and annexed by the followers of the crescent. It is true, of course, that the Turks, who had also assumed control of Syria/Palestine, now imposed a barbarous regime in that region; and that the sufferings of Christian pilgrims as well as native Christian populations in that region, described so vividly by Peter the Hermit and others, provided a powerful emotional impetus to the Crusading movement among ordinary Europeans; but the relief of pilgrims was not – to begin with at least – the primary goal of the Crusaders. Nonetheless, the barbarous nature of the Turkish actions in Palestine was a microcosm of their behavior throughout the Christian regions which they conquered, and the nature of their rule in the entire Near East is described thus by Gibbon in his usual vivid manner:

“The Oriental Christians and the Latin pilgrims deplored a revolution, which, instead of the regular government and old alliance of the caliphs, imposed on their necks the iron yoke of the strangers of the north. In his court and camp the great sultan had adopted in some degree the arts and manners of Persia; but the body of the Turkish nation, and more especially the pastoral tribes, still breathed the fierceness of the desert. From Nicaea to Jerusalem, the western countries of Asia were a scene of foreign and domestic hostility; and the shepherds of Palestine, who held a precarious sway on a doubtful frontier, had neither leisure nor capacity to await the slow profits of commercial and religious freedom. The pilgrims, who, through innumerable perils, had reached the gates of Jerusalem, were the victims of private rapine or public oppression , and often sunk under the pressure of famine and disease, before they were permitted to salute the holy sepulcher. A spirit of native barbarism, or recent zeal, prompted the Turkmans to insult the clergy of every sect; the patriarch was dragged by the hair along the pavement and cast into a dungeon, to extort a ransom from the sympathy of his flock; and the divine worship in the church of the Resurrection was often disturbed by the savage rudeness of its masters.” (Chapter 57)

The ordinary peasants of Europe may not have been fully cognizant of the danger from the east, but the ruling classes and the Church could not have been anything but alarmed. Yet even if the peasantry and artisans of Europe knew little about Anatolia, they would certainly have had some knowledge of the Muslim threat. It is Marcus Bull’s suggestion that they did not which is untenable. The advances of Abd er-Rahman III and Al-Mansur through northern Spain in the latter years of the tenth century would have sent a flood of Christian refugees into southern France; and the raids even into southern France which continued well into the eleventh century would have sent refugees from there fleeing into central and northern France. These people would have spread knowledge of the danger throughout western Europe. Granted, peasants and manual laborers would have had a very imperfect understanding of Islam and what Muslims actually believed; but that is not the point: They knew enough to know that Muslims were enemies of Christ; that they waged war against non-combatants and enslaved women and children, and that they had conquered all of Spain and threatened France.

And this is a point that needs to be stressed repeatedly: The reality is that, far from being quiescent and peaceful, by the latter years of the tenth century Islam was once again on the march. Muslim armies waged wars of conquest against non-believers from one end of the Islamic world to the other; from Spain in the west to India in the east; and this new aggression was not confined to the eastern and western extremities, but proceeded along the entire length of Islam’s borders. The Christian kingdoms of Armenia, Georgia and Byzantium were threatened with extinction, and Muslim armies fought with Christians in Sicily and other Mediterranean lands. Many aspects of this new Islamic thrust, particularly those which occurred around the beginning of the eleventh century in Spain and India, are strangely reminiscent of the earlier Islamic expansion in the eighth century, so reminiscent indeed that they might even cause the casual observer to wonder whether the birth of Islam has been somehow misdated and moved into the past by several centuries. So, for example, we are told that the main Islamic invasion of India began with the conquests of Mahmud of Ghazni, a Turkish-speaking prince based in Afghanistan, who launched a series of 17 campaigns into Northern India. These began in 1001 and ended in 1026, just four years or so before his death; a series of campaigns, we should note, which caused immense destruction and loss of life in the country. By the 1020s Mahmud ruled an empire that included much of the Indus Valley, Afghanistan and Persia. Yet these conquests, at the start of the eleventh century, seem to echo those of Muhammed bin Qasim, three centuries earlier, who created an Islamic Empire in roughly the same region (circa 710).

It is strange too that Mahmud of Ghazni’s name differs but little from that of his predecessor. Only the “n” in Ghazni differentiates it from Qasim, a word which could equally well be written as Qasmi.

In the western end of the Islamic world we encounter the same phenomenon. “In the tenth century,” says Runciman, “the Moslems of Spain represented a very real threat to Christendom.” (Runciman, op cit. p. 89) Under Abd er-Rahman III (912-961) the followers of Muhammad found a leader who promised to repeat the successes of the eighth century. As founder of the Cordoba Caliphate, he presided over a new age of splendor and military power. His forces battled the Christians to the north, and the boundary between the two religions was marked by the battles he fought. The most decisive of these were at Simancas (939), between Salamanca and Valladolid on the Duoro River, where he was stopped. These were areas that had been overrun by the Muslims two centuries earlier, though the Christians had apparently retaken them in the interim. In many ways then Abd er-Rahman III resembles his ancestor and namesake Abd er-Rahman I, who conquered these areas in the eighth century. And this new conquering impulse continued under Al-Mansur (980-1002), whose career was to see Muslim power once again enveloping all of Spain, including the far north. He burned Leon, Barcelona and Santiago de Compostela, and, copying his Muslim predecessors almost three centuries earlier, advanced over the Pyrenees. We are told that in Al-Mansur’s time, “Never had the Christians found themselves in such a critical position.” (Louis Bertrand, The History of Spain (2^nd ed. London, 1945) p. 57)

It was the attacks of Al-Mansur that finally roused Christian Europe into undertaking the Reconquista, which commenced with the campaigns of Sancho III (called the Great) of Navarre and the Norman Baron Roger de Tony in the 1020s. Yet these events recall the earlier beginning of the Reconquista with the victory of Don Pelayo at Covadonga around 718.

The reader might well wonder why this “revival” of Islamic conquest in the eleventh century seems so uncannily to resemble the Islamic conquests of the seventh and eighth centuries. That indeed is a moot point: one to be discussed in a future article. For the moment, all that needs to be emphasized is that, contrary to popular belief, the tenth and eleventh centuries constitute a period of massive expansion by Islam, an expansion felt all along Islam’s boundary with Christendom. The Crusades were clearly part of an attempt to stem this aggression.

In the Middle East, Bet on a Strong Horse

The violence and cruelty of Arabs often perplexes Westerners.

Not only does the leader of Hezbollah proclaim "We love death," but so too does, for example, a 24-year-old man who last month yelled "We love death more than you love life" as he crashed his car on the Bronx-Whitestone Bridge in New York City. As two parents in St. Louis honor-killed their teenage daughter with 13 stabs of a butcher's knife, the Palestinian father shouted "Die! Die quickly! Die quickly! . . . Quiet, little one! Die, my daughter, die!" – and the local Arab community supported them against murder charges. A prince from Abu Dhabi recently tortured a grain dealer whom he accused of fraud; despite a video of the atrocity appearing on television internationally, the prince was acquitted while his accusers were convicted.

On a larger scale, one accounting finds 15,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11. Governments throughout the Arabic-speaking countries rely more on brutality than on the rule of law. The drive to eliminate Israel still persists even as new insurrections take hold; the latest one has flared up in Yemen.

Several excellent attempts to explain the pathology of Arab politics exist; my personal favorites include studies by David Pryce-Jones and Philip Salzman. Now add to these The Strong Horse: Power, Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilizations (Doubleday, $26), an entertaining yet deep and important analysis by Lee Smith, Middle East correspondent for the Weekly Standard.

Smith takes as his prooftext Osama bin Laden's comment in 2001, "When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse." What Smith calls the strong-horse principle contains two banal elements: Seize power and then maintain it. This principle predominates because Arab public life has "no mechanism for peaceful transitions of authority or power sharing, and therefore [it] sees political conflict as a fight to the death between strong horses." Violence, Smith observes is "central to the politics, society, and culture of the Arabic-speaking Middle East." It also, more subtly, implies keeping a wary eye on the next strong horse, triangulating, and hedging bets.

Smith argues that the strong horse principle, not Western imperialism or Zionism, "has determined the fundamental character of the Arabic-speaking Middle East." The Islamic religion itself both fits into the ancient pattern of strong-horse assertiveness and then promulgates it. Muhammad, the Islamic prophet, was a strongman as well as a religious figure. Sunni Muslims have ruled over the centuries "by violence, repression, and coercion." Ibn Khaldun's famous theory of history amounts to a cycle of violence in which strong horses replace weak ones. The humiliation of dhimmis daily reminds non-Muslims who rules.

Smith's prism offers insights into modern Middle East history. He presents Pan-Arab nationalism as an effort to transform the mini-horses of the national states into a single super-horse and Islamism as an effort to make Muslims again powerful. Israel serves as "a proxy strong horse" for both the United States and for the Saudi-Egyptian bloc in the latter's cold war rivalry with Iran's bloc. In a strong-horse environment, militias appeal more than do elections. Lacking a strong horse, Arab liberals make little headway. The United States being the most powerful non-Arab and non-Muslim state makes anti-Americanism both inevitable and endemic.

Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt suggests American car bombings in Damascus.

Which brings us to policies by non-Arab actors: unless they are forceful and show true staying power, Smith stresses, they lose. Being nice – say, withdrawing unilaterally from southern Lebanon and Gaza – leads to inevitable failure. The George W. Bush administration rightly initiated a democratization project, raising high hopes, but then betrayed Arab liberals by not carrying through. In Iraq, the administration ignored advice to install a democratically-minded strongman.

More broadly, when the U.S. government flinches, others (e.g., the Iranian leadership) have an opportunity to "force their own order on the region." Walid Jumblatt,, a Lebanese leader, has half-seriously suggested that Washington "send car bombs to Damascus" to get its message across and signal its understanding of Arab ways.

Smith's simple and near-universal principle provides a tool to comprehend the Arabs' cult of death, honor killings, terrorist attacks, despotism, warfare, and much else. He acknowledges that the strong-horse principle may strike Westerners as ineffably crude, but he correctly insists on its being a cold reality that outsiders must recognize, take into account, and respond to.

All mothers should sacrifice their child for Palestine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zb326lP5RPg

Last shown on Palestinian TV on February 7, 2010

"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs in return is the garden of Paradise: they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain..." -- Qur'an 9:111

"Say (O Muhammad): O ye who are Jews! If ye claim that ye are favoured of Allah apart from (all) mankind, then long for death if ye are truthful." -- Qur'an 62:6

"The Americans love Pepsi-Cola, we love death." -- Afghan jihadist Maulana Inyadullah

"We love death more than you love life!" -- New York jihadist Adis Medunjanin

Note that this death-loving mother said this on "moderate" Fatah-controlled television. "Mother celebrates son's Martyrdom death: 'All mothers should sacrifice their child for Palestine,'" by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik for Palestinian Media Watch, February 21:

Palestinian Authority TV news recently chose to feature a Palestinian mother promoting her son's death as a positive goal.

Upon learning of her son's death in an Israeli air strike, the mother explained that she had always hoped for her son's Shahada - death as a Martyr -- and recommended that other mothers likewise "sacrifice their child for Palestine."

The words of another woman, chosen by PA TV news for the pre-recorded news report, described how Palestinian society sees Martyrs as grooms. This is based on the Islamic tradition, promoted actively by the PA and Hamas, that Martyrs will marry 72 virgins in Paradise.

PA TV news report:

Mother upon news of son's death in an Israeli air strike: "We had always hoped for his [my son's] Martyrdom (Shahada), knowing he wanted to die as a Martyr (Shahid). Every time he went out, we would say to him, 'May Allah be with you.' We knew that he wanted to die as a Martyr. Praise to Allah, he sought Martyrdom, and he achieved it. My message to every mother is to sacrifice her child for Palestine." Second woman: "By Allah, we welcome every Martyr as if he were a groom among us." [PA TV (Fatah), Feb. 11, 2010]

Palestinian Media Watch has documented that these two ideas -- that death is a higher value than life and that Martyrdom death leads to a wedding between the Martyr and the virgins of Paradise -- have been promoted actively by both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas for years.

Palestinian schoolbooks teach children that aspiring to death is better than life:

"O heroes, Allah has promised you victory ... Do not talk yourselves into flight... Your enemies seek life while you seek death." They seek spoils to fill their empty stomachs while you seek a Garden [Paradise] as wide as are the heavens and the earth... Death is not bitter in the mouth of the believers. These drops of blood that gush from your bodies will be transformed tomorrow into blazing red meteors that will fall down upon the heads of your enemies." [Reading and Texts Part II, Grade 8, p. 16. Schoolbook currently in use in PA schools.]...

Read it all.

Islam's Apartheid

Islam is a creed of apartheid, with women being its worst victim...

---

The dictionary defines apartheid as: An official policy of racial segregation promulgated in the Republic of South Africa with a view to promoting and maintaining white ascendancy.

In 1973, the General Assembly of the United Nations opened for signature and ratification the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (ICSPCA). It defined the crime of apartheid as:

"Inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial [religious] group of persons over any other racial [religious] group of persons and systematically oppressing them."

The declaration prohibits

“Acts such as murder, infringement on freedom or dignity, arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, imposition of inhumane living conditions, forced labor, or enacting measures calculated to prevent a racial [religious] group from ‘participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country’ such as denying them ‘basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognized trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.’"

Islamic member countries of the time, such as Egypt, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia are signatories to the above declaration condemning the barbaric practices of apartheid. Yet, these same countries, as well as other Islamic nations, are the most blatant violators of the declaration.

It is the discriminatory Islamic teachings that condone and even promote wanton practices in violation of the United Nations declaration. Islam is a primitive barbaric ideology for the benefit of the male believer.

Islam, by fiat, discriminates against women. Koran 4:11 says:

“Allah directs you in regard of your Children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females…. These are settled portions ordained by Allah.”

There are many more “directives” that for all intents and purposes make women chattel of men. Here are some of the shameful rules and practices of Islamic misogyny.

Tabari IX:113:

“Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Koran.”

Tabari I:280 “Allah said, ‘It is My obligation to make Eve bleed once every month as she made this tree bleed. I must also make Eve stupid, although I created her intelligent.’ Because Allah afflicted Eve, all of the women of this world menstruate and are stupid.”

In this case Allah is half right. Women do menstruate. But He is also wrong. Extensive studies by impartial psychologists provide unequivocal documentation of the fact that women are equal in intelligence to men.

But don’t contradict Allah and his beloved unerring mouthpiece, Muhammad. Sadly enough, even many Muslim women prefer to be treated like “domestic animals” who “possess nothing themselves,” and are “stupid.”

Thus, life goes on for the Muslim women with all the trappings of the Islamic misogyny. Here are some rules that keep women in their Muhammad – stipulated place.

• If a Muslim woman is murdered, her beneficiary is entitled to one-half dyyeh – blood money, or compensation – as that of a murdered Muslim male.
• A woman’s testimony in the court of law is worth one-half that of a man.
• A woman must provide four witnesses to substantiate her claim of being raped.
• A man can divorce his wife by simply saying to her, “I divorce you,” three times.
• A divorced woman is entitled to a miserly compensation and automatically forfeits her rights to her children.
• Women are barred from the lucrative and powerful cast of clergy.
• Husbands are entitled to punish their wives corporally.
• Men are allowed to have four wives at any one time and as many concubines as they desire and can afford.
• Saudi Arabia, the custodian of “true Islam” imposes a raft of restrictions on women such as: women are not allowed to drive; they are not permitted to leave the country without accompaniment or explicit permission of their male kin; they are barred from most government jobs and much, much more.
• Among other Muslims, such as the Taliban and the Pashtun of Afghanistan-Pakistan region, women are barred from education and not even allowed to leave the house unless accompanied by a male kin.
• Since education, particularly professional education, is often denied to women in many Islamic societies, there is scarcity of women physicians and male doctors are often forbidden to treat women patients.

Such is the plight of women under Islam. There is hardly the need to provide an exhaustive list of Islamic misogyny to qualify it as a shameful, discriminatory and oppressive religious apartheid.

Will Muslim women ever break out of their bondage and claim their rightful place among emancipated non-Muslim women? It is the long sub-humanized Muslim women who must discard Islam and claim their equal human rights. Muslim men will resort to every means to maintain their privileged position and their cruel dominance over women, citing the Koran as justification. Any document that consigns one half of the human race to second class status is null and void.

Its constitutional sub-humanization of women aside, Islam has a raft of beliefs and practices that violate fundamental human rights of non-Muslims in general. A few cases should suffice to fully substantiate the contention that Islam is religious apartheid. And there is no need to draw cases from the repugnant “extremist” Islamic groups such as the Taliban to make the case. Even the most “mainstream” and “peaceful” Islam is guilty of systemic apartheid. Just a couple of examples should suffice for now.

On December 16, 2006, Egypt’s Highest Administrative Court decreed that in order to receive an Identity Card, only Islam, Judaism, or Christianity must be entered on the application. No one of any other religion or no religion at all is permitted to list his belief or even leave it blank. Without the identity card, just about all the rights of citizenship are denied to minorities such as Baha’is, Hindus, and Buddhists. People are forced to choose between falsely claiming an approved religion and depriving themselves of just about all rights of citizenship such as jobs, education and medical care.

• In the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic law denies dyyeh to any and all people who are not Muslims or members of the only other three recognized religions. Every one of the 500,000 members of the Baha’i Faith can be murdered without the family receiving justice or compensation. As a matter of fact, the Islamic government itself has executed Baha’is for the sole “crime” of being Baha’is and has demanded that the innocently murdered person’s family reimburse it for the bullets they used to execute him.
• The Islamic Republic of Iran’s President’s repeated threat to wipe out Israel from the map is ignored by some as an empty rhetoric of an unhinged fanatic. Yet, Ahmadinejad’s threats are far from the baseless saber-rattling of a zealot. Ahamadinejad’s government has recently ordered the comprehensive gathering of data regarding the Baha’is and all their activities. This order is deeply troubling, since it is almost a replica of what another fascist, Hitler, did before launching the genocide of six million Jews and some four million other “undesirables”. Ahamadinejad is an Islamofascist whose aim is to have a practice run on the Iranian Baha’is before embarking on destroying the Jews and other “undesirables,” following in the footsteps of the German fuehrer.
• Islamic societies shamelessly practice all the sanctioned injustices listed in the U.N. charter on apartheid (see paragraphs 2 and 3, above). Islam is religious apartheid. And apartheid, by universal agreement, is an inhumane, unjust and condemned practice.

Islam cruelly practices its oppressive dogma on minorities in its lands; it is in clear violation of the provisions of Universal Human Rights. Ominously, Islam is encroaching in the traditionally non-Islamic parts of the world and doing all it can to impose its horrid doctrine on others.

It is for this present and imminent danger that the free people of the world must rise and do all they can to preserve their birthright of liberty. Muslims in the non-Islamic lands may seem harmless, and many of them indeed are harmless. Yet, Islam compels its leaders to uphold and promote its tenets at any and all costs to anyone. It is for this reason that on the one hand the Islamic governments sign the U.N. Charter that condemns apartheid, and on the other hand, these governments violate every provision of it when they are in power.

Islamofascism, the enemy of liberty, is at the gate. It is the duty of every free human to defend freedom by defeating the enemy.

Islam is a Trojan Horse

“Europe will be Muslim in a dozen years,” promises the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Supreme Guide (dictator) who is racing full-speed ahead to make as many bombs as possible with long-range missiles capable of delivering their payload anywhere in the world.

This past Friday, Yunis al-Astal, a leading Muslim cleric and Hamas member of the Palestinian parliament, declared on Hamas' Al-Aqsa TV that "the capital of the Catholics, or the Crusader capital," would soon be conquered by Islam and Rome become an advance post for the Islamic conquests, which will spread through Europe in its entirety, and then will turn to the two Americas.”

The Islam hydra, with Saudi Arabia and the oil-money bloated Emirs and Sheiks of the Persian Gulf leading the Sunni charge from one side and the end-of-the-worlder bomb-seeking Shiite of the Islamic Republic of Iran with its proxies of Hamas, Lebanon Hezbollah and the Sadrists in Iraq closing from the other side will devour the free world.

Free people: are you listening?

Free people: do you care?

Free people: are you doing anything?

Disguised as religion, Islam has penetrated the democracies with the aim of replacing civility and liberty with the barbarism of theocracy and Sharia. Islam’s multi-prong attack aims to destroy all that liberty offers.

It is generally assumed that religion addresses issues of importance to daily life as well as matters that transcend it. Religion claims to exercise a civilizing influence by ordering the social life and promoting spirituality, as well as advancing an array of human virtues. Zoroaster, for instance, based his faith on the triad of goodly thoughts, goodly speech and goodly deeds. Moses framed the fundamentals of his faith in the Ten Commandments, and Jesus placed love at the core of his faith.

Yet, all is not well with religion. Purveyors of some religions advocate and promote ideas and practices that are harmful to the general well-being of mankind. It is imperative that a society institutes measures that guard against any and all organizations and ideologies, be they religious or otherwise that harms it.

As things stand now, our lives are governed by numerous boards at all levels of government, business, and community. All these boards are charged with the responsibility of looking after the welfare of the people they serve. The Food and Drug Administration, for instance, must pass on the safety and quality of the food we eat; the Aviation Safety Board works to ensure safe flights; a local school board strives to create the environment that best serves the education and safety needs of the pupils. Every community and business of any size is served by boards.

There are, however, no oversight boards that would check against things that contaminate the mind and present a clear threat of unraveling our democracy’s social compact as we know and cherish it. Shouldn’t these dangers to our beliefs and way of life be monitored and combated or should they be given a pass to work their damage?

Presently, America is faced with a formidable enemy in a Trojan horse called Islam. This imminent danger makes it imperative to revisit the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and make the necessary changes to legally defeat Islam’s subversion of the democratic system.

Muslims in Western democracies, most of them escapees of the misery of Islamic countries, exhibit such incredible gall and audacity as to shamelessly demand that their benevolent hosts surrender their liberty and legalize and adopt the Sharia in their societies.

The Muslims’ presence in countries such as Canada, Great Britain, the Netherlands and Sweden represents the tip of the sword of the Islamists protruding from the Trojan horse.

Once Sharia is recognized to any extent, it will reach out to rule, not only on matters that concern Muslims, but also those that may involve a Muslim and non-Muslim. Under Sharia, a Muslim man married to a non-Muslim woman is able to divorce the woman at will and automatically have custody of the children.

America, with a long history of protecting religious freedom, still clings to the “hands off” practice of leaving alone any doctrine or practice billed as religion. A thorny problem is in deciding what constitutes a religion and who is to make that call. The dictionary supplies a sociologically useless definition for religion: “The expression of man’s belief in and reverence for a superhuman power recognized as the creator and governor of the universe.” Just about anyone or any group under this definition can start a religion, and they indeed do – and some do so at significant costs to others.

Islam was birthed by primitives of some 1,400 years ago and over time invaded much of the world at the point of the sword. Presently, Islamists, with their treasuries flush with petrodollars, are in a great position to realize their perennial dream of bringing the world under the rule of Muhammad’s Ummeh.

On the one hand, Pakistan is already a nuclear power and the Islamic Republic of Iran aims to be one before very long. On the other hand, Muslim governments and wealthy Sheikhs are funding Islamic schools, centers and front organizations in the West to work from within at the unraveling of the non-Islamic democratic systems. In a parallel attack, the “Legal Islam” is exploiting every provision of the law in free societies to promote Islam and silence its critics through expensive legal shenanigans.

Islam is incompatible with democracy and subversive of the way of life that blesses this nation. It is imperative that we fight Islamofascism with the same determination that we fought other enemies of freedom such as Nazism, Fascism, and Communism. It is, therefore, imperative that the Constitution be revisited in such a manner that it no longer grants a pass to any cult simply calling itself a religion.

Bluntly speaking, no one can be a faithful Muslim and an American at the same time. As more and more Muslims arrive in non-Islamic lands, as they reproduce with great fecundity, as they convert the disenchanted and minorities, and as petrodollar-flush Muslims and Muslim treasuries supply generous funds, Muslims gather more power to undermine the democratic rule.

The hydra of Islam is lashing out by its jihadists, sophisticated and well-funded lawyers, terrorist groups, and terror-sponsoring governments who have the bomb and those that are racing non-stop to acquire the ultimate weapon. There is no time to waste. Steadfastly confronting Islam is the only way to defeat a fanatical enemy who does not believe in negotiation or compromise. For Islam, it is winner take all. And the way that permissive, oblivious, and well-meaning free societies are reacting does not bode well for liberty.

Islam must be recognized for what it is: a Trojan horse carrying in its belly what will assuredly slaughter all who stand everything that is precious to free people.

Way to Stop Islam

What critics of Islam recommend for fighting Islam effectively...

---

BASIS OF ISLAM AND JIHAD

Islam is based on fanatical devotion to the Qur’an and Muhammad’s examples above everything else. Muhammad used the most vile and horrible methods such as ethnic cleansing, secret assassinations, kidnappings, robbery, deceit and cunning in the propagation of Islam and domination over other people.

Fighting jihad is prescribed for all Muslims (2.216). Jihad stands on two legs: one is terror and the other is deception or taqiyyah. Both are essential for the advancement of Islam. Militants do jihad with violence, while the moderates do it with taqiyyah. Moderates hold you down infidels, while militants cut their throats.

Here are some opinions from scholars of Islam on how to solve Islam problem:

DR. WAFA SULTAN

Expose Islam

The pervasive political correctness in our society is an epidemic of great proportion. With its moral relativism and multiculturalism, it leads to a drastic decline of Western values, and if it continues unrestrained, it may well lead to the destruction of Western civilization as we know it today. Truth about Islam must be freely disbursed to fight it.

NONNIE DARWESH

Stop Political Correctness

The West must realize that it is not doing itself or the Muslim world any favor by political correctness, which actually has a negative effect on Muslims trying to reform their system. Western PC is telling them we just love you the way you are, terrorism, hate speech, good and bad, we still love you. The West must demand reciprocity and equal treatment from Muslim countries. If they build mosques in the US, then we must have the right to build a Church in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries. By accepting a one way cultural impact from Islam, we are welcoming a disaster waiting to happen.

DR. HABIRA

A multi-lingual television channel should be launched with the sole purpose of providing correct information about Islam and challenging its dogmas, where apostates, critics, and reformers should have a voice to disseminate the truth about Islam.

Removing Islam from the category of religions and justly placing it as a dangerous political movement is the only solution.

ABUL KASEM

It is impossible to negotiate or compromise with Islam or to secure permanent peace (like Israelis and Palestinians or Kashmir and India). Anyone having the slightest humanism, conscience, and compassion should be appalled at the Islamic theology... It is time that the entire humanity realizes the futility of engaging in inter-faith dialogue with Islam. As long as the unbelievers are treated as animals in Islam, it is not possible to have equal rights is Islamic societies.

We need the world to realize this truth and to unite together. Truly, the world is permanently divided into two warring camps: the world of humans (Islam) and the world of ‘animals’ (non-Islam). Without wasting time in endless dialogues, let us accept this reality, and do what we must do to defend our freedom and civilization.

HUGH FITZGERALD

Stop Muslim immigration; make the country Islam-unfriendly

Completely stop Muslim immigration and make our countries Islam-unfriendly, thus presenting the Muslims already here between the options of adapting to our societies or leaving if they desire sharia law. Even whispering about Jihad should be grounds for expulsion and revoking citizenship.

FJORDMAN

The real crime, and the real betrayal, would be to sacrifice centuries of advances in human freedom as well as the future of our children and grandchildren to appease Muslims, who contribute virtually nothing to our societies and are hostile to their very foundations.

The Sudeten Germans, some 3.5 million people, had shown themselves to be a dangerous fifth column without any loyalty to the state. The Czech government thus expelled them from its land in 1946. Muslims in the west are Sudeten Germans of Csechslovakia. They must be handled the same way.

ROBERT SPENCER

• Too protect ourselves, there should be a moratorium on Muslim immigration, combined with a clear notice to Muslims in the United States that any action on behalf of Sharia should be punished under Section 2385.
• Misinformation about Islam must be eliminated and truth about Islam spoken openly.

CRAIG WINN

Media and Press to Declare Islam Satanic

It is the duty of the media and press is to learn and to tell the truth about Islam. They can learn all they want on prophetofdoom.net. Once people realize that Islam is a satanic religion, which is the brainchild of a pedophile, a robber, rapist and killer, Islam will lose all sympathies and followers.

GEERT WILDER

Ban the Quran

Islam is not a religion, it is a totalitarian ideology, a doctrine of hate and violence. Quran tells Muslims what are they expected to do with unbelievers: they are to be killed.

Quran stands at the heart of terrorism, which in reality is their Jihad. Problems of Islam are at the core of Islam, and do not belong to its fringes. I have warned against the dangers of the Koran and Islam. Koran must be banned like Meinkampf, Islam declared a non-religion and the mass immigration of Muslims must be stopped.

M. A. KHAN

Shame them out of Islam

What might work, something that has not been tried, is what I personally call 'shaming the Muslims out of Islam'. Islam is a horrible and shameful ideology, unfit for the civilized world. But most Muslims, who are average human beings, do not know what is actually in the Quran and Sunnah, or, they have never analyzed the contents of Islam's fundamental texts critically. They have no idea what it means to be a true Muslim and how shameful it is in the modern civilized conscience. If they are made aware of the true nature of Islam, they will leave this barbaric and dehumanizing cult in large numbers. Islam will be condemned to the dustbin of history where it always belonged.

I think that this so-called moderate variety of Muslims can easily be dissociated from Islam. What we need to do is to say the truth that Islam is not a "religion of peace" as goes the popular discourse, but a barbaric, inhuman and uncivilized cult; that Muhammad was not a noble, a perfect man for all time, but he was a brutal plunderer and mass-murderer lusting for power, wealth and sex; that he was a sex-maniac with a pedophilic urge for a kid as young as six when he was in his 50s and not far from death; that Islam, as initiated by Prophet Muhammad, is a barbaric institution of imperialism, forced conversion, and slavery and sex-concubinage. Islam, as depicted in its sacred texts, is more horrifying than this.

What we need is to hold the pages of the Quran, prophetic traditions and biographies, and Islamic history bare to Muslims and to the world. This will be enough to shame the Muslims out of Islam.

DR. ALI SINA

There is only one realistic way: Stop Islam. This is a lot easier than people think. Islam is a lie. All we have to do is expose this lie and Muslims will walk away from it. No one wants to believe in a lie. Once we show Muslims that Muhammad was a psychopathic cult leader and that all his claims are bogus, Islam will become a dead religion in no time. I believe in the power of truth. Tell the truth and Islam will be destroyed in our own lifetime.

Muhammad was a jackass. People who believe in him are stupid. Let us call a spade a spade. These people must be laughed at. They, and their screwball prophet, have to be ridiculed, not respected. Let them cringe, let them wince, let them agonize. We must demolish this fetish and break the shackles of these wretched people. They must be set free and the only way to do that is to demolish their fetish.

Once Muhammad is ridiculed, once this talisman is destroyed, Muslims will be liberated and they will leave Islam. When that happens they'll thank you.

It is not difficult to destroy Islam. Islam is the pumped-up ego of a megalomaniac psychopath. Muhammad was a narcissist madman. Just as a huge balloon can be deflated by a small needle, all it takes to make Islam explode is to ridicule its loony inventor and its brainless followers.

I know the Muslim psychology. It is all pomposity and bravado. I give you my word that if Islam is ridiculed publicly and systematically, it will be defeated. Shame is a great motivator as well as deterrent. Do not underestimate the power of ridicule. This is serious stuff not a laughing matter.

CONCLUSION

1. Declare Islam illegal and ban it like any other dangerous ideology (KKK ideology) or a dangerous drug. Discuss Truth about Islam and Mohammed openly on mainstream media.
2. Ban the Quran because it preaches hate discrimination and violence (like Meinkampf was banned).
3. Shut down all mosques, because they all teach the Quran.
4. Stop Muslim immigration.

The above steps will not cost a penny, save billions in tax benefits given to Islam/mosques, save billions in fighting terrorism and undermine Islam by taking away most of its practitioners and supporters by exposing the truth about Islam, the Quran and Mohammed, which have been the history’s best kept secrets. Muslims will not be able to come to the West and the real Muslims living here will leave, because practicing a banned ideology will be looked down socially.

Girl Buried Alive in Turkey: Honor Killing is about Islam

Turkish police recovered the body of Medine Memi, a 16-year-old girl, who was buried alive by her father and grandfather in an "honor" killing carried out as punishment for talking to boys.

The pit from where the buried girl's body was recovered

She was found in a sitting position with her hands tied, in a two-meter hole dug under a chicken pen outside her home in Kahta, in the south-eastern province of Adiyaman.

Medine had been abused and beaten by her father and grandfather several times and she had sought help from Police three times, only to be sent back to her home.

Medine’s father had told relatives he was unhappy that his daughter – one of nine children – was talking to boys.

Official figures indicate that more than 200 such killings take place each year, accounting for around half of all murders in Turkey.

What makes this case particularly disturbing is its gruesomeness. A postmortem examination revealed large amounts of soil in Medine’s lungs and stomach, indicating that she had been alive and conscious while being buried. Her body showed no signs of bruising.

Honor killing happens in all Islamic counties, and thanks to the immigration of Muslims it has now spread to Europe, America, Australia and also Canada.

Governments in Islamic countries claim to do their best to put an end to this evil practice. Then why it cannot be stopped and why it is spreading?

To find an answer we must understand where the problem is originated. Honor killing is neither in the Quran nor in the hadith. However, it is the logical consequence of the Islamic misogyny and upbringing.

Women in Islam are seen as sexual beings. Every part of their body is thought to be erotic. Every square inch of her, is sexual. She must cover from head to toe, because her entire body is perceived to be private parts.

In Pakistan, women are called awra. Awra or aurat means the part of the body that has to be covered. Exposing the Awra is unlawful in Islam and is regarded as sin. Etymologically, the term Awra derives from the root ‘a-w-r which means "defectiveness", "imperfection", "blemish" or "weakness" – however the most common English translation is "nakedness".

The Islamic regime of Iran calls women zaifeh. It’s the feminine for “weak.” This implies also mental weakness since according to Muhammad women are deficient in intelligence. This sums up the status of woman in Islam. You can’t be more explicit than this.

In a society that women are seen as weak, defective and private part, any contact that they may have with men is deemed to be sexual and unlawful.

Women in Muslim countries are segregated. From the very childhood boys and girls are kept apart. They don’t play with each other, don’t go to school with each other, don’t ride on the same bus, and don’t shake hand or have eye contact. Any contact with women can arouse the pious Muslim men sexually, which would not only cause him to sin, but also would dishonor her male relatives.

The Quran (4:34) says men are in charge of women. The same verse says “good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded.”

The secret is their awra. Since in Islam the woman’s whole body is considered to be sexual, they must cover every part of their body and avoid contact with stranger men. Verse 24:31 says believing women must lower their gaze, be modest and they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty to strangers.

In the west, one can shake hand with a woman, dance with her and even kiss her on the cheek, and none of that is considered to be sexual. But one must not touch her in her crotch. That is private part.

A Muslim woman’s entire body is private part. So if you shake hand with her it is the same as touching her crotch. If she displays her hair, it is as exposing her pubic hair. Everything in her is sexual and private part.

In Islam women are the namoos (ناموس) of their male relatives. Namoos can be roughly translated as honor, but with a sexual connotation. The namoos of a Muslim hinges on protecting his female kin from prying eyes. If a woman displays her beauty or talks to a stranger man, the namoos of all her male relatives is injured. The only way to redeem an injured namoos is to wash the stain with blood.

Patriarchal societies produce men with devalued sense of self. Therefore, a Muslim man’s “honor,” depends almost entirely on how he can keep his female dependants under leash. Should he fail to do that he is shamed. He knows that everyone will be talking about him and laughing at him behind his back.

He can restore his namoos by killing the woman that has been “defiled.” The Islamic society does not look down at such a man, but rather he is lionized as having ghairat (pride, sense of honor).

The question is how to stop this insanity. Now that we know the root cause of this problem the answer is obvious. The problem is Islamic misogyny. We can’t expect more from a society that treats its women as deficient in intelligence, weak and a defective thing that has to covered. Where women are dehumanized and sexualized honor killing is the outcome.

Honor killing is not the only problem affecting Islamic countries. Dictatorship, violence, terrorism, poverty, human rights abuses, and a host of other problems that are endemic in Muslim countries are all due to teachings of Islam.

There is one obvious solution for all these problems, but it is politically incorrect to say it. The problem is Islam, and the solution is to get rid of it. This required telling the truth about this faith and criticizing it in the same way that Christianity and all other faiths have been criticized. However, while it is okay to criticize every other faith, criticizing Islam is taboo - in Europe, it is illegal.

The Dutch government is prosecuting a member of their parliament (Geert Wilders) for telling the truth about Islam. His prosecutor has said it clearly that it does not matter whether Wilders has told the truth, because it was illegal to say it.

Telling the truth is illegal. But only truth can set us free. Meanwhile, thousands of innocent girls like Medine, thousands of victims of terrorism, and thousands of victims of religious violence will meet their death every year in the hands of devout Muslims who just want to practice their faith, faithfully. Even these murderers are victims of a lie.

There is no end to these senseless killings until Islam is criticized in the same way that other faiths have been criticized. Until then more lives will be lost.