Mission Europa Netzwerk Karl Martell

  • ACT for America

    Photobucket
  • Support Ummat-al-Kuffar!

  • Participant at Counter Jihad Conferences

  • Counterjihad Brussels 2007

  • Counterjihad Vienna 2008

  • Counterjihad Copenhagen 2009

  • Photobucket
  • RSS International Civil Liberties Alliance

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • RSS Big Peace

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • Geert Wilders

    Photobucket
  • International Free Press Society

    Photobucket
  • Religion of Peace

Archive for the ‘Islam – What can we do? Was können wir tun?’ Category

Sharia Law for Non-Muslims

Posted by paulipoldie on March 21, 2011

This is a Must Read for everyone.

German translation to follow soon.

Shariah Law for Non-Muslims

Posted in Islam, Islam - What can we do? Was können wir tun?, Sharia | Leave a Comment »

What Really Makes Me Mad is Understandable

Posted by paulipoldie on February 13, 2011

What Really Makes Me Mad is Understandable

Posted: 03 Feb 2011 02:27 AM PST

WHEN I TRY to educate my fellow non-Muslims about basic Islamic doctrine, they often automatically assume I hate Muslims. They don’t have a way of reconciling my criticism with any model of the world they are familiar with, and the only way to understand me is to conclude I must just be a “hater” or have a prejudice against Arabs or Muslims. But I have found some success in clearing this up by explaining how I look at the whole subject. Something like this…

I think of Muslims as being divided into three categories. There are those who understand the doctrine well and believe in it and are committed to following its dictates. This is a relatively small percentage, although nobody knows how small. I would guess it is somewhere between five and twenty-five percent of Muslims. That’s a pretty big range, I know, but like I said, it’s hard to know for sure.

The second category of Muslims are those who know about the doctrine but secretly reject parts of it. They do it secretly because it says in the doctrine they are not allowed to reject any of it, and also because in many parts of the world it is physically dangerous to reject any part of Islamic doctrine publicly. I believe this group is another ten to twenty percent of Muslims. That’s just a guess.

The third category is the biggest. These are Muslims who don’t know what their own doctrine says. They grew up Muslim, their parents were Muslim, and they never thought of having a choice about being Muslim, but they’ve never been interested enough to find out what Islamic doctrine says.

With an understanding of the three categories, I can now explain that I do not hate “Muslims.” What bothers me is that people in the first category — the true believers — are successfully exploiting the third and very large category of ignorant Muslims, and successfully fooling most of the non-Muslims.

And even that doesn’t bother me as much as the fact that the true believing Muslims are successfully exploiting and fooling so many people simply because people refuse to look. It’s not like the information is hard to find. The ignorant Muslims have not taken the time to explore their own doctrines enough to accept or reject them. And the ignorant non-Muslims essentially refuse to look. They make assumptions instead, and self-righteously defend their assumptions. But the doctrines are widely published and abundantly available. That’s what really bothers me.

I feel like Winston Churchill must have felt during the 1930’s. He read Mein Kampf. The book was available for anyone to read. Churchill was trying to get people to simply look, but for the most part people did not want to look for fear of what they would find. What a frustrating, angering situation. That’s why I appear frustrated and angry sometimes when I’m talking to people. It is not hatred toward Muslims. It is anger at our ridiculous situation: A group is actively working toward a terrible goal which has been widely published in the open, but so many people do not want to know about it. Under the circumstances, I think intense frustration is a normal response.

Anyway, when I explain it this way, I think people better understand my passion for the subject and see it differently, and that helps them listen to whatever else I have to say. It prevents them from “shutting their ears,” so to speak. It prevents them from just dismissing what I have to say (because they won’t listen to “hatemongers” or prejudice people).

If you feel the same way, try explaining it to people when you can see they are misunderstanding your passion for the subject. And tell us how it worked (or didn’t work) on Talk About Islam Among Non-Muslims.

Posted in Fight back!, Islam, Islam - What can we do? Was können wir tun? | Leave a Comment »

Criticizing Islam Successfully to People Who Don’t Want to Hear It

Posted by paulipoldie on January 24, 2011

Criticizing Islam Successfully to People Who Don’t Want to Hear It

Posted: 16 Jan 2011 10:33 AM PST

WHEN SOMEONE you’re talking to turns against the idea of criticizing Islam, switch to talking about Scientology. Talk about Scientology’s Fair Game policy for awhile, and once your listener agrees with you that the policy is unacceptable, make these points:

1. not all religions are the same

2. not all religious doctrine should be free from scrutiny

3. there is a useful division we can make between the political teachings of a religion and the religious teachings of that religion

In case you don’t know about Scientology’s Fair Game policy, here it is in a nutshell: It is a written doctrine of the Church of Scientology that enemies of Scientology are “fair game” and may be (in the words of the founder of Scientology, “deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued, lied to, or destroyed.”

This policy has been carried out by the Church of Scientology many times, often destroying peoples’ lives, and Scientology’s criminal actions (and its written policies supporting those actions) have often been documented in court. You can read more about it at Wikipedia: Fair Game (Scientology). Also, you can find good information about it at the Scientology Critical Information Directory: Scientology’s “Fair Game” Doctrine. And also check out the Suppressive Person Defense League: Scientology’s Suppressive Person Doctrine.

Islam has successfully gathered a cloak of protection around it, making it difficult to talk about this subject with many people. People don’t have the same knee-jerk defense of Scientology, and yet many of Scientology’s teachings are similar to Islam’s. So learn something about Scientology, and when you meet resistance when talking about Islam, switch to talking about Scientology.

Once you’ve made some good points, come back around and make the same points about Islam. I think you’ll find this a powerful new strategy.

Posted in Islam, Islam - What can we do? Was können wir tun?, Islamkritik | Leave a Comment »

The Party of Knowledge and the Party of Ignorance

Posted by paulipoldie on January 15, 2011

The Party of Knowledge and the Party of Ignorance

January 14, 2011

There is a false dichotomy about Islam. Some think that only conservatives are critical about Islam and the liberal/progressives/Democrats/leftists are supportive of Islam. But there are very conservative Christians who admire Islam and stand up for it. There are left-of-center types who abhor Islam because of its doctrine and treatment of women. There are people from both camps who support and condemn Islam.

Islam has little to do with left/right and liberal/conservative split. Islam is another axis and does not share the normal political divisions. Now it is true that the Democrats are the current benefit of Islamic support, but during Bush’s first election, Muslims in Florida claimed it was their support that tipped the election to Bush. Muslims have voted for both parties.

Although there are more conservatives who are critical of Islam than liberals, the correlation is not so strong as to be useful. There is another political axis that predicts whether someone supports or criticizes Political Islam. That axis is knowledge, knowledge about the doctrine and history of Political Islam.

Whether a Kafir (non-Muslim) supports or criticizes Islam is not classical left/right politics, but knowledge. There are two separate Kafir parties—the Party of Knowledge and the Party of Ignorance.

The Party of Knowledge has learned about the political doctrine and political history of Islam and knows about words such as jihad, Sunna, dhimmi and Kafir. Members of the Party of Knowledge know that the Koran is a dualistic document and contains “good” and “bad” verses that are both true. The Party of Knowledge also knows that the biggest key to understanding Islam is knowing Mohammed, not the Allah of the Koran.

The Party of Ignorance draws its arguments from what Muslims say about Islam. They use the voice of Muslims to repeat apologies for Islam. The Party of Ignorance is always attacking the members of the Party of Knowledge with insults, put downs, mocking tones and allusions to the Party of Knowledge being bigots and hate-speechers. In short, the Party of Ignorance repeats what Muslims say and uses personal attacks against the members of the Party of Knowledge. Knowledge is evil; ignorance is good.

The true foundation of the Party of Ignorance is that they absolutely refuse to read any of the biography of Mohammed, the Sira, nor his traditions, the Hadith. The Party of Ignorance holds the Koran in high esteem, but no one in the Party of Ignorance has any understanding of it. Since it is impenetrable it must be profound. Since it is not understood, it can mean anything you want to project onto it.

What are we to call the members of these two parties? Derivative names such as Knowers and Know-nothings suggest themselves, but there is already a classical set of names taken from Islamic doctrine. Members of the Party of Knowledge are Kafirs and members of the Party of Ignorance are dhimmis. Naturally the Kafirs know who they are and the dhimmis have not clue as to what their name means. Poetic justice?

A dhimmi is a creature created by Mohammed when he subjugated the Jews of Khaybar. Dhimmis can live under Sharia law, because they have agreed to never publicly oppose Islam and practice their beliefs in private. Today, the name dhimmi refers to an uncritical apologist of Islam.

How does this play out in real life? Here is the language of the Kafirs: Koran, Sira, Hadith, and Sharia. Their language uses terms like Sunna and abrogation. Kafirs use details about the history of jihad and the dhimmi.

Dhimmis quote a Muslim or an apologist professor. But the favorite dhimmi talk is about how Kafirs are stupid and evil. Dhimmis always move away from the subject of Islam as soon as possible and start deprecating/trashing Christians and Western culture. Dhimmis tend to never use technical words such as jihad, but use words such as terrorist. Just as soon a terrorist is mentioned, then comes the example of that Christian terrorist, Timothy McVey. Of course, he was a self-avowed atheist, but that matters little to a dhimmi. The only Islamic history the dhimmi knows is a censored version of the Crusades and the fabricated Golden Age of Islam.

Analytic thought brings up the question of a Muslim being in the Party of Knowledge. There are two types of people in the Party of Knowledge—Kafir and Muslim. How do we distinguish them from each other? Simple, how does a Muslim and a Kafir react to Kafir suffering? One fine day, Mohammed sat beside his 12 year old wife and watched as jihadist beheaded 800 male Jews. For a Muslim, this was as day of joy and triumph. The Kafir sees the deaths of 800 Kafir Jews as a war crime and an act of evil.

There are two types of people in the Party of Knowledge, but only one kind of person in the Party of Ignorance. If you are confused, then you are a member of the Party of Ignorance.


Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/the-party-of-knowledge-and-the-party-of-ignorance/
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com

Posted in Islam, Islam - What can we do? Was können wir tun?, Must Read, Sharia | Leave a Comment »

If we don’t defeat Islam as an ideology it will exterminate us culturally and physically

Posted by paulipoldie on January 3, 2011

Found here

If we don’t defeat Islam as an ideology it will exterminate us culturally and physically

Islam is an utterly ruthless totalitarian political system disguised as a religion. Islam will literally stop at nothing to achieve its objective of world domination, with all non-Muslims exterminated or enslaved. Muslims who deny this are lying (Muslims are encouraged to tell lies to further the expansion of Islam). Terrorism is an intrinsic and inseparable part of Islam.

Consequently, the ideology of Islam MUST be defeated. It must be consigned to the dustbin of history along with those other vicious totalitarianisms – Nazism and Communism. The alternative is our extermination as a civilisation, and the whole world being plunged into an endless theocratic Dark Age.

There can be no violent solution
In an age of nuclear weapons, the option of exterminating Islam the way we exterminated Nazism – by world war – is unthinkable. Apart from anything else, there is no guarantee that the West could win an all-out World War III against Islam. Our infrastructure, government and military have been too far infiltrated by jihadists. There would be thousands of Fort Hood style massacres of our troops if a war broke out between Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam, not to mention massive sabotage of military and civilian infrastructure and violent intifadas in Muslim-dominated cities throughout the West.

This is not to say that the Muslims would win a World War either. The victors of WWIII would be well-organised authoritarian states with small Muslim populations who would be prepared to be ruthless in keeping their Muslims in order. China springs to mind.

A new cold war
The only option for defeating Islam is to undermine it in the same way we undermined communism – by a slow process of ideological warfare.

Altering the spiritual and material cost/benefits of being a Muslim
Like other religions, Islam promises spiritual benefits from being a member of the cult – namely avoidance of hell and entry into paradise, which in Islam’s case is a well-appointed brothel in the sky. But unlike other religions, Islam also offers material benefits in the here and now, for example immunity to normal laws, superior status to all non-Muslims (dhimmis) and sanctified rape and pillage where the victims are non-Muslims.

Adherence to any belief system usually has two components – faith and conformity. In Islam, as with communism, the forces of conformity are very strong and are imposed with murderous ruthlessness. Nevertheless, once the faith has gone, the habits of conformity will become an empty shell, which will eventually implode.

So we need to attack Islam on both fronts, by demonstrating that the spiritual benefits of the ‘faith’ are bogus – Islam is confidence trick set up by a ruthless megalomaniac, we also need to decrease the benefits of conformity by increasing the costs and reducing benefits of being a Muslim in the material world here and now.

Destroying and replacing Muslim beliefs
Islam may appear hard, but it is also brittle. A small crack anywhere in the structure can spread throughout. Islam claims that the Koran is the literal word of God, which was dictated to, but not written by, Mohammed.

So it’s an all-or-nothing cult. Any fault in the Koran, or doubts as to the truthfulness of Mohammed, can cause the whole system to disintegrate. Muslims already subconsciously realise this, because they fly into tantrums whenever either Mohammed or the Koran is ‘disrespected’ . Under Sharia law any criticism or either Mohammed or the Koran is blasphemy which is punished by death.

This paranoid, hypersensitive defensiveness and outrage at criticism are not the reactions of a confident belief system, but of an information-control cult. These reactions are evidence of an attempt to protect a fatal vulnerability, an attempt to cover an Achilles heel.

The location of that Achilles heel was amply demonstrated by the Satanic Verses affair, the Motoons rage, and by the OIC’s insidious attempts to introduce global laws against ‘blasphemy’ of Mohammed. The Muslims themselves have shown us their most vulnerable spot, which is the questionable (though unquestioned) character of the ‘Prophet’ himself. We need to satirise and ridicule baby-bonking Mo until the Muslims fly into uncontrollable tantrums, then ridicule them even more for their tantrums, and repeat the process until they froth at the mouth and steam comes out of their ears.

Jesus, Buddha and Mohammed.
Unlike the two other religions that have a single founder, Islam is uniquely and solely dependent upon the truthfulness of that founder.

Christianity is based on a long tradition of Jewish religion ( Christians would say it is the culmination of that tradition ), and the Bible was written by numerous authors . Jesus himself did not produce the Christian scriptures. His teachings were independently recorded by his disciples.

Buddhism has philosophical and yogic foundations which are claimed to be independently reproducible by anyone who follows the Buddha’s reasoning and instructions ( ‘Four seals of Dharma’ ). “Anyone who accepts these four seals, even independently of Buddha’s teachings, even never having heard the name Shakyamuni Buddha, can be considered to be on the same path as he.

In contrast everything in Islam originates from the uncorroborated testimony of one pedophile, and pedophiles are notorious liars and conmen. Despite the Muslims trying to pull the ‘Abrahamic Religions’ taqiyya tactic, Islam is not a continuation of Judeo-Christian religion, it is a garbled plagiarism of Jewish and Christian scriptures which is in many respects a contradiction and corruption of the originals.

If you destroy the credibility of Mohammed, you destroy Islam.
The primary target of the propaganda counterjihad must be Mohammed. If Mohammed is revealed as an imposter, a fraud and a conman then the Koran and Hadiths are worthless raving and ramblings, mere sound and fury signifying nothing. Muslims revere Mohammed because very few know the truth about him. . The effectiveness of the direct attack on Mohammed has been demonstrated by father Zakaria Botros, a Christian Priest who broadcasts the truth about Mohammed, based on the Muslims’ own scriptures:

“It’s not enough that al-Qaeda has called Fr Zakaria Botros “one of the most wanted infidels in the world,” issuing a 60 million dollar bounty on his head, or that popular Arabic magazines call him “Islam’s public enemy #1”; now, as expected, CAIR is getting in on the action, calling for a “national alert” — as in umma alert, eerily reminiscent of a fatwa — against him. Apparently his last few shows dealing with Muhammad’s questionable sexual habits, including necrophilia – are irking CAIR.

Why do radical Muslims, such as CAIR, hate — and fear — Zakaria Botros so? The problem Muslims have with Fr Botros is that they simply cannot refute him: everything he says — no matter how scandalizing to Islam — is always based on, often revered, Islamic sources. Moreover, Fr Botros rarely makes any claims about Islam: he only exposes; he only raises questions and then invites Islam’s ulema to respond and “clarify” the matter. However, as this story indicates, their response is only to have him censored — or, for the more radical, killed.” http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/01/father-zakaria-botros-on-cairs-radar.html

Providing an alternative to Islam
The Muslims who have abandoned Islam will need somewhere else to go. Some will abandon religion altogether and become secularists, but as most people need some sort of religious belief in their life an alternative must be provided. This means that apostates (people who have converted out of Islam) will need protection from the murderous intentions of their former co-religionists . Attempts to intimidate apostates must be treated as serious hate-crimes and punished with the utmost severity.

Of the two ‘universal’ religions – Buddhism and Christianity – the most suitable Islam-substitute is probably Christianity and is better fitted to Muslims’ intellectual capacities than the more philosophical Buddhism. The churches must therefore be encouraged to minister to Muslims, protect apostates, and even set up covert online churches where Muslims may privately convert to Christianity without taking the risks of ‘coming out’ by declaring their true faith while thy are still vulnerable.

Destroying Mohammed’s street cred among ‘jihadi cool’ youths.
‘Jihadi cool’ Muslim youths in the west are a thuggish, predatory and parasitic criminal underclass of gangstas. Our normal standards of rationality and morality do not apply to them. They are also severely inbred which means that most of them are of low intelligence if not actually psychopathically insane. They have no loyalty to their country of residence nor any intention of obeying its ‘man-made laws’, just an arrogant sense of unearned entitlement and the Allah-given right to rape and pillage at will.

Consequently, the psychopath Muhammad is in many respects an ideal role-model for them, and his robberies, rapes and massacres (especially of the Jews) are seen as ‘cool’ by most Muslim teenagers. Terrorists such as Bin Laden are idolised by Muslim youth. Mohammed’s sexual perversions are also widely approved of, as Muslim communities are the only ones in which paedophilia is an acceptable pastime. Many young Muslim boys are involved in pimping kuffar children by befriending them before handing them over to older ‘cousins’ for prostitution.

The Muslim mind is pre-rational, predatory and tribal. Appeals to reason are no use because they believe that faith is superior to reason, and the fact that the Koran is full of contradictions doesn’t bother them in the slightest. Islam hasn’t had an enlightenment and is still in the Dark Ages. In fact, the cult justifies itself in terms of a power-structure maintained by physical threats and lynch-mobs rather than reason or spirituality.

Appeals to normal human decency as an antidote to Islam are pointless. Muslims believe it is their duty to kill, maim, rape, swindle and rob the kaffir (unbeliever) – this is an intrinsic part of their cult. The ‘Golden Rule’ – ‘do unto others as you would they do unto you’ , does not extend beyond the boundaries of the Ummah-tribe. So, for example, displaying pictures of the aftermath of Muslim atrocities is a waste of time – this will actually encourage them. Many Muslim men and boys get sexually aroused by watching jihad-snuff videos of kaffirs being tortured and beheaded.

Pointing out that Muslims are useless parasites on the West is also not going to make them change their ways, because that’s what they are unashamedly here for.

The way to get at them, is to damage their inflated and fragile egos. Because Muslims are at a tribal state of pre-civilised development, they venerate the totems of their tribe, and will go into tantrums if these are ‘disrespected’. Unstable adolescents are constantly seeking ‘significance’ and ‘respect’.

Mohammed is of course one of the main totems, so one of the ways to discredit him is to turn him into a laughing stock. No cool teenager will follow a figure of ridicule, which is why the Muslims got so enraged when the Motoons came out. Ridicule is one of the most effective weapons against Islam.

No streetwise adolescent delinquent likes to be conned. So if you can also show Mohammed as the conman he was, then this is likely to have a far greater effect on ‘jihadi cool’ young Muslims than his violence and criminality (which they admire). They may approve of him conning his contemporaries, they may approve of him duping the hated kuffars with taqiyya, but they will be very sure not to let him con themselves. More at http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/exorcising-mohammed-conman-from-minds.html

Removing the benefits and increasing the costs of being Muslim
The second line of attack on Islam should be to make make belonging to the Ummah costly and unattractive in a material sense.
At present Muslims are pandered to and given special privileges just because they are Muslims. They believe that ‘Islam must dominate and must not be dominated’. For example:

– Muslims are given priority for social housing. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/5213588.stm

– Muslims are exempted from paying bank interest charges on overdrafts. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208204/An-overdraft-Thatll-200-Lloyds-TSB-15-youre-Muslim.html

– Muslims enjoy immunity from hate-crime legislation http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/4975163/Stop-pandering-to-enemies-of-our-way-of-life.html

– Muslim communities are given vast sums of protection money (jizya) to try and buy off terrorist attacks. http://uppompeii1.uppompeii.com/2009/03/12/i-would-like-to-help-the-government–but-you-cannot-fix-stupid.aspx

– Courts automatically award Muslims huge sums in compensation for damages for ‘hurt feelings’ on trumped up charges of discrimination. http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/muslim-litigation-jihad-and-lawfare.html

– Muslims are allowed to practice polygamy and receive benefits for each wife http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1154789/Polygamy-UK-This-special-Mail-investigation-reveals-thousands-men-milking-benefits-support-wives.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-557331/Muslim-spared-speeding-ban-drive-wives.html

– Muslims are encouraged to live as welfare parasites http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/islamic-parasites.html

– Muslims are allowed to operate pedophile rings without fear of prosecution lest it damages ‘community cohesion’.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/11/muslim-crime-in-uk-part-2.html
and http://www.jihadwatch.org/2004/05/uks-channel-4-pulls-child-sex-documentary-on-racial-fears.html and http://isupporttheresistance.blogspot.com/2007/09/asian-paedophile-prositution-network.html

– Muslims demand Muslim-only prayer rooms at taxpayers’ expense. http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/03/australia-muslim-university-students-demand-muslims-only-prayer-rooms.html

– Muslims are allowed to dictate who may visit Parliament http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2009/01/lord-ahmed-threatens-parliament-into.html

– Broadcasters must never upset Muslims http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/3198804/BBC-boss-says-Islam-should-be-treated-more-sensitively-than-Christianity.html and http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jonathanwynne-jones/5501911/Sony_confirms_Muslims_can_expect_better_treatment_than_Christians/

– Muslim students are given religious benefits that aren’t given to members of any other religion http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/07/31/is-this-preferential-treatment-for-muslims/

– Muslims expect to be given free land to set up Mosques http://swindonnf.blogspot.com/2008/09/muslims-in-my-area-are-asking-local.html

– Muslims get public money diverted from churches http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/5803962/Church-accuses-Government-of-favouring-Muslims.html

– Muslims get preferential treatment in hospital http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/27213/Nurses-told-to-turn-Muslims-beds-to-Mecca
– Muslims get Muslim-only swimming sessions at public expense http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-560231/Public-pool-bars-father-son-Muslim-swimming-session.html

– Muslims are allowed to part illegally near Mosques http://theopinionator.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/01/just-another-example-of-muslims-expecting-preferential-treatment-when-it-comes-to-local-or-national-laws-and-nothing-like-th.html

– Muslims can expect lenient sentences for traffic offenses http://isupporttheresistance.blogspot.com/2009/03/so-lord-slaughter-is-freed.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-557331/Muslim-spared-speeding-ban-drive-wives.html

– Muslim criminals cannot be deported. http://theopinionator.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/12/muslim-man-who-killed-12-yr-old-seeks-to-remain-in-uk.html

The Strong Horse effect
All pandering, appeasement, legal immunities and special privileges contribute to what Bin Laden calls the ‘strong horse effect’, which makes them confident of winning the Stealth Jihad.

So as a first measure, all special treatment should be withdrawn.

Secondly, Muslims should not merely be treated the same as everybody else, but should be made to pay the price of their totally negative antisocial and damaging presence in our countries.

– Muslim immigration must be stopped.

– Muslims must be regarded as enemy aliens and banned from sensitive occupations where they may be a security risk.

– All illegal Muslim immigrants must be deported, or if they can’t be sent back to their countries of origin they must be held in internment camps until some country will accept them.

– All Muslims guilty of serious crimes must be deported.

– Translation at public expense must be stopped.

– All Muslim clergy must be put under surveillance and deported at the first sign of trouble.

– Muslims who leave the country should not be allowed back in unless they can prove they were here legally in the first place.

– Cousin marriage must be banned to disrupt their breeding cycle and spare the Health Service the cost of their inbred offspring.

– Muslim welfare parasitism must be clamped down on rigorously. Hopefully they may move elsewhere once they realise they’re no longer going to get a free ride.

– We need to get out of the EU to prevent other EU countries ‘Muzzie-dumping’ on us.

– Remains of terrorists should be buried in pigskin, Russian style, to prevent them entering paradise.

– Extended families of terrorists should be rounded up and deported as accomplices, since family members often encourage terrorism in the hope of a free ride to paradise.

– Kuffars should boycott Muslim businesses and products.

– To reduce our dependence on Muslim oil we should encourage the development of rail transport as it is inherently more efficient than road (due to the much lower rolling resistance of steel wheel on steel rail ) and can be electrified to run on other fuels. We should also develop our coal and nuclear industries.

Posted in Fight back!, Freedom of Speech/Redefreiheit, Islam, Islam - What can we do? Was können wir tun?, Islamization | 1 Comment »

Political Islam is a greater danger than Hitler was

Posted by paulipoldie on December 29, 2010

Wednesday, 22 December 2010,
“Political Islam is a greater danger than Hitler was”. Trento at the Assises contre l’Islamization in Paris
by Nidra Poller

Efforts to kill the anti-Islamization Congress in the bud not only failed, they provided an “excuse” for Agence France Presse to cover the event. An article in which the anonymous “journalist” admits that at least 800 people attended the all-day Congress, was headlined “Demonstration against the anti-Islam colloquium.” There were, reportedly, no more than 200 demonstrators. Apparently no high profile personalities led the charge against the anti-Islamization event, which was closely protected by a no man’s land of several hundred meters and a cordon sanitaire of policemen who, according to the AFP release, “filtered” people at the entry. So far the AFP release has been picked up by three of the four major national dailies: Le Parisien, Le Figaro, and Libération.

Paris mayor, Bertrand Delanoë and the 12tharrondissement police chief resisted pressure from a long list of leftwing parties and pro-Islamization organizations. However, two days before the event, the police department issued a solemn warning to organizers and speakers who, they claim, have been associated in the past with “initiatives” that disturb the peace. Agents present in the meeting hall would be attentive to any statement that might cross the line, for which speakers would be answerable in the French courts.

No solemn warning was addressed to the demonstrators. One of the participating organizations, Euro-Palestine, spearheads the BDS campaign here in France. Commandos film their illegal operations in shops and supermarkets and proudly post the videos on their site: http://www.europalestine.com/ Their call to oppose the “islamophobe fascists” on December 18thapparently didn’t generate much enthusiasm among their islamophile fascist fans.

Mouloud Aounit, president of MRAP [movement against racism and for friendship among the people], interviewed this morning on the highbrow France culture (state-owned) radio station, declared that “these organizations” –associated with the anti-Islamization Congress–have been belching hatred for Muslims on their sites. “We know,” intoned Aounit, “that violent words lead to violent acts.”

STOP RIGHT THERE. Isn’t this the point where the handful of protestors and the hefty audience of today’s momentous event come to a meeting of the minds? Let’s hear that again: violent words lead to violent acts. And the Islamization of our society is marked, precisely, by an intolerable level of violence. And this violence is fomented by the hatred of Others inscribed in Islam. The violent words preached in far too many mosques explain why Europeans are becoming “intolerant” of the craze for mosque construction. Oskar Freysinger, initiator of the Swiss minaret ban referendum, was greeted, according to the AFP release, like a hero.

Aounit was followed, on France Culture, by a police official who explained that the pork and wine street party planned for the Goutte d’Or neighborhood on June 18thwas banned because it was likely to disturb the peace. On the contrary, he said, the anti-Islamization Congress is held indoors. It is discreet. There was no big poster campaign. The document announcing the event is rather moderate. So authorities decided to respect the right of assembly and free expression.

Isn’t that the point? The other big Islamic issue this week is Muslim street prayers. Maxime Lépante of Riposte Laïque, major organizer of today’s Congress, has been posting videos of the prayers all year. They finally came to the attention of the general public when Marine LePen, daughter of the retiring president of the Front National, compared them to an “occupation” of our territory. (I’m covering this story for Family Security Matters here http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.8167/pub_detail.asp). A pork and wine street party in a [Muslim?] neighborhood of Paris would be offensive, but hundreds of prostrate Muslims praying in the streets of a [French?] neighborhood of Paris is not? Pork and wine are provocative but “allahu akhbar” isn’t?

For a variety of practical reasons I was not able to attend  the anti-Islamization meeting… which is why I am here to inform you now, as the participants file out into a snowstorm. I will have inside information in the coming days. My attempts to follow the debates online were stumped but I see from readers’ comments on newspaper websites that many people were successful. I’m told that there were five thousand visits to the site.

And we can be proud that our friend Tom Trento (Florida Security Council) was quoted in the AFP release: “All the speakers focused on the ‘dangers’ of Islam. An American militant, Tom Trento, declared—according to the French translation of his speech projected on screen, that ‘political Islam’ is a greater danger than Hitler was.”

Speaking of “political Islam,” the UOIF is listed among the organizations that took part in today’s protest against the “Assises.” The UOIF is known to be a Muslim Brotherhood front.

We don’t intend to wait for proof that these guys are worse than Hitler!

Posted in Conference Reports, Counterjihad, Islam, Islam - What can we do? Was können wir tun?, Islamization, Paris 2010 | Leave a Comment »

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff Speaks At The Counterjihad Paris Conference

Posted by paulipoldie on December 28, 2010

International Civil Liberties Alliance reports:

See more videos from the conference at Bivuac-Id.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am delighted to be here in Paris, the birthplace of modern European secular governance. And I am especially delighted to have been invited here by Gandalf, who founded the Alliance to Stop Sharia. Gandalf has been instrumental in shifting the focus of the European Counterjihad from Islam as a religion to the evils of sharia law.

Have you been accused of being an Islamophobe? A nazi? A xenophobe? A bigot? A misunderstander of Islam (copyright R. Spencer)? Have you been verbally attacked by well-meaning friends who belong either to the Leftist/Liberal spectrum and believe in the Religion of Respect and Anything Goes, or who in principle agree with you, but are sooo very afraid for you and suggest that you stop what you’re doing to stay alive. (What does that tell us about the Religion of Peace?)

I think I can safely assume that most of you, if not all, have at one point or another been subjected to some or all of the aforementioned accusations. I can certainly testify to that. But I can also tell you that I have been hauled into court to face trial for saying what I believe is the truth; a truth that many, especially those of the ruling elite, do not like to hear. Sadly, it seems that in a discussion, when one side has no real argument, he or she resorts to personal attacks. “This woman [as if I didn’t have a name!], she is a hate preacher. She can’t say that! She may be right, but she can’t say that!” Can’t say what? That sharia law is contrary to any of our secular laws? That its legal provisions include gender apartheid as well as killing of those who leave Islam or exercise the right to free speech. That sharia prescribes amputation of limbs and crucifixion even though Article 5 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights postulates that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Well, guess what? That is precisely what was eventually found in the charges!

In fall 2009, I was asked by the largest Austrian opposition party to hold a three-part seminar on the topic of Islam and the Islamization of Europe. I did this by quoting from the Quran, the hadith, the sunna. I also quoted well-known Muslim politicians like Erdogan, Ghadafi, Arafat, or the former Algerian prime minister. Little did I or the attendants know at the time that a young journalist had infiltrated and recorded the first two seminars without my knowledge. The left-wing magazine then decided to report me to the authorities, who in turn charged me with incitement to hatred. Let me quote the relevant paragraph:

By virtue of § 283 of the StGB, a person is deemed culpable of incitement:

(1) who incites or instigates in a manner liable to jeopardise public order an inimical act against a church or religious community established in the country or against a group determined by their affiliation to such a church or religious community, or to a race, people, tribe or state, or

(2) who agitates against or insults in a manner defamatory to human dignity or endeavours to condemn one of the groups defined in para. (1).

The crime is liable to a term of imprisonment of up to two years.
The outcry among the ruling elite in Austria was ear-splitting. High-ranked politicians, bishops, rabbis, and imams were asked to comment about the contents of a seminar they had never attended. A well-known Muslim university professor, asked by the magazine to analyze some of my controversial statements, even came to the conclusion that I am just like Osama Bin Laden!

In a matter of hours, my personal life was turned upside down. Some of my friends distanced themselves from by asking me to stay away from gatherings where Muslims may have shown up. The media completely ignored me and found the story of a Kosovar family blackmailing the government into granting them humanitarian asylum, after the umpteenth denial of the same, more interesting and captivating. “We do not see the need to report the idiocies of this woman [again, no name],” one liberal left-wing newspaper answered a curious enquirer. What does it matter that the Kosovar family broke the law and that I merely quoted the Quran? You can’t say that!

Interestingly enough, instead of silencing me, the magazine’s questionable actions have made me popular. All of a sudden, many people were outraged by what had happened to me and wanted to hear my side of the story. However, no one in Austria wanted to hear me; it was the Americans who were shocked, which was not surprising given the provisions of the 1st amendment of the US Constitution guaranteeing absolute freedom of speech, something we Europeans are in sore need of. I was invited to speak at the launch of the Freedom Defense Initiative, at the National Conference of ACT! for America, both in Washington DC. I spoke in Berlin at a rally for the Citizens’ Movement Pax Europa, as well as at the European Freedom Initiative rally in Amsterdam. The Danish Free Press Society in Copenhagen wanted to hear my take on freedom of speech. Just two weeks ago, I conveyed to my Israeli hosts the importance of Israel in the fight against Islamization. And today I am here in Paris to tell you about my trial. I was not silenced, nor will they ever succeed in silencing me!

By November 28, 2010, the member states of the European Union were required to implement an innocuous-sounding legal provision known as the “Framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia”, or, more fully, the “Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law.” According to the final article of the Framework Decision, “Member States shall take the necessary measures to comply with the provisions of this Framework Decision by 28 November 2010.”

Why does this matter to the cause of free speech in Europe?

If you read the full text of the Framework Decision (which may be found in the legislative section of the EU’s website), you will learn that “Each Member State shall take the measures necessary… to ensure that the following intentional conduct is punishable”. Such “intentional conduct” includes “conduct which is a pretext for directing acts against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin.”

Based on what has recently happened to Geert Wilders and me — and earlier to Gregorius Nekschot, Jussi Halla-aho, and numerous others — we can all guess who will be punished under this provision of the Framework Decision: those who criticize Islam.

It was not until October that a court date was set for my case. I had to discover this fact in the press — in NEWS, the same left-wing magazine that brought the original complaint against me. I was not officially notified of my hearing date until several days later.

The evidence used against me at my trial several weeks ago was a transcript of a tape of my lecture, provided to the court by the same socialist magazine. It included words that were not spoken by me, and words that were not spoken in public, which therefore were not a violation of the law.

But my case is not really about the law. It is a political trial, and like the trials of Geert Wilders and Jussi Halla-aho, it is intended to silence someone who speaks out against the barbaric nature of sharia law.

Above all else, it is intended to discourage anyone who might consider following in my footsteps. The oligarchs who rule Europe are determined to prevent any frank discussion among their citizens of Islam and its legal doctrines.

These are the methods of a totalitarian state.

They are more successful than those of the Nazis and the Fascists and the Communists because they are accomplished quietly and peacefully, with no need for concentration camps or gulags or mass graves or the shot in the back of the neck in the middle of the night.

They are surgical strikes executed via our legal systems, and they are quite effective. Between the summary punishment carried out against Theo Van Gogh and the EU Framework Decision applied though our courts, there is no room left for us to maneuver.

We are systematically being silenced.

I am not a victim. I intend to stand up for what is right. I will defend what needs to be defended. Above everything else, I will exercise my God-given right to speak freely about what is happening. Freedom of speech is the single most important freedom we possess.

I am doing this for my daughter, and for her children, for those who will have to live in the world we are now preparing for them. I am doing what our grandparents should perhaps have done during the 1930s, when their own freedoms were under threat.

This is our time. This cup will not pass from us.

I am reminded of a passage in J.R.R. Tolkien’s famous trilogy, The Lord of the Rings.

It is an exchange between Frodo the hobbit and Gandalf the wizard, and it concerns the perilous quest on which Frodo and his friends have been sent.

Frodo says: “I wish it need not have happened in my time.”

Gandalf responds: “So do I, and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”

It is time for us to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.
In speaking these words, I might be subject to arrest. I could be charged under the provisions of the Framework Decision, and extradited to the country that charged me using a European Arrest Warrant, escorted by the European Gendarmerie.

This is not an imaginary scenario; it is a very real possibility.

It is true that only a few people are likely to undergo such an ordeal. But it only takes a few people.

How many people have to endure what Mr. Wilders and I are enduring before everyone else gets the message?

How many examples have to be set before the rest of the European population understands the new rules, and is cowed into submission?

And we must remember to whom they will be submitting in the end. They will be submitting to our successors in Europe. They will be submitting to our replacements.

We must remember that the word for submission in Arabic isIslam.

When there are enough Muslims living in Europe — and it doesn’t have to be a majority of the population, just somewhere around fifteen or twenty percent — we will be living under Islamic law, and not the laws that presently govern us.

We will no longer enjoy what constitutional rights remain to us now. Our rights will be completely prescribed and delimited by sharia. Women will become the virtual chattel of men. Christians and Jews will be driven out or forced to convert to Islam. Atheists and homosexuals will be killed.

The European Union would consider these words to be “hate speech”. Under the Framework Decision, they would be classified as “racism and xenophobia”, and I could be prosecuted for saying them.

But they are in fact the simple truth.

Anyone can verify them by studying history. Anyone who chooses can read the Koran and the hadith and the Sunna of the Prophet.

Widely available official treatises on Islamic law confirm that my description is not “hate speech”, but a plain and accurate reading of the tenets of Islamic law.

It has become obvious that to tell the truth about Islam is now considered “incitement to religious hatred”.

It is now clear that non-Muslims who reveal the tenets of sharia law to the public are “denigrating religious teachings”.

If we meekly accept these rules, then we are acquiescing in the imposition of sharia law in our own nations. And I, for one, will not sit silently while this happens.

I don’t want my daughter to live under sharia.

Our time is short. If you and I do not envision an Islamic future for ourselves, then we must speak out now.

If we wish to preserve the right to speak and publish freely, then we must exercise it now.

I wish this need not have happened in my time. But it has.

We must make full use of the time that remains to us.

Thank you.

Posted in Conference Reports, Counterjihad, Fight back!, Freedom of Speech/Redefreiheit, Islam, Islam - What can we do? Was können wir tun?, Islamization, Paris 2010 | 1 Comment »

Assumptions About Islam are Rampant

Posted by paulipoldie on November 17, 2010

Assumptions About Islam are Rampant

Posted: 17 Nov 2010 12:13 AM PST

THE FOLLOWING is an excerpt from the excellent book, The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran, by Robert Spencer:

When reading the Koran, it is vitally important to keep in mind that Westerners, whether religious or not, and Muslims often have vastly differing frames of reference, even when considering the same individuals or concepts. Several years ago, former President George W. Bush and Karen Hughes, his former Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, issued greetings to the world’s Muslims on the occasion of the Islamic Feast of Eid al-Adha, which commemorates the end of the pilgrimage to Mecca, the Hajj, and Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son.

In December 2006, Bush issued a statement that read in part, “For Muslims in America and around the world, Eid al-Adha is an important occasion to give thanks for their blessings and to remember Abraham’s trust in a loving God. During the four days of this special observance, Muslims honor Abraham’s example of sacrifice and devotion to God by celebrating with friends and family, exchanging gifts and greetings, and engaging in worship through sacrifice and charity.”

And the previous January, Hughes had declared:

Eid is a celebration of commitment and obedience to God and also of God’s mercy and provision for all of us. It is a time of family and community, a time of charity….I want to read to you a message from President Bush: “I send greetings to Muslims around the world as you celebrate Eid al-Adha. When God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son, Abraham placed his faith in God above all else. During Eid al-Adha, Muslims celebrate Abraham’s devotion and give thanks for God’s mercy and many blessings.”

In speaking of Abraham, even when doing so in the context of Eid al-Adha, Bush and Hughes were probably thinking of Genesis 22:15-18, in which Abraham is rewarded for his faith and told he will become a blessing to the nations: “By your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice.”

But the Muslim audiences that Bush and Hughes were addressing probably did not read Genesis. They read the Koran, in which Allah says that Abraham is an “excellent example” for the believers when he tells his family and other pagans that “there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred forever, unless ye believe in Allah and Him alone” (60:4). The same verse relates that Abraham is not an excellent example when he tells his father, “I will pray for forgiveness for you.”

Thus the Koran, in the passages cited by Bush and Hughes, holds up hatred as exemplary, while belittling the virtue of forgiveness. Bush and Hughes were therefore inadvertently reinforcing a worldview that takes for granted the legitimacy of everlasting enmity between Muslims and non-Muslims — and doing so, naively, while attempting to build bridges between Muslims and non-Muslims. This demonstrates once again how crucial it is for American policymakers to have a detailed understanding of Islam’s theological and cultural frame of reference, and of the actual teachings of the Koran. For lack of this understanding, careless statements continue to be made, and policy errors keep multiplying.

Posted in Islam, Islam - What can we do? Was können wir tun?, Islamization | Leave a Comment »

Bill Warner: Self-Taught

Posted by paulipoldie on November 12, 2010

Self-Taught

November 10, 2010

One of the many attacks that Muslims and their apologists make against their opponents is that Kafir (non-Muslim) critics are self-educated. They say the only way to understand Islam is to ask a Muslim or a university trained “expert”. What could be wrong with this advice?

Let’s use an actual problem; today Sharia law is being used to show how Islam works at the political level and how it is a disaster for our civilization.

Sharia is such a horror show for Kafirs that Islam and its apologists say many things to draw attention away from it. They say that Sharia is an antique from the year 1400 and no one really uses such an old text (an example is the Traveller, see below). In short, it is a relic of history; it doesn’t really apply today. Don’t worry.

A professor says that the Sharia is not really important; Sharia is flexible; it changes; there are different schools; no nation is actually ruled by Sharia. Sharia is nothing to worry about. So says the “expert”. This judgment is delivered by a “university expert”. We know this is not true. We know that Sharia is a driving force in Islam. How could an “expert” be wrong?

How do we determine the true nature of Islam? How do we prove anything about Islam? How can you refute an “expert”?

A classic Sharia text, Reliance of the Traveller, has no less than four high scholars, who say that in 1991 that the Reliance is to the benefit of the Muslim community and the path of Muslims today. The university experts dismiss the Sharia as being irrelevant today. Who are we to believe, the professors or the prominent Islamic scholars?

This question can be answered by the fact that all Sharia is based on Koran and Sunna. Sunna is pure Mohammed and Koran is the delivered by Mohammed, so we can say that Mohammed is the only standard for truth in Islam.

If an expert gives advice about Islam or Sharia that agrees with Mohammed, the expert is right. If the expert disagrees with Mohammed then the expert is wrong. Hence, the only way to know Islam is to know Mohammed. This translates into knowing Hadith (Traditions) and Sira (life of Mohammed). If you would read Hadith and Sira (which are well translated), you would not need an expert, you would be an expert.

However, the experts denigrate any knowledge based on the actual reading of Islamic texts. Sir Isaac Newton was self-educated about physics. Einstein was self-educated in relativity. Indeed, people who are self-educated in their area of advancement have done the greatest work in humanity. However, for you to be self-educated is an act of bigotry.

The highest goal of education is that the students will be able to educate themselves after school. The elites do not want any ideas that do not come from “experts”. You might get ideas that are not elitist approved. The elites all favor Islam and never advance any critical ideas.

We have to educate ourselves because the universities are bankrupt on the subject of Islam. They do not allow any teaching about Islam that is critical and uses critical thought from the standpoint of the Kafir. No debate is allowed. Only Muslims and dhimmi apologists are allowed to speak about Islam. Anyone who disagrees based on their own understanding is a bigot.

The first European universities were based on the study of authorities. One day in class the discussion was about how many teeth a horse had. Aristotle said one number and Galen said another. The way to resolve this was to establish who was the greatest man. While the argument about whether Aristotle was a greater scholar than Galen went on, a student went out into the courtyard and counted the number of teeth in a tethered horse. When he returned with the number, the teacher beat him. Knowledge that was based on experimental data and self-education was forbidden. That is the nature of the academic “authorities” and the media today.

To know which expert is right is not a matter of college credentials or religion, but knowing which expert agrees with Koran and Sunna. Islam begins with Mohammed and ends with Mohammed.

Get to know Mohammed. To know Mohammed is to be an expert. Be self-taught and read the foundational books-Koran, Sira and Hadith.

Note: Don’t think that you can pick up any biography of Mohammed and get to know the true man. Almost every biography of Mohammed is whitewashed. The Sira (Ishaq’s Sira Rasul Allah can be found in Mohammed and the Unbelievers) is the gold standard. If the bio does not include the annihilation and subjugation of the Jews, torture, slavery, plots, raids, assassinations, battles, secret agents and spies, then it is not a complete biography. Mohammed’s rise to power included an event of violence on the average of every 6 weeks for the last 9 years of his life.
Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink

copyright (c) CBSX, LLC, www.politicalislam.com

Posted in Fight back!, Islam, Islam - What can we do? Was können wir tun?, Islamization, Must Read | 1 Comment »

What is Better than Debate?

Posted by paulipoldie on November 1, 2010

Citizen Warrior

FOR THE MOST PART, debating is frustrating. If your objective is to change your opponent’s mind, debating is a largely useless and futile exercise. If you’re debating in public, that’s a different story, because you can change the audiences’ minds if you debate well. But one-on-one, debate is an impotent weapon in the war of ideas.

You know people who believe Islam is a religion of peace and that you are an Islamophobic bigot for thinking otherwise, and you would like to change their minds. If you try to do it with debate, if you try to do it by answering arguments with arguments, no matter how good you are at arguing, no matter how many facts are in your favor, no matter how articulately you put your message across, the odds are a hundred to one against you succeeding.

I’m sure you’ve already discovered the painful and frustrating truth of this. Back and forth, right and wrong, will not work. You cannot penetrate.

To have any real impact, you need more powerful weapons at your command. What am I talking about? I am talking about a way of influencing that you can add to the process of debating, such as dealing with presuppositions (the assumptions your listener started with), or working on small, incremental changes over time, or using Cialdini’s principles of influence, or using NLP rapport techniques, or becoming more charismatic.

What we need is transformational dialog. Not mere debate. We need influence, not mere argument. We need to effectively persuade, not just get peoples’ hackles up and let them dig themselves deeper into their position.

The following is a list of ideas you can use — ideas you can add to your attempts to educate people about Islam. You already have “argument” in your arsenal. Below are additional weapons you can use. We’ll be adding more articles to this list in the near future, but we can start with these:

1. How to Stay Calm When Talking About Islam

2. An Aversion to Cruelty

3. What to Do About Those Who Oppose Your Educational Efforts

4. Preemptive Ideological Strike

5. Why Girls Are the Key

6. Conversation Pieces

7. People Don’t Always Think Like You

Let’s not get stuck answering argument for argument in one-on-one debates. Presenting a logical, factual argument to answer an argument is a relatively weak tool because the other side of the debate often uses it equally well. We have more effective tools at our disposal, and we should learn to use them to our advantage. Failure is not an option. We must open the minds of our fellow non-Muslims and we must do it quickly.

Posted in Fight back!, Islam, Islam - What can we do? Was können wir tun?, Islamization | Leave a Comment »