ISLAM-The False Prophet

The False Prophet

by Dr. Thomas Ahmad

According to his biography, the prophet Muhammad was demon-possessed, suicidal, rapist, child-abuser, adulterer, etc.

Chapter Eighty-Eight

“The False Prophet”

During her speeches’ tour Irshad realized that most of her audience consisted of non-Muslims. Such realization made her to come up with a new proposal that meant to attract Muslims to her speeches. In order to put her proposal in action Irshad wrote her first book which she entitled “The False Prophet.” Her long experience of being a Muslim wife taught her that all Muslim women were living as slaves to their husbands, fathers, and brothers and needed to be emancipated from such bondage. Moreover, Irshad believed that majority of Muslims were living under mental slavery and in order to liberate them she tried in her book to prove that the Qur’an was not a revelation from God and Muhammad was a False Prophet. Using her bitter experience Irshad was able to elaborate on the abuses that Muslim women were going through in Muslim countries. She argued that Muslim women who were living in the West were able to escape the abuses because they were protected by the secular laws of the countries they were dwelling in.

Irshad’s book was considered by Muslims to be an attack on Islam. What she wrote in her book regarding the status of women and terrorism in Islam she already mentioned in her speeches. However, what annoyed Muslims were the evidences and proofs that she supplied while she was arguing that the Qur’an was not a revelation from God and Muhammad was a false prophet. According to her, Muhammad did not meet the criteria of a prophet. The prophet was the one who either preformed a miracle by the help of God or utter a prophecy about the future and it came to pass. For example, Moses worked a miracle by dividing the Red Sea and Jesus raised the dead, but Muhammad did not perform one single miracle. Muslim historians agreed that Muhammad did not perform a miracle but claimed that his only miracle was the Qur’an. However, when this claim was subjected to test by non-Muslim scholars they found that the Qur’an was an ordinary book and full of contradictions, confusions, historical errors, grammatical mistakes, and hence lacking any claim to mastery work.
The second criterion for the prophet was to prophesize about the future. When the children of Israel asked Moses as how they should know the person was a prophet from God he replied by saying whatever he had said if it did not come to pass then he was not a prophet. Muhammad did not utter a single prophecy in his time. Muslim scholars considered the stories of the prophets of the Bible that mentioned in the Qur’an as proofs that Muhammad was a prophet from God. However, any one could refute such a claim by saying that he got them from the Jews who were living in Medina at his time. Irshad showed in her book that Muhammad did not even get those stories right. He mixed the true stories as mentioned in the Bible with the legends and fables that were added later on in the Jewish Talmud. This proved that Muhammad did not read the Bible but heard those stories from the Jews and Christians who were living in the Arabian Peninsula at his time. To put it more clearly he just heard those stories from simple Jews who could not distinguish between the true story as recorded in the Old Testament and the fables and legends that were added to it by Jewish commentators.

Muslim scholars also considered the mentioning of the rewards in heaven and punishments in hell as prophecies revealed to Muhammad by God. Scholarly researches showed that Muhammad got those stories of the virgins in paradise from some ancient religions of Arabia and Persia. However, even if he did invent them himself still they did not qualify him as a prophet because any one with fancy imagination could come up with such stories. Therefore, by both criteria – performing miracles or prophesying about the future – Muhammad could not be called prophet. From this Irshad concluded that Muhammad was a false prophet.

Irshad also showed that Muhammad’s life did not qualify him to be a prophet from God. In order to prove her point she referred to his scandalous marriages with four of his women and his behavior as a prophet.

Muhammad and His Child-Bride:
A’isha Bint Abu Bakr (child-bride) was Muhammad's third wife. `A’isha herself narrated, "The Messenger of God married me in Shawwal in the tenth year after of his prophet-hood, three years before the Migration as I was six years old. I was nine years old when he consummated the marriage with me.” Ibn Hisham holds that "Muhammad married her when she was seven years old and consummated the marriage with her when they were in Medina when she was nine years old. The Messenger of God did not marry any other virgin but her.” `A´isha narrated, "The Messenger of God married me when I was still playing with the girls. I did not know that the Messenger of God married me until my mother took me and locked me up in the house. Then I realized that I was married.” A’isha also said, "I was playing with the girls during the lifetime of the Messenger of God. The Messenger of God came to me when I was playing with the girls, and asked me, 'What is this, `A’isha?' I said, 'The horses of Solomon.' He laughed."

"I would be playing with my dolls," narrated A’isha, "with the girls who were my friends, and the Prophet would come in and they would slip out of the house and he would go out after them and bring them back, for he was pleased for my sake to have them there." Sometimes he would say "Stay where you are" before they had time to leave, and would also join in our games.”

These narrations tell us that the prophet Muhammad married A’isha when she was a child of nine years old. Therefore, no Muslim scholar would be able to deny this obvious fact. Based on the example of the prophet Muhammad with A’isha the minimum age for marriage in the Shari’a was not fixed to a specific age. It was left to the guardian of the girl to decide which age to give his daughter in marriage. In Surah al-Talaq, verse four the Qur’an allows the father of the girl to give her in marriage before she has her monthly period.

The Prophet married Malika bint Ka`b who was known for her resplendent, magnificent beauty. `A´isha entered to her and said, "Are you not ashamed of marrying the killer of your father?" So Malika took refuge with God from the Prophet, and he divorced her" (Tabaqat Ibn Sa'ad, 8:141; Usd al-ghaba, 5:525).

A’isha noticed that whenever the prophet Muhammad wanted to sleep with a woman he claimed that Allah revealed to him and justified his action. In that regard A’isha remarked, "It seems to me that your Lord hastens to satisfy your love" (Sahih Muslim. vol. 2, p.748-749). It was not clear on what occasion A’isha made such a doubting remark. Some sources referred it to the incident when the prophet was caught by his wife Hafsa in the very act of having sex with his maidservant Maria the Coptic and other sources related it to his scandalous marriage with his daughter-in-law, Zinab bint Jahsh.”

Muhammad and the Question of Rape:
Safiya Bint Huaya was the daughter of Huaya, one of the Jewish leaders. When Muhammad invaded Khyber, the Jewish city, he killed Safiya's husband, brother, and uncle. Her husband was Canana Bin al-Rabi'a, whom the prophet tortured to death and extracted from him the hiding place of his treasure. In the beginning, Safiya was taken as slave-captive by Dhaia al-Kaleb. When the news reached the prophet's ears that Safiya was extremely beautiful and the daughter of a Jewish leader, he took her from Dhaia.

On the same day, he killed her husband, brother, and uncle the prophet forced her to sleep with him. One could imagine how Safiya felt toward the man who killed her close relatives and forced her to sleep with him on bed on the same day. No doubt about it that Safiya was crying when the prophet Muhammad raped her on the same night he killed her husband and brother and all her people. Safiya is reported to have said, "I have never hated any man more than the prophet, because he killed my husband, father, and all my people."

The prophet needed someone handy that day to protect him because Safiya might kill him for revenge on the first night he forced her on bed. The Sira Al-Halabia of the prophet tells us that when the messenger of Allah emerged out of the tent in the morning, “there was a sword with Abu Ayyub. Abu Ayyub said, "O Messenger of Allah, she was a newly married woman, and you killed her father, brother, and husband, so I did not feel secure about you with her" (The story of Safiya was mentioned in detail in al-Sira al-Halabia, Ibn Hisham, and Tabaqat Ibn Sa'ad).

The prophet broke the law of the Qur’an, which said the woman who was divorced or lost her husband should remain without marriage for three months and ten days before another man sleeps with her. “Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the prescribed period, if ye have any doubts, is three months, and for those who have no courses (it is the same): for those who carry (life within their wombs), their period is until they deliver their burdens: and for those who fear Allah, He will make their path easy” (Qur’an Al-Talaq 65: 4). The prophet Muhammad should have waited for three months and ten days before he slept with Safiya in order to know whether she was pregnant from her late husband.

Abu Dawud 2150—Abu Sa’id al-Khudri said: The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: “And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.”

Sunan Abu Dawud 2167—Muhairiz said: I entered the mosque and saw Abu Sa’id al-Khudri. I sat with him and asked about withdrawing the penis (while having intercourse). Abu Sa’id said: We went out with the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to Banu al-Mustaliq, and took some Arab women captive, and we desired the women, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, and we wanted ransom; so we intended to withdraw the penis (while having intercourse with the slave-women). But we asked ourselves: Can we draw the penis when the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) is among us before asking him about it? So we asked him about it. He said: It does not matter if you do not.

Muhammad and the Question of Adultery:
Maria the Coptic Christian was not counted by Muslim scholars as one of the wives of the prophet or "Mothers of the faithful" because she remained a Christian and slave. She bore him a son, Ibrahim, who died in infancy. The prophet's desire for Maria was described in a dramatic way by the books of the Sira (Biography).

Hafsa, one of the prophet's wives, caught him having sexual intercourse with Maria in her room. "O Prophet of God, in my house, on my bed, and in my night!' shouted Hafsa angrily. Afraid of the anger of his other wives, and especially of his most beloved A’isha, the prophet promised Hafsa that he would never touch Maria again if she would keep the matter secret. Nevertheless, she spoke out, and the matter reached the ears of A’isha.

When his beloved A’isha confronted him he received a revelation from heaven which justified and legalized his action with Maria.
“O Prophet! Why holdest thou to be forbidden that which Allah has made lawful to thee? Thou seekest to please thy consorts but Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful” (Surah Al-Taharim 66: 1). When A’isha heard the above justification she said to him, “Why should I see your God in a haste to satisfy your love?”

Muhammad Coveted and Slept with His Daughter-in-law:
Zinab Bint Jahash: The Moroccan professor, Fatima Mernessi described the marriage of Zinab Bint Jahash with the prophet Muhammad as a scandalous marriage because Zinab was the wife of the prophet's adopted son, Zayd and therefore, in the eyes of the Arabs, as good as his own daughter-in-law. Muhammad went to her house when her husband was away, saw her in a state of semi-nudeness, and was aroused. According to the Sira, God sent a wind, which lifted up the curtain of the tent and Muhammad saw Zinab lying on her bed half-naked. Zinab was described by the Sira as fair, beautiful, and had sensual body.

When Zayd heard about it, he offered to divorce her, but Muhammad, fearing a public scandal, told him to keep his wife for himself. At this point Allah spoke and decided the matter (Qur’an Surah al-Ahzab 33: 36-40). However, Allah sent a revelation from heaven in which he blamed Muhammad for telling Zayd, “Retain thou in wedlock thy wife,” and for hiding in his heart “that which God was about to make manifest.” Allah told Muhammad: “Thou feared the people, but it is more fitting that thou should fear God,” and he revealed his plan, present and future, to Muhammad thus: “We joined her in marriage to thee: in order that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the Believers in (the matter of) marriage with the wives of their adopted sons, when the latter have dissolved with the necessary (formality) (their marriage) with them. And Allah's command must be fulfilled” (Qur’an Surah al-Ahzab 33: 36-40).

The commentator Al-Quorobti commenting on those verses said that based on this marriage it became a law that if Muhammad sees any woman and desires her it becomes compulsory for her husband to divorce her at once and she becomes the wife of the prophet! Moreover, the Qur’an mentioned that if any woman wants to offer herself to the prophet Muhammad and if he wants to have sex with her, he alone among the believers is allowed to do so. Muhammad also was exempted from the restriction of the Qur’an that a man should marry only four women at a time. In other words, the prophet alone was allowed to have any number of wives and that is why he married thirteen women and slept with them at the same time and two female slaves Maria and Rayhana with whom he used to have sex without marriage.

Muhammad made Zayd himself to go to his wife with his marriage proposal. “Allah’s Messenger said to Zayd to make a mention to her about him.”
Anas narrated: "When the legal period of Zinab Bint Jahsh was finished, the Messenger of God said to Zayd Ibn Haritha, 'I have none that I can trust, other than myself, but you. Go to Zinab and propose to her for me.' So Zayd went off and came to her while she was leavening dough. Zayd said, 'When I saw her, she became greater in heart, and I could not look at her since I knew that the Messenger of God mentioned her. So I turned my back on her and said, "O Zinab, rejoice; the Messenger of God has mentioned you." She said, 'I shall do nothing until I ask the advice of my Lord.' She rose up and went to pray. Then the verse was revealed: 'Once Zayd has accomplished his purpose with her, We married her off to you.' Then the Messenger of God came and entered without permission."

Muhammad Made Several Attempts to Commit Suicide:
The prophet Muhammad was frightened by the first vision that he saw in Cave Hirah. He ran to his first wife Khadija and asked her to cover him with clothes. He thought what appeared to him in the cave was a satanic creature. Khadija somehow assured him that what he saw was an angel and not a demon. She took him to her cousin, Waraqa who confirmed the words of Khadija. That was the first time when Muhammad believed that God sent his angel Gabriel to tell him that he was chosen to be the messenger of Allah.

“But after a few days Waraqa died and the Divine Inspiration also paused for a while and the prophet became so sad as we have heard that he intended several times to throw himself from the tops of high mountains and every time he went up to the top of a mountain in order to throw himself down, Gabriel would appear before him and say, "O Muhammad! You are indeed Allah's Apostle in truth" whereupon his heart would become quiet and he would calm down and would return home. And whenever the period of the coming of the inspiration used to become long, he would do as before, but when he used to reach the top of a mountain, Gabriel would appear before him and say to him what he had said before” (Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 9, hadith no. 111).

Al-Tabari narrated the suicidal attempts of the prophet differently,
“The prophet Muhammad said, now none of God's creatures was more hateful to me than an (ecstatic) poet or a man possessed: I could not even look at them. I thought, Woe is me poet or possessed - Never shall Quraysh say this of me! I will go to the top of the mountain and throw myself down that I may kill myself and gain rest. So, I went forth to do so and then when I was midway on the mountain, I heard a voice from heaven saying "O Muhammad! thou are the apostle of God and I am Gabriel" (Al-Tabari, vol. 9, p. 167).

There is no prophet in the Bible that tried to commit suicide. I don’t believe God would put his prophet in such a desperate and helpless situation. God spoke through all his prophets in the old and new testaments but none of them felt the way Muhammad felt. It is hard to believe that the angel of God would force his message on the prophet of God the way Gabriel did with Muhammad.

A’isha narrated, “The angel came to him and asked him to read. The prophet replied, "I do not know how to read." (The Prophet added), "The angel caught me (forcefully) and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it anymore. He then released me and again asked me to read, and I replied, "I do not know how to read," whereupon he caught me again and pressed me a second time till I could not bear it anymore. He then released me and asked me again to read, but again I replied, "I do not know how to read (or, what shall I read?)." Thereupon he caught me for the third time and pressed me and then released me and said, "Read: In the Name of your Lord, Who has created (all that exists). Has created man from a clot. Read and Your Lord is Most Generous...up to... that which he knew not" (Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 9, Book 87, hadith no. 111).

Can anyone believe that the same Gabriel that appeared to Mary in the New Testament was the same Gabriel that appeared to Muhammad in the Cave of Hirah? The angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and gave her the message of God. He did not force the message on her, but Gabriel of Muhammad forced him to accept his message until the latter felt he was going to kill him.

26 In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’t name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."
29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31 You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."
34 "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"
35 The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. 37For nothing is impossible with God."
38 "I am the Lord’s servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said." Then the angel left her (Luke 1: 26-38).

Prophet Muhammad became suicidal for a period of three years after Gabriel appeared to him. For such a long period of time, he was not sure whether he was a soothsayer, possessed by demons, or messenger of God. During this period, many times he said to himself, “I will go to the top of the mountain and throw myself down that I may kill myself and gain rest” (Al-Tabari, quoting from Sirat Rasulallah by Ibn Ishaq). Muhammad also suspected that he became mad, "O Khadija, I see light and hear sounds and I fear I am mad" (al-Tabaqat al-Kobra by Ibn Sa’ad).

A’siha continued to narrate, “Then Allah's Apostle returned with the Inspiration, his neck muscles twitching with terror till he entered upon Khadija and said, "Cover me! Cover me!" They covered him till his fear was over and then he said, "O Khadija, what is wrong with me?" Then he told her everything that had happened and said, 'I fear that something may happen to me" (Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 9, book 87, hadith no. 111).

Muhammad Controlled by the Power of Black Magic:
No prophet of God in the Bible had been controlled by the power of magic. However, a Jewish man cast spells on the prophet Muhammad and controlled him for over six months.
“According to A’isha, “magic was worked on Allah's Apostle so that he used to think that he had sexual relations with his wives while he actually had not. Then one day he said, "Oh A’isha do you know that Allah has instructed me concerning the matter I asked Him about? Two men came to me and one of them sat near my head and the other sat near my feet. The one near my head asked the other, "What is wrong with this man?" The latter replied the man is under the effect of magic. The first one asked, "Who has worked magic on him?" The other replied, "Labid Ibn Al-A'sam, a man from Bani Zuraiq who was an ally of the Jews and was a hypocrite" (Al-Bukhari, vol. 7, hadith no. 660).
The kind of magic that was worked on Muhammad was described by one of his followers as the worst one.

‘Urwa related that A’isha said, "The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was bewitched so that he would imagine that he had had intercourse with his wives when he had not". (Sufyan said, "This is the worst type of magic when it does that)” (Sahih al-Bukhari, book of medicine, hadith no. 79).

For six months, the prophet of Islam remained in a state of not knowing what he was doing and fell very sick and lost the hair of his head due to that powerful magic.

“The Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, had a Jewish servant boy. The Jews approached him and kept after him until he gave them some fallen hair from the Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace, as well as a few teeth from his comb. The Jews used these to cast a spell of black magic on him. The person who was behind this was the Jew Labid ibn al-A‘sam. He then put the hair in a well belonging to Banu Zurayq called Dharwan. The Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, fell ill for a period of six month, during which the hair of his head fell off; he imagined that he slept with his wives when he did not, and was withering away without knowing the reason” (Asbab Nuzul Surah al-Falaq 113: 1-5 by ‘Ali Ibn Ahmad al-Wahidi).

Muhammad Died of Poison:
Muhammad also had been poisoned by a Jewish girl called Zinab Bint al-Harith. Zainab poisoned Muhammad as a revenge of what he did to her people.
“When the apostle of Allah conquered Khyber and he had peace of mind, Zinab bint al-Harith, inquired, "Which part of the goat is liked by Muhammad?" They said, "The foreleg." Then she slaughtered one from her goats and roasted it (the meat). Then she wanted a poison that could not fail. The apostle of Allah took the foreleg, a piece of which he put into his mouth. Bishr took another bone and put it into his mouth. When the apostle of Allah ate one morsel of it Bishr ate his and other people also ate from it. Then the apostle of Allah said, "Hold back your hands! because this foreleg; ...informed me that it is poisoned. Thereupon Bishr said, "By Him who has made you great! I discovered it from the morsel I took. Nothing prevented me from emitting it out, but the idea that I did not like to make your food unreleasing. When you had eaten what was in your mouth I did not like to save my life after yours, and I also thought you would not have eaten it if there was something wrong. Bishr did not rise from his seat but his color changed to that of "taylsan" (a green cloth). The apostle of Allah sent for Zinab and said to her, "What induced you to do what you have done?" She replied, "You have done to my people what you have done. You have killed my father, my uncle, and my husband, so I said to myself, "If you are a prophet, the foreleg will inform you; and others have said, "If you are a king we will get rid of you. The apostle of Allah lived after this three years till in consequence of his pain he passed away. During his illness he used to say, "I did not cease to find the effect of the (poisoned) morsel, I took at Khyber and I suffered several times (from its effect) but now I feel the hour has come of the cutting of my jugular vein" (Altabaqat al-Kobra, Ibn Sa'ad pp. 251- 252).

It is clear that the Jewish girl, Zinab bint al-Harith wanted to kill Muhammad as a revenge for killing her father, uncle, and husband. However, Muslim historians and biographers tried to show that the food informed Muhammad that it was poisoned. Moreover, they made Zinab to say, "If you are a prophet, the foreleg will inform you; and others have said, "If you are a king we will get rid of you. However, the incident of poisoning Muhammad and its consequences did not support any claim to supernatural intervention. First, of all Muhammad tasted the morsel, the poison interred his body, and eventually caused his death, “The apostle of Allah lived after this three years till in consequence of his pain he passed away.” Secondly, his companion Bishr also knew the food was poisoned from its taste. Thirdly, Bishr died at the spot. Fourth, if the prophet knew that the food was poisoned why didn’t he stop his companion Bishr from eating it and save his life?

If you are interested to read the entire story of Irshad/Susan click on this link. It is available online.:http://www.publishamerica.net/product90819.html

ISLAM-Pakistan and Legalized Religious Persecution

Legalized Persecution

Pakistan and Legalized Religious Persecution

by Ali Sina

Imagine one evening you hear a knock on the door. When you open it, a group of armed men with police uniforms enter your house, beat you and handcuff you. Your wife and children are terrorized, but they are told to shut up or they too will be beaten.

Thoughts rush to your mind. You try to figure out what did you do to deserve this treatment. You have been an upright citizen all your life. In fact you have been a human rights activist and have received an award for your services. You have been a respected speaker. Could all this be a mistake?

You ask the officers about the charges. Their response sends chill down your spine. You are being accused of blasphemy. You are a non-Muslim living in a Muslim majority country and all it takes for you to lose your freedom, job, friends, social standing and even life is for someone to report to authorities that you have spoken opprobriously of Muhammad and hence have injured the religious sensitivity of Muslims.

This is the nightmare that minorities in Islamic countries face. The charge does not have to be true. It could be that someone owes you money and he wants to get rid of you. It could be that someone offered to buy your land, which you refused to sell at the price he was offering. Or maybe someone does not like you because you are a human rights activist fighting for the rights of the oppressed minorities.

Abuses such as this happen on daily basis in Pakistan. More than two years ago, it was the turn of Hector Aleem. Aleem was taken to custody. He was brutally beaten by the police and thrown in a prison cell.

In Pakistan, if you are accused of blasphemy you are guilty until proven otherwise. But to prove your innocence it takes years and thousands of dollars. The lawyers' fee is exorbitant, whereas the wages in Pakistan are extremely low.

Aleem's family has spent all its wealth in legal fees to prove the innocence of their father. Hector's wife earns the meager salary of a nurse. The two elder daughters work but there are five mouths to feed and the legal fee is eating up everything they earn.

More than a year ago, when the case went to the court for the first time, the prosecutor, himself a mullah, did not find enough evidence against Aleem to support his charges. However, he warned the judge that should he release Aleem, the angry mob huddled inside and outside the court may kill him and the judge also may not fare better. This is exactly what happened on July 19 of this year to two Christian brothers, who were gunned down by Muslim militants when they left the court under police custody after a trial hearing in Faisalabad city, Punjab province.

So, Aleem was sent back to jail to face more beating in the hands of his jail keepers. They even told him that they would kill him before setting him free. Aleem's family appealed the court's ruling and a second hearing was arranged. This is where we are at now. The new lawyer is confident, but of course he has to be paid first and his fees are beyond what this impoverished family can afford.

A kind man from Australia has offered to sponsor Hector Aleem and provide him with a working visa. But first Aleem must be released. More than $7000 dollars are needed just for the legal fees. This is a large sum for a nurse with four children. Mehwish, Aleem's older daughter, has set up a paypal account for those who want to help. Here is the account: http://tinyurl.com/hectoraleem. Please click on it and pay generously. This is Mehwish's email address:Mehwishaleem@gmail.com.

The blasphemy law is an affront to human rights. It is devised to legally persecute the minorities. Even if you are not guilty you'll be annihilated before you prove your innocence. The objective of the blasphemy law is to get rid of the minorities by incriminating them one by one.

Isn't it time for the governments of the free world to demand Pakistan to put an end to legalized religious persecution? Pakistan is recipient of large sums of aids from the western countries and particularly from USA. But its only contributions are to persecute the minorities and to produce terrorists.

Please contact your member of parliament, your congressman and the senators in your country and ask them to demand the release of Hector Aleem and to raise the issue of human rights abuses in Pakistan. It is time for the European Parliament, the US congress and the Parliaments in Canada and Australia to condemn the blasphemy law and demand its immediate repeal.

It is a shame that the same governments that swiftly pass laws to protect Muslims against criticism of Islam, find no courage to stand up for the human rights of minorities in Islamic countries. Aren't human rights more important than beliefs? Where is the outcry of the parliamentarians, presidents and prime ministers of the free world vis-à-vis these human rights abuses?

ISLAM-Quraiza Massacre

Quraiza Massacre

Muhammad calls the Infidels "Brothers of Monkeys and Pigs" and orders their slaughter.

by Dr Thomas Ahmed

Narrated by ''A'isha: when the messenger of Allah became free from the allied forces, entered to his house wash himself for the prayer, Gabriel came to him, whom I have seen with his head covered by dust. He said to the prophet; oh Muhammad, have you laid down your weapons? The prophet said to him; we put down our weapons. Gabriel said to him; we have not yet laid down our weapons. Arise and march to Banu Qirizah.

The messenger of Allah commanded a muzzein to call on people, that any one hear and obey must not perform the 'Asir prayer except in Bani Qirizah (Al-Qimni 2004: 390-391, quoting from Ibn Kathir p. 119). Muhammad accused them that they broke their treaty with him and that by planning to open their garrison for the allied Makkan tribes to attack the Muslims at the Battle of the Ditch. However, as al-Qimni proved that the Jews were innocent from such an accusation. As a matter of fact, Muhammad is the one to be blamed for breaking the treaty. The Prophet said "if anyone hears and obeys should not perform his Asr prayer except in Bani Qurizah'" (Ibid: 391, quoting from al-Tabari al-Tarikh p. 591), Al-Bihaqi narrates that "the Prophet went out and passed by some people of Bani Qurizah and asked them, is there any one passed by you? They said, Dahia al-Kalib passed this way riding on a beautiful horse. The Prophet replied "that is not Dahia but the angel Gabriel, peace be upon him, sent to Bani Qurizah to shake them and put fear in their hearts" (Ibid, quoting from al-Bihaqi, al-Dalail p. 9). Ibn Kathir, al-Tabari, and al-Bihaqi, narrated the dialogue between the prophet and the frightened Jews of Bani Qurizah jointly as follows:

Muhammad: Oh brothers of monkeys and pigs.

The trembling Jews replied: Oh Abu al-Qasim, you have not been a bad man!! (Ibid; 392, quoting from Ibn Kathir, al-Bedayia p. 120).

The prophet called out to them: Oh brothers of monkeys. Does Allah disappointed you and send on you his curse?

The Qurizah understood the message and replied in fear: Oh Abi al-Qasim, you have not been an ignorant man (Ibid, quoting from al-Bihaqi, al-Tarikh p. 582).

The Jews of Qurizah continued to plead with Muhammad 'and beg him to send to them one of their allies, a man by the name of Abi Libabah bin Abd al-Nuziar al-Awasi.

When Abi Libabah entered their garrison, the men rose, the women wept, and the children cried to him. When he saw them he had pity on them.

They said to him: oh Abi Libabah, do you think we should go out for the judgment of Muhammad?

He said, yes, and then he passed his finger across his neck, which means, the slaughter.

Then their leader, Ka'ab bin Asaad said to his people: Let us follow Muhammad and believe in him.

They replied: We will not leave the judgment of the Torah forever.

He said to them: Then let us kill our children and women and go out to Muhammad.

They said: Shall we kill these harmless children and women? What is the good of life after them? (Al-Qimni 2004: 393-394, quoting from al-Tabari p. 583).

Finally the men of Bani Qurizah decided to go out and meet Muhammad hoping that the other Medinian tribes would intercede with the Prophet and request him to send them with their women and children out of Yathrib as he did before with the other two Jewish tribes. As soon as the Jewish men emerged out of their garrison, the prophet ordered his men to bind them with ropes and march them in a long queue (Ibid: 394, quoting from al-Tabari, al-Tarikh p. 583). Then the prophet asked his men to dig many ditches inside the city (Ibid). After so many pleadings from the leaders of the Medinian tribes of al-Khaziriq and al-Awas, Muhammad agreed that Sa'ad bin Mu'aaz should decide the fate of the Jews (Ibid, quoting from al-Tabari p. 586).

Al-Tabari narrated that Sa'ad bin Mu'aaz was dying. During the siege of the city, an arrow hit his hand and caused a cut on one of his nerves. The prophet tried to heal him by heating a nail and burning the nerve. In doing that Muhammad thought the bleeding would stop. However, the burning nail worsened the cut and caused the nerve to swell. When the Prophet repeated the same treatment the nerve exploded (Ibid: 395). In his dying state Sa'ad was carried to the Prophet. When Muhammad saw him he ordered the Jews to stand to their Master. "When Sa'ad was put down by his carriers the prophet asked him to judge on them. He said, I judge on them that the men should be put to death, their wealth divided, and their women distributed as jawari among the Muslims. The prophet said to him, you have judged on them with the judgment of Allah that has been given to you from seven heavens" (Ibid: 395, quoting al-Tabari, al-Tarikh p. 586).

The horrifying slaughter was described by al-Tabari as follows:

They brought first the enemy of Allah, Huaya bin Akhatab, while his hands were bound to his neck by a rope. (Huaya was the father of Safiya bint Huaya whom the Prophet killed her husband and brother and took her as his wife). When Huaya saw the Messenger of Allah, he said to him, I swear by God, I have never blamed myself for your enmity. Then, Huaya turned to the people and said, oh people there is no fear from the judgment and the Book of God, it is an honor written by God to the children of Israel to die as martyrs. Then, he sat down and his neck was beheaded... Ali bin Talib and al-Zibiar continued to strike their necks... It is assumed that their blood reached the oilstones that are at the market (Ibid: 396, quoting from al-Tabari, al-Tarikh pp. 588-589).

The narrators of the sira differed in the number of the Jewish men who were killed on that fateful day. Some said six hundred, some seven hundred, some eight hundred, and some nine hundred (Ibid: 396). Al-Qimni states, "And we learn from our heritage a new thing happened in that slaughter. The slaughter was not restricted to men only, but included underage Jewish boys" (Ibid: 398 referring to al-Tabari p. 591). Then the victims were buried in those big holes or ditches that the Muslims dug.

According to narrators of the sira, Allah rewarded Sa'ad bin Mu'aaz for his decision and that by dying immediately after the slaughter. The angel Gabriel came to the Prophet in the middle of the night and told him that Sa'ad bin Mu'aaz died and the throne of Allah was shaken in his honor. Moreover, his funeral was attended by seventy thousand angels (Ibid: 397, quoting from al-Bihaqi pp. 28-29).

The number of the booty was counted by Ibn Sa'ad as one thousand five hundred swords, three hundred armors, one thousand spears, one thousand and five hundred shields, and many camels and cows. Regarding the women, their number was more than the number of the Muslim men. Therefore, when every Muslim man got his share from the Jewish women, the remaining were sold as slaves to the men of Nagid. Muhammad took Rayhana bint Umaro. Ibn Kathir narrates that, "The prophet told Rayhana that he would release her from slavery and marry her. However, Rayhana chose to remain in slavery, which she believed more bearable to her... She refused to accept Islam and decided to remain a Jew and slave all her life" (Ibid: 401, quoting Ibn Kathir, al-Bedaya, p. 128 and al-Tabari, al-Tarikh, p. 592).

ISLAM-Fjordman-Suggestions for the Future

Suggestions for the Future

By Fjordman

The last chapter of Defeating Eurabia. Published at the Gates of Vienna blog in September 2008; republished with some changes here.

This essay overlaps to some extent with the essay Recommendations for the West from 2006. How should we respond to the threats our civilization is facing? First of all, ordinary citizens should take steps to protect their own security since crime and violence is spreading fast throughout the Western world. Second, we need to reclaim pride in our heritage, which has been lost or taken from us in recent years, and restore a proper teaching of this in the education system. We should assume that our leaders are not telling us the full truth about the scale of mass immigration.

Journalist Nick Fagge wrote the following in newspaper the Daily Express in October 2008:

“MORE than 50 million African workers are to be invited to Europe in a far-reaching secretive migration deal, the Daily Express can reveal today. A controversial taxpayerfunded ‘job centre’ opened in Mali this week is just the first step towards promoting ‘free movement of people in Africa and the EU’. Brussels economists claim Britain and other EU states will ‘need’ 56 million immigrant workers between them by 2050 to make up for the ‘demographic decline’ due to falling birth rates and rising death rates across Europe. The report, by the EU statistical agency Eurostat, warns that vast numbers of migrants could be needed to meet the shortfall in two years if Europe is to have a hope of funding the pension and health needs of its growing elderly population.

It states:…’Having sufficient people of working age is vital for the economy and for tax revenue.’ The report, by French MEP Francoise Castex, calls for immigrants to be given legal rights and access to social welfare provision such as benefits. Ms Castex said: ‘It is urgent that member states have a calm approach to immigration. To say ‘yes’, we need immigration …is not a new development, we must accept it.’“ Unlimited mass immigration would destabilize cities that are already swamped in crime.

Besides, we are real, physically existing peoples, nations, and countries, not walking tax revenue. We are told that the ongoing mass immigration from alien cultures is “good for the economy.” This is demonstrably false and resembles the “Big Lie” technique employed by the Nazis. Even if it were true, I would still reject this argument. I am not willing to give up our existence as a people in the hypothetical hope that doing so would earn us a few more electronic toys, of which we already have plenty. The notion that man is homo economicus, the economic man, nothing more than the sum of his functions as a worker and consumer, is widely shared by left-wingers and many rightwingers today. It is one of the most destructive ideologies of our time and needs to be defeated while there is still something left of European civilization to preserve. You cannot put a prize tag on your cultural identity and the heritage of your ancestors. I want my children to grow up in a country that is theirs, with a sense of belonging to a community with deep historical roots.

One “anti-Jihadist” in Scandinavia once indicated that it was OK with a Muslim majority in Europe as long as these Muslims respect “human rights.” They won’t, of course, but that’s not the point. The “debate” we have is between those who believe we should accept unlimited mass immigration and those who believe we should accept unlimited mass immigration as long as those who replace us believe in “human rights,” where the former group views the latter as “racists.” At no point is there any debate of whether native Europeans have the right to preserve our cultures and historical identities.

Globalism is the enemy within which needs to be defeated. Globalism does not refer to the impersonal forces of technological globalization (although committed Globalists like to pretend that it does, because this makes their ideological program seem “inevitable”), but to a Utopian ideology stating that erasing all national cultures and states (especially Western ones) is a positive good which should be promoted at all costs. Opposition to this should be banned as “discrimination,” “racism” and “nationalism” (the terms are used as synonyms).

I’ve engaged in long discussions as to whether or not our current weakness is caused by deeper-lying, structural flaws in our civilization or whether it is promoted by certain powerful groups with a dangerous agenda. My answer is that it is both. The ideology of Globalism is indeed promoted by certain elite groups much more than by the average citizen, and these ideas are enforced from above. This is happening all over the Western world, but it is particularly dangerous in Western Europe because of the legislative powers of the EU.

Although Leftists tend to be more aggressive, perhaps the dividing line in the internal struggle in the West is less between Left and Right and more between those who value national sovereignty and European culture and those who do not. Upholding borders has become more important in the age of globalization, not less. We need to reclaim control over our borders and reject any organization, either the EU, the UN, various human rights groups or others who prevent us from doing this. We must remind our political leaders that we pay national taxes because they are supposed to uphold our national borders. If they can’t do so, we should no longer be required to pay taxes. National taxes, national borders could become a new rallying cry.

There are both left-wing and right-wing Globalists. They have different agendas, for instance with left-wing Globalists putting emphasis on silencing free speech and promoting “international law” through the United Nations and similar organizations, while right-wing Globalists concentrate more on the free flow of people across borders, just as they want free flow of goods and capital across borders. The Presidential election campaign in the USA in 2008 between Obama and McCain is a race between a leftwing and a right-wing Globalist. Both want open borders, if only for slightly different reasons, and tend to think of countries as ideas, not as entities populated by distinct peoples with shared values and a common history.

An ideological “war within the West” has paved the way for a physical “war against the West” waged by Islamic Jihadists, who correctly view our acceptance of Muslim immigration as a sign of weakness. Perhaps we will need to resolve the war within the West before we can win the war against the West. When Europeans such as Polish king Jan III Sobieski led their troops to victory over the Turks in the 1683 Battle of Vienna, they fought for a number of things: Their country, their culture and their religion.

People don’t just need to live; they need something to live for, and fight for.

We are against Islam. What are we for? I would suggest that one thing we should fight for is national sovereignty and the right to preserve our culture and pass it on to future generations. We are fighting for the right to define our own laws and national policies, not to be held hostage by the United Nations, unaccountable NGOs, transnational progressives or self-appointed guardians of the truth.

At the beginning of the 21st century, the West is the sick man of the world. We provide our sworn enemies with the technology and medicine to multiply, give them the transportation and legal rights to move to our countries (after showing them through TV and movies how much better life is in our part of the world). On top of this, we pay them to colonize our countries and harass our children while our leaders ban opposition to this as intolerance, discrimination and racism. When did the West stop thinking? Where did we go wrong? Here is the answer an American friend of mine gave:

“Well, there’s Marxism of course, which was extremely damaging in all its forms.

There were the two world wars which killed so many of our people and caused a lack of cultural confidence. Then there was the Pax Americana and the unprecedented safety and affluence it brought to the Western World. We have now had two generations of Westerners, almost three, who have never known real poverty, hunger, war, or ‘the knock on the door in the middle of the night.’ Without a need for survival skills, we had the time and the money to focus on ever-more insane political and cultural ideologies… I think I remember reading something about how the Indian Hindu empires became ripe for conquest by Islam — ‘They focused on becoming good, instead of remaining powerful.’ I can’t remember the source on that though. But that’s what we are now — obsessing about how to be good, not on being powerful. And our ‘goodness’ isn’t worth much if the rest of the world is focused on becoming powerful. Also, you have to remember, a lot of people are making money out of these insane ideologies. The ‘diversity’ industry in the U.S. is worth billions — people with little skills or ability are being given comfy well-paid jobs because of it….And because of anti-discrimination laws, every organization, whether for profit or not, must have a ‘diversity’ plan to point to if they ever get sued for ‘discrimination.’ It’s literally a recession-proof captive industry. Anyways we’re sick and the whole world knows it. They are coming here to feed off our sickness.”

The West is rapidly declining as a percentage of world population and in danger of being overwhelmed by immigration from poorer countries with booming populations.

People of European origins need to adjust our self-image correspondingly and ditch the current ideology of deranged altruism. We are not all-powerful and are not in a position to help everybody in developing countries out of poverty, certainly not by allowing them to move here. We need to develop a new mental paradigm dedicated to our own survival.

We should take a break from mass immigration in general. Any future immigration needs to be strictly controlled and exclusively non-Muslim. This break should be used to demonstrate clearly that the West will no longer serve as the dumping ground for excess population growth in other countries. We have cultures that we’d like to preserve, too, and cannot and should not be expected to accept unlimited number of migrants from other countries.

In my view, the best way to deal with the Islamic world is to have as little to do with it as possible. We should completely stop and if necessary ban Muslim immigration. This could be done in creative and indirect ways, such as banning immigration from nations with citizens known to be engaged in terrorist activities. We should remove all Muslim non-citizens currently in the West and change our laws to ensure that Muslim citizens who advocate sharia, preach Jihad, the inequality of “infidels” and of women should have their citizenship revoked and be deported back to their country of origin.

We need to create an environment where the practice of Islam is made difficult. Much of this can be done in non-discriminatory ways, by simply refusing to allow special pleading to Muslims. Do not allow the Islamic public call to prayer as it is offensive to other faiths. Boys and girls should take part in all sporting and social activities of the school and the community. The veil should be banned in all public institutions, thus contributing to breaking the traditional subjugation of women. Companies and public buildings should not be forced to build prayer rooms for Muslims. Enact laws to eliminate the abuse of family reunification laws. Do not permit major investments by Muslims in Western media or universities.

American columnist Diana West wants us to shift from a pro-democracy offensive to an anti-sharia defensive. Calling this a “War on Terror” as President George W. Bush did in 2001 was a mistake. Baron Bodissey of the Gates of Vienna blog has suggested the slogan “Take Back the Culture,” thus focusing on our internal struggle for traditional European culture.

People should be educated about the realities of Jihad and sharia. Educating non- Muslims about Islam is more important than educating Muslims, but we should do both.

Groups of dedicated individuals should engage in efforts to explain the real nature of Islam, emphasizing the division that Islam teaches between Believer and Infidel, the permanent state of war between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb and the use of taqiyya and kitman, religious deception.

As Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch says, we should explain why Islam encourages despotism (because allegiance is owed the ruler as long as he is a Muslim), economic paralysis, intellectual failure (the cult of authority, the hostility to free and skeptical inquiry) in Islamic countries. Let Muslims themselves begin slowly to understand that all of their political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failures are a result of Islamic teachings.

Fitzgerald also suggests exploiting the many fissures within the Islamic world: Divide and conquer. Divide and demoralize. Islam has universalist claims but it talks about Arabs as the “best of peoples,” and has been a vehicle for Arab supremacy, to promote Arab conquest of wealthier non-Arab populations. In addition to divisions between Arabs and non-Arab Muslims, we have the sectarian divide between Shias and Sunnis, and the economic division between the fabulously rich oil-and-natural-gas Arab states and the poor Muslim countries.

Both the sectarian and economic divisions within Islam are best exploited by infidels doing nothing. If the Western world stops giving Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, and the Palestinians “aid,” which has in reality become a disguised form of jizya, this will clear the psychological air. And it will force the poorer Arabs and other Muslims to go to the rich Arabs for support.

Right now, Muslims can enjoy the best of both worlds, and follow primitive religious laws while enjoying the fruits of 21st century civilization. We need to drive home the utter failure of the Islamic model by making sure that Muslims should no longer able to count on permanent Western or infidel aid in their overpopulated, self-primitivized states, whose very unviability they are prevented from recognizing by this constant infusion of aid.

We need to deprive Muslims as much as possible of Western jizya in other forms, which means ending foreign aid, but also institute a Manhattan Project for alternative sources of energy, in order to become independent of Arab oil.

As Mr. Fitzgerald asks: “What would the rich Arabs do if the Western world decided to seize their property in the West as the assets of enemy aliens, just as was done to the property owned not only by the German government, but by individual Germans, during World War II? And what would they do if they were to be permanently deprived of easy access to Western medical care?”

We must reject the “You turn into what you fight” argument. Those who fought the Nazis didn’t become Nazis during the Second World War. The truth is, we will become like Muslims if we don’t stand up to them and keep them out of our countries, otherwise they will subdue us and Islamize us by force. The West isn’t feared because we are “oppressors,” we are despised because we are perceived as weak and decadent. Jihadist websites have said that China is not the enemy at the moment. China, too, is an infidel enemy, but Muslims respect the Chinese more than Western nations. We can live with having enemies. The important thing is making sure that our enemies respect us, as Machiavelli indicated in The Prince.

We should implement a policy of containment of the Islamic world, but for this to work we will sometimes have to take military action to crush Muslim pretensions to grandeur.

The Buddhists of Central Asia undoubtedly held the “moral high ground” in relations to Muslims. They are all dead now. At the very least, we must be prepared to back up our ideological defenses with force on certain occasions.

Several objections could be raised against the containment option. Some claim that it is too harsh and thus won’t be implemented; others say that it is insufficient and won’t work in the long run. It’s true that in the current political climate, expulsion of shariasponsoring Muslims isn’t going to happen, but the current ruling paradigm won’t last. It is likely that we will get civil wars in several Western countries because of the ongoing mass immigration. This will finally demonstrate how serious the situation is and force other Western nations to act.

I have heard comments that it isn’t practically doable to contain the Islamic world behind some artificial Maginot Line. When the Mongols could simply go around the Great Wall of China in the thirteenth century, it will be impossible to contain anybody in an age of modern communication technology. No, it won’t be easy, but we should at least try. Containment isn’t necessarily the only thing we need to do, just the very minimum that is acceptable. Perhaps the spread of nuclear technology will indeed trigger a large-scale war with the Islamic world at some point. The only way to prevent this is to take steps, including military ones, to deprive Muslims of dangerous technology. Jihad is waged by military, political, financial, demographic and diplomatic means. The defense against Jihad has to be equally diverse.

In the post What Can We Do?, Gates of Vienna republished an essay by reader Westerner which was originally posted at American writer Lawrence Auster’s website. Westerner argues that the separationist policy proposed by Auster and others of rolling back, containing, and using military force to quarantine Muslims would not be sufficient to make the non-Islamic world safe, because Islamic regimes would still exist and continue to seek ways to harm us. He therefore proposes a policy aimed at crushing Islam.

Nevertheless, my general policy recommendation is to advocate separation and containment. The crucial point is to stress that Islam cannot be reformed nor reconciled with our way of life. There is no moderate Islam. There can be moderate Muslims, but they can turn into Jihadists tomorrow or they can lie to deceive the infidels, which is widely practiced in Islam. There is no way for us to know. Those who want to understand this can read my online essay about “moderate Islam“ as well as the essay “Why We Cannot Rely on Moderate Muslims.”

According to blogger Conservative Swede, “In fact it is easier to argue for a stop of ALL immigration, to the general public, than a specific stop of Muslim immigration (maybe not in America, but surely in Sweden and the rest of Europe). People simply know very little about Islam. They need to be educated first, and already that is a big effort. So this is the first step. Before this has been achieved, before the awareness about the true face of Islam is firmly represented among the general public, it becomes pointless to push for deportation of all Muslims at the arenas directed at the general public. The first and current step is about educating people about Islam.” He puts emphasis on the need for breaking the spirit of our Jihadist enemies and finding ways of symbolically defeating them.

I have been criticized because my talk about containment and the need to limit even non-Muslim immigration smacks of the siege mentality of a friendless West.

Advocating a policy of much stricter immigration control in general isn’t based on isolationism, it’s based on realism. We’re in the middle of the largest migration waves in human history. The simple fact is that far more people want to live in the West than we can possibly let in. Technology has made it easier for people to settle in other countries, and easier for them to stay in touch with their original homeland as if they never left. We have to deal with this fact by slowing the immigration rates to assimilation levels; otherwise our societies will eventually break down.

I’m advocating isolation of the Islamic world, not of the West. Even if we cannot allow all non-Muslims to freely settle in our lands, this does not mean that they have to be our enemies. Jihad is being waged against the entire non-Muslim world, not just the West.

We should stop trying to “win the hearts and minds” of Muslims instead cooperate with other non-Muslims. It is important to stress here, however, that this cooperation should be based on mutually shared strategic interests, not on a Western mission to “save the world.”

We live in a world demographically — and perhaps soon economically — dominated by Asians, yet too many Westerners are still mentally stuck in an age where we had a dominant position. The Chinese look after Chinese interests, Indians after Indian interests, etc. This is how it should be. Only Westerners are supposed to worry about global interests. We should stop trying to save others and start saving ourselves, while we still can. Only by letting go of illusions of hegemony can we regain our sanity. The Western world order is dead. The sooner we realize that, the better are our chances.

Instead of complaining about “decline” we could use this situation as an opportunity to define a new civilizational mission dedicated to our own survival. If cultural confusion is a cause of our low birth rates, it is possible that a new sense of purpose could lead to a rise in birth rates. The battle for Western hegemony is already over. The battle for Western survival is about to begin.

As I have pointed out several times in my essays, Islam is a secondary infection which feeds off our weakness. Muslims would never have been able to challenge us as much as they do now without finding willing collaborators within our ranks who viewed them as potential allies in the fight against their own civilization. Many immigrants are tools for our elites as well, a protected class being used as a battering ram for the “creative destruction” of established Western nation states. The groups that hate our civilization the most, along with Jihadist Muslims, are white Marxists, while some of the people who defend it are immigrants who were not born into it. We thus face the possibly unique situation of a civilization being attacked by insiders and defended by people who were not born into it.

We need to keep our eyes on the ball. Imagine if you have a zebra in a cage. A social engineer comes up with the brilliant idea that we now live in the age of globalization and that all creatures therefore have to learn to live together in harmony. If they refuse, they should be forced to participate in this noble project under the enlightened guidance of educated social engineers. The zebra is forced to share his cage with a lion. When he tries to protest, the social engineers tell him that he is an evil racist who suffers from lionophobia, which is promptly banned by law. Young zebras are taught through the education system and the media to feel weighed down by guilt because lions have suffered much injustice in the past. They are consequently prevented from identifying threats and responding to them in a sensible manner.

The experiment ends badly and many zebras are slaughtered. The question is: Who are really the bad guys in this case? I would blame the social engineers more than the lions.

If a lion kills a zebra, he is only following his nature. Similarly, it is in Islam’s nature to attack others. If Muslims follow Islam’s nature, why should we be surprised? After all, they have been doing this for 1400 years. Yes, we should be angry with them, but we should first and foremost be angry with those who fed us false information, flooded our countries with enemies and forced us to live with them. They constitute enemy number one. We should never forget that. This analogy is not perfect since we are not dealing with animals but with human beings who can think for themselves. Nevertheless, we need to keep this in mind.

I believe we need to think of two distinct fights: The fight for the West and for European civilization, and the fight against Islam. They overlap on a number of occasions, but they are by no means identical. Moreover, just because Muslim immigration is uniquely harmful doesn’t mean that all other forms of mass immigration are unproblematic. Personally, I have two goals, listed here according to their relative importance:

1. Defend European civilization and the peoples who have historically created it
2. Fight Islam on a global basis

For my part, I have always, and will always, support priority number two, as long as this doesn’t conflict with priority number one. I will be happy to help Hindus in India or Buddhists in Thailand in the fight against Jihad, but that doesn’t mean that I will allow unlimited numbers of Asians settle in my country. This would spell the end of my nation, and that would obviously conflict with goal number one. There is a school of thought which says that it’s bad if native Europeans are displaced by Muslims, but OK if we are displaced by others. I would prefer not to be displaced by anybody. The defense of European civilization, which is what Western civilization actually is, is inseparable from the defense of the peoples who have historically created it. And no, we are not “socially constructed.”

The United Nations is heavily infiltrated by Islamic groups. We should starve it for funds and ridicule it at any given opportunity. As an alternative to the UN, we could create an organization where only democratic states could become members. The most important principle at this point is to contain the Islamic world. We simply cannot allow our enemies to have influence over our policies, which they do through the UN.

Europeans need to totally dismantle the European Union and regain national control over our borders and legislation. The EU is so deeply flawed and infiltrated by pro- Islamic thinking that it simply cannot be reformed. No, the EU isn’t the only problem we have, but it is the worst, and we can’t fix our other problems as long as the EU is in charge. And let’s end the stupid support for the Palestinians that the Eurabians have encouraged and start supporting our cultural cousin, Israel. Europe’s first line of defense starts in Jerusalem.

Europeans should adopt legislation similar to the First and Second Amendments in the American Bill of Rights, securing the right to free speech and gun ownership. The reason why European authorities are becoming increasingly totalitarian in their censorship efforts is to conceal the fact that they are no longer willing or able to uphold even the most basic security of their citizenry, far less our national borders.

We need to ditch the welfare state, which is probably doomed anyway. The welfare state wasn’t all bad, but it cannot compete in a world of billions of capitalists in lowcost countries. It creates a false sense of security in a dog-eat-dog world and breeds a passivity that is very dangerous in our struggle for survival. We should use the money to strengthen our border controls and rebuild credible militaries. Western Europeans have lived under Pax Americana for so long that we have forgotten how to defend ourselves. This needs to change, and soon.

I recently read the book The Shock Doctrine by the prominent left-wing intellectual Naomi Klein. That is, I made an attempt to read it. I gave up after a few chapters. Klein talks about how clean slate ideologies are dangerous, and mentions in passing some crimes committed by the Soviet regime and the criticism which followed its collapse.

Then she says:

“The process has sparked heated debate around the world about how many of these atrocities stemmed from the ideology invoked, as opposed to its distortion by adherents like Stalin, Ceausescu, Mao and Pol Pot. ‘It was flesh-and-blood Communism that imposed wholesale repression, culminating in a state-sponsored reign of terror,’ writes Stéphane Courtois, co-author of the contentious Black Book of Communism. ‘Is the ideology itself blameless?’ Of course it is not. It doesn’t follow that all forms of Communism are inherently genocidal, as some have gleefully claimed, but it was certainly an interpretation of Communist theory that was doctrinaire, authoritarian, and contemptuous of pluralism that led to Stalin’s purges and to Mao’s re-education camps.

Authoritarian Communism is, and should be, forever tainted by those real-world laboratories. But what of the contemporary crusade to liberate world markets?” Klein claims that not all forms of market systems have to be inherently violent. They can leave room for free health care, too. She condemns “authoritarian interpretations” of Communism, but not necessarily Communism as such. Exactly where we can find examples of non-authoritarian Communism she doesn’t say. That’s as far as selfcriticism has progressed in the political Left a generation after we “defeated” Marxism.

The economist Milton Friedman, along with F. Hayek, is one of the villains of Naomi Klein’s book. According to her, Friedman has stated that “only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.” Friedman believes that during a crisis, we only have a brief window of opportunity before society slips back into the “tyranny of the status quo,” and that we need to use this opportunity or lose it.

This is actually sound advice and in my view the strategy Western survivalists should follow. When I first started writing as Fjordman I focused on how to “fix the system.”

I’ve gradually come to the conclusion that the system cannot be fixed. Not only does it have too many enemies; it also contains too many internal contradictions. If we define the “system” as mass immigration from alien cultures, Globalism, Multiculturalism and suppression of free speech in the name of “tolerance,” then this is going to collapse. It’s inevitable.

The goal of European and Western survivalists — and that’s what we are, it is our very survival that is at stake — should not be to “fix” the ideology of Multiculturalism but to be mentally prepared for its collapse, and to develop coherent answers to what went wrong and prepare to implement the necessary remedies when the time comes. We need to seize the window of opportunity, and in order to do so, we need to define clearly what we want to achieve. What went wrong with our civilization, and how can we survive and hopefully regenerate, despite being an increasingly vulnerable minority in an often hostile world? If or when the European Union collapses, we need to stage trials against the creators of Eurabia and denounce the lies told by our media and academia. Their ideology needs to be exposed as evil. The political elites implement the agendas of our enemies and ignore the interests of their people. Change will come when they fear the consequences of their betrayal more than they fear Muslims. We need to regain control over our national borders and legislation, and we need to reclaim control over the media. Those who control the media, control society.

It is easy to blame others, but we have to accept responsibility for our situation. Yes, we have indeed been betrayed by our leaders, but that’s only part of the problem. People tend to get the governments they deserve. Maybe we get weak leaders because we are weak, or because they can exploit weaknesses in our mentality to get us where they want; anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, our excessive desire for consensus and suppression of dissent, the anti-individualistic legacy from Socialism and the passivity bred by welfare state bureaucracy. Muslims are stuck with their problems and blame everybody else for their failures because they can never admit they are caused by deep flaws in their culture. We shouldn’t make the same mistake. Europeans export wine; Arabs export whine. That’s the way it should be.

In his book The River War published in 1899, Winston Churchill wrote about the cursed effects of Mohammedanism (which is what Islam is):

“The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities — but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”

This description remains correct today. Nevertheless, bad as it is, Islam isn’t the cause of our current weakness. In addition to plain decadence, there is a widespread feeling in much of Europe that nothing is worth fighting for, certainly not through armed struggle.

There are no Great Truths, everything is equal. Maybe Europe’s faith in itself died in Auschwitz, but it was severely wounded in the trenches of the First World War. It was WW1 that radicalized Europe, triggered the Russian Revolution and the rise of Soviet Communism, and filled Germany, including a young corporal named Adolf Hitler, with a desire for vengeance and much of the ammunition they needed for their rise to power in the 1930s.

I have heard claims that European civilization will not survive the twenty-first century.

A century is a very long time, we should remember that. Would anybody (except a Churchill) in the early twentieth century, when Europe was strong, have predicted that it would now be in the process of being overpowered by Algerians and Pakistanis? Things change. They can change for the worse, but also for the better. Our ancestors, better men and women than we are, held the line against Islam for more than one thousand years, sacrificing their blood for the continent. By doing so, they not only preserved the European heartland and thus Western civilization itself, but quite possibly the world in general from Islamic dominance. The stakes involved now are no less than they were then, possibly even greater.

It is difficult to predict the future, apart from the fact that there will be a lot of turbulence. As American scholar Daniel Pipes puts it, the decisive events have yet to take place, perhaps within the next decade or so. The situation is historically unprecedented: “No large territory has ever shifted from one civilization to another by virtue of a collapsed population, faith, and identity; nor has a people risen on so grand a scale to reclaim its patrimony. The novelty and magnitude of Europe’s predicament make it difficult to understand, tempting to overlook, and nearly impossible to predict.

Europe marches us all into terra incognita.”

Some people claim that Europe isn’t worth fighting for and that many people here deserve what’s coming. Some of them probably do, yes. The catch is that the people who deserve most to be punished for the current mess are the ones who are least likely to pay the price. The creators of Eurabia will be the first to flee the continent when the going gets tough, leaving those who have never heard of Eurabia and never approved of its creation to fight.

Edmund Burke believed that if a society can be seen as a contract, we must recognize that most parties to the contract are either dead or not yet born. I like that idea, which means that when you fight for a country, you don’t just fight for the ones that are there now, but for those who lived there before and for those who will live there in the future.

If we don’t want to fight for what Europe is today then let us fight for what it once was, and maybe, just maybe, for what it may become once more. There was real greatness in this continent once. It seems a long time ago now, but we can get there again.

Meanwhile, let us work to ensure the survival of European civilization, which is now very much in question.

Islam's 12 Steps to Destroy Land of the Infidels (Dar al-Harb)

Islamic Steps

Islam's 12 Steps to Destroy Land of the Infidels (Dar al-Harb)

by Vin Ienco

1. - Immigrate - by the millions.

2. - Procreation – This is Islam’s greatest weapon against the kafirs (non-Muslims). Currently most Western nations think so little of their respective civilizations that they are failing to reproduce themselves above subsistence levels. As their birthrates continue to decline, breed them out. They will become so dependant on Muslim labor and so old demographically they will not be able to resist what will follow.

3. - At 5 - 10% of the population, force the host governments to set up special laws favoring the Muslims. Use the courts to gain special rights under the guise of "anti-discrimination", as other groups have successfully done in Western countries before.

4. - At 20 -30% of the population, elect Muslims to government and legislate additional laws that favor Muslims.

5. - Never Assimilate

6. - Always set-up small Muslim communities to hide in. Even better, concentrate in small cities and take complete control of their governments, example, Dearborn, Michigan.

7. - Never accept the host’s customs; make them accept Muslim customs.

8. – Use their liberal traditions against them whenever possible. Currently being labelled a “racist” is a fate that is worse than death in most Western countries. When they oppress Muslims and seek to stem their tide, use their fear of that word against them. They will never be able to convincingly assert that discrimination against one group is bad (e.g gays) while maintaining that discrimination against Muslims is good without appearing to be hypocritical and intellectually corrupt, thus they will lose the propaganda war. Recruit liberal academics and media outlets to assist in this campaign.

9. - Assassination - when the Muslim population exceeds 30 - 50% of the total population, start the terror killings & bombings as soon as possible. It will effectively weaken the host nation to the extent that it will no longer be able to function.

10. - If anyone is going to testify against a Muslim in court, kill them before the trial.

11. - At 50 -70% of the population, seek the total submission of the host society to Islamic Law by all means necessary (legal, military, terror, social coercion, etc)

12. - If step eleven fails initially, seek extensive international help from other Islamic states and the UN in order to create a separate Muslim Republic within the host country’s borders, using racial and religious discrimination against the Muslim population as a pretext. At a later date, when it is advantageous to do so, repeat step eleven until successful.