I loved the comment below by Robert Spencer. He said basically, "You've got to be kidding me if you think people are angry at Muslims and suspicious of them because people like us are critical of Islamic doctrine. Has it ever occurred to them that people may be angry at Muslims and suspicious of them because of..."
"Osama bin Laden? Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood jihadist? Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square jihadist? Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Christmas underwear jihadist? Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, who murdered a soldier at a Little Rock Army recruiting center? Adam Gadahn? John Walker Lindh? 9/11? The London jihad bombings? The Madrid jihad bombings? The Mumbai jihad bombings? The Beslan jihad massacres? The Bali jihad bombings? The thousands of jihad attacks that have taken place around the world since 9/11? Not to mention the arrogance and dishonesty of "peaceful" Islamic spokesmen like the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, his unctuous and glaringly insincere wife Daisy Khan, Honest Ibe Hooper, and Zead Ramadan himself? And so many others."
December 16, 2020
November 1, 2020
Seeing More Headscarves
People all over the free world are seeing the same thing, and are feeling disturbed by it. Concerned. Frightened even. Does that mean we are xenophobic bigots? The answer is no. I'm sure there are racist xenophobes among us, but for those of us aware of Islamic ideology and Islamic history, the reason we are uncomfortable with a growing number of Muslims in our midst is simple and reasonable: It has traditionally spelled doom for the existing culture. Islam annihilates cultures.
Islamic headscarves are indicative of ideology. If a Muslim woman believes in Islamic ideology, she will wear a headscarf. A headscarf is one of the few publicly visible signs of Islamic devotion. And if she believes in Islamic ideology, she will probably have lots of children and indoctrinate her children with the ideology too (Islamic texts encourage fecundity and indoctrination). And Islamic ideology is dangerous to non-Muslims. The higher the percentage of Muslims in a given population, the more dangerous they are (because of Islam's rule of numbers).
But I'm not a bigot or a xenophobe, and here's how I can tell: When I see a Hindu woman in a headscarf, it doesn't bother me a bit. Hindu ideology is not dangerous to non-Hindus. When I see a Buddhist monk, I don't feel concerned. If I saw a growing number of Buddhist monks in my town, it wouldn't bother me at all.
And I'm not a racist. If I saw more and more Japanese people in my town, it wouldn't disturb me at all.
It's the ideology. Anyone who understands what it says in Islamic texts should be concerned at the growing number of Muslims in our midst.
October 27, 2020
No One Would Listen
The people in the town were disturbed, of course. It was a sad day. But after a few months, the memory began to fade, and life eventually returned to normal. They felt they were far enough removed from the war that it would end before it ever came to their remote village.
Then one day, one of those foreign Jews found his way back to the village. His name was Moishe. He was an old man, but the young Elie Wiesel had known him fairly well. Moishe had an extraordinary story to tell. He said when the trainload of Jews crossed the border into Polish territory, the Gestapo loaded them into trucks and took all the Jews into a forest where they were forced to dig huge trenches, and then they were all shot! Moishe himself was shot in the leg and left for dead. But he escaped and had been struggling to get back to the little village so he could warn people of what happened. He was urging everyone to flee; to get away before the Germans came.
He went "from one Jewish house to the next," wrote Elie Wiesel, "telling his story..." And he repeatedly and urgently told his story at the synagogue.
But nobody believed him.
They thought he must have lost his mind. Why would the Germans just kill Jews like that? Germany was a modern, industrialized, enlightened country. They wouldn't simply murder people so heartlessly and for no reason. Moishe must have lost his mind.
Moishe was insistent. He begged people to listen to him. He cried. He pleaded. But not one person believed him. They didn't want to believe him, and that's a formidable barrier to communication.
Our message — that what is written in Islamic texts is dangerous to non-Muslims — is also something many people do not want to believe. The implications are too heavy. The people of Elie's village didn't want to contemplate what it would mean if Moishe's story was true. It would mean tragedy and heartache and a loss of faith in humanity. It would mean a drastically different future for everyone. If they believed Moishe, the wise course of action would be to immediately pack up or sell everything they own and move somewhere they'd never been before. They'd have to start over. The journey would be fraught with uncertainty and danger. Most of them had lived their whole lives in that little village.
But they had another option, didn't they? They could explain away Moishe's terrifying story. They could decide there must be some other explanation.
That's what we run into also, isn't it? People are desperately trying to explain it away. If it's true that the doctrines of Islam are dangerous to non-Muslims, we should all drop what we're doing and address it. What's the point of going on about our lives, as they did in Elie's village, if it will all go terribly wrong in a few years? No, there would be no return to normal. If someone truly and fully grasps the real situation, they're in a whole new world, and the "important goals" they were busy trying to accomplish up until now would be abruptly abandoned in order to handle this new (and far more pressing) reality.
But they have another option, don't they? They can decide there must be some other explanation. You must not understand it correctly. You must be taking the Koranic passages out of context. Muslims who believe in Islamic doctrines must be a very small minority. There must be some other explanation.
I invite you to read Night and think about this: What would you have done if you were in Moishe's situation? Do you think you could have gotten someone to believe you? How would you get through to people? Or would you have given up, as Moishe did, and leave them all to their fate?
In 1944, the German Army arrived at Elie's village and immediately initiated new policies to limit freedoms for Jews. The noose closed in tighter and tighter, one policy at a time, until one day all the Jews of the village were imprisoned in a ghetto and ordered to board the transport trains. People were terrified. What did this mean? They were busy in Elie's house frantically packing up food for the trip when Moishe came up to the front door and shouted, "I warned you!" Then he turned and left without waiting for anyone to respond.
It was too late to do anything about it. They were transported to Auschwitz, and all of them suffered terrible, unbelievable physical and psychological torment. Most of them ended up dead.
If Moishe had been able to make people believe him, everyone in the village would have had plenty of time to flee.
Let's not repeat the same mistake. Let's get through. Not with force. Not with crying or pleading or intensity. Let's find out what allows our message to penetrate, and let's use it with ever-growing skill. If you need help, it is available here: Tools.
Citizen Warrior is the author of the book, Getting Through: How to Talk to Non-Muslims About the Disturbing Nature of Islam and also writes for Inquiry Into Islam, History is Fascinating, and Foundation for Coexistence.
September 15, 2020
In July, Orthodox Muslims Were Urged to Start Forest Fires
The narrator of the film said Muslims should use commonly available items to carry out their attacks and specifically gave the example of fire. He elaborated that fires such as forest fires have killed many non-Muslims and caused hundreds of millions of dollars of damage. The video encourages Muslims to start fires in a fashion that doesn’t draw attention to themselves and to dispose of all forms of evidence as they leave. The video urged viewers to set fire to forests, factories, agricultural fields, and buildings.
The video showed a man marking a location in California on a map to set ablaze.
The above is excerpted from a longer article at MEMRI. Read the whole article and watch the video here:
MEMRI translates television and video clips from the Muslim world into English.
Read more about the video from Homeland Security Today:
According to Wikipedia, the Al-Hayat Media Center is the media wing of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. It was established in mid-2014 by ISIS, which targets Western audiences and produces material in English, German, Russian and French. Read the Wikipedia page: Al-Hayat Media Center.
This call to destroy the non-Muslims is consistent with Islam's Prime Directive.
The Conditions Of Omar
Greg Hamilton came up with another brilliant idea (to see more of his ideas, subscribe to Malsi-Tung). Hamilton lives in a very Muslim area in Britain and he rides the train a lot. He wanted a way to educate his fellow non-Muslims about Islam without endangering his life. His solution is ingenious: To simply wear a button that says, "Enjoy the conditions of Omar." It is such an innocent message, and somewhat ambiguous. Certainly nothing to get riled up about, even for a Muslim.
Other than paying the non-Muslim poll tax or jizyah what conditions had to be kept?
Dhimmis were forbidden from:
These are only a sample of the Conditions, chosen to highlight why they are relevant today — which I will come to later. There were geographical and historical variants on the Conditions but they all held to the same theme — the humiliation and subjugation of non-Muslims and the maintenance of multiple forms of discrimination against them.
The Conditions also worked in conjunction with each other. For example, if a Muslim accused a Christian of a capital offence, such as trying to convert a Muslim, the Christians’ own testimony was not valid in their defence.
Dhimmis were ‘protected’ as long as they met the Conditions. If a dhimmi community (or any member of it) broke the Conditions it was the duty of the local Muslim community to restart the jihad against them.
A key outcome of this scenario is the desire of non-Muslims to avoid confrontations with Muslims and to police one another to prevent deviant individuals destroying the ‘protection’ of the Conditions.
Pakistan is a Muslim country where the Conditions of Omar are operating to some degree today. In March 2013, because one Christian was accused of blasphemy, some 3,000 Muslims attacked the Christian Joseph Colony of Lahore, burning two churches and 160 Christian homes.
In 2009 in Gojra, eight Christians were burned alive, 100 houses looted and 50 homes set ablaze after another blasphemy accusation.
We can see why dhimmis live in a state of perpetual concern for the potential impact of their personal actions on their whole community.
May 5th 2014, Bangladesh, a 3,000 strong Muslim mob attacked Hindu households and a temple after two youths were alleged to have slandered the ‘prophet’ Muhammad on Facebook.
These are just a few examples to show how the Conditions are applied in practise and that they are still active today. Islam as a body of belief has never discarded them and never will because, realistically, it can’t. You can read many more examples of the Conditions in action today if you look up Raymond Ibrahim’s Bulletin of Christian Persecution online. His book, "Crucified Again: Exposing Islam's New War on Christianity" is also very informative.
You might like to believe that the application of Islamic law or Sharia is receding. It isn’t. Over the last 60 years Sharia worldwide has been extending and intensifying. See here.
And that brings us to the here and now.
Muslim minorities in non-Muslim countries have brought Sharia with them. The Conditions of Omar are simply a subset of Sharia which sets out how Muslims should deal with non-Muslims under conquest.
You might well say that what Muslims do to Hindus or Christians or other non-Muslims in Bangladesh or Pakistan is none of our business. That is called the death of conscience.
You might well say that we have not been conquered. That is only partly true. A process of conquest is underway.
The Conditions of Omar are being established today right under our noses. They may not be coming about because we are under occupation but they are being established as norms of behaviour. Sometimes we are imposing the Conditions on ourselves as a gesture of goodwill or to prevent discrimination; sometimes we are imposing them due to fear of jihad terrorism or angry rioting; sometimes they are established by default.
One of the subtle ways we are surrendering to the Conditions is by policing what non-Muslims can say about Islam and Muslims. See this example.
Anyone living among Muslims today knows that being openly critical of Islam or Muhammad is risky. Plenty of examples have set the precedent: in 2004 Theo van Gogh was murdered for making a film critical of Islamic attitudes to women; in 1989 Salman Rushdie was forced into hiding after writing The Satanic Verses, his Japanese translator was murdered; in 2004 the Danish cartoons episode erupted in which 162 people around the world were killed during protests, again demonstrating how some Muslims will kill people totally unrelated to the ‘offence'.
These are a small selection but they point to two clear principles: (1) the author of something considered critical of Islam is liable to be killed; (2) anyone can be killed in revenge against the non-Muslim world. Both of these conform to rules set out in the Conditions.
As a result of such actions and threats most publications refused to print the cartoons. Public figures came to the defence of a religion they knew nothing about. Those seeking to rock the boat further by printing the cartoons became the targets of the condemnation of their fellow non-Muslims rather than the Muslims threatening violence.
Again, this conforms to the Conditions and the behaviour of dhimmi populations who feel vulnerable and threatened. The dhimmi populations turn to self-policing in order to prevent deviant individuals triggering violence from Muslims. This strategy buys into the idea that it is entirely up to non-Muslims to refrain from behaviour which upsets Muslims — a dhimmi outlook.
The principle has become established that non-Muslims should not confront Muslims about their behaviour or their beliefs. Only praise of Islam is allowed. This is submission – especially in view of the fact that Islamic beliefs call for the conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims.
In the UK and many European countries legal measures have also been put in place to suppress critical voices about Islam. The Race and Religious Hatred Act 2006 makes it an offence carrying a two year prison term for: “A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening... if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.”
Now how do you prove intent here? Is trying to warn one’s fellow citizens about the divisive and supremacist nature of a religion the same as stirring up hatred against followers of that religion? If so, there is no way to reasonably warn against such a religion. And who would benefit from that? …Not the intended victims, obviously.
Make no mistake; this is happening around you now. Paul Weston, a prospective Member of the European Parliament, was arrested outside the Guildhall, Winchester on April 26th 2014 for quoting Winston Churchill’s damning assessment of Islam. He was charged under the terms of the Race and Religious Hatred Act 2006 for racially and religiously aggravated harassment.
The incident described above is yet another example of the dhimmi relationship in action. Behind all the waffle about discrimination and protecting minorities there is something which explains all the rationalisation taking place: fear. Fear of Muslim violence directed at anyone and everyone for offences against Islam.
Resources to help you
Your first battle is to reduce your own ignorance and to clear a path through all the misinformation being spread to mislead you. You can do this very easily by studying the many good resources available to you online. Here are a few:
www.InquiryIntoIslam.com has many informative articles and analyses of Islamic doctrine, history, contemporary issues, as well as primers for the novice.
www.JihadWatch.org gives insight into the Islamic justifications for current events including terrorism, persecution, and subversion.
Books
Mark Durie – The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude, and Freedom. This will help you understand the worldview created by Islam, the way Islamic doctrine works as a comprehensive system, and how it has affected non-Muslims throughout its 1400 year history
Robert Spencer – The Truth about Muhammad. This will help you understand the character of Islam’s founder and how Islam itself so closely reflects his character.
Read the Koran. You will soon get to see the tenor of it, with its constant denunciations of nonbelievers and the terrors awaiting them.
The Centre for the Study of Political Islam has a series of books that are particularly helpful.
Raymond Ibrahim – Crucified Again: Exposing Islam's New War on Christianity.
Read the biography of Muhammad known as the Sira. This will show you what the primary Islamic sources say about the ‘perfect model of conduct’.
Once you have attended to your own ignorance your next battle is to break the great silence in whatever way you can. If all you feel able to do is wear a badge saying “Enjoy The Conditions Of Omar” that is a lot more than most of your sleeping contemporaries, and it will point more people to the truth about Islam and its project of universal submission.
Get yourself a badge or tee shirt with the design on it here: Conditions of Omar shop.
Of course, most people won't know what it means. But most people can Google it, and the curious will. What they'll find is eye-opening.
Ideally, they will find the web site Hamilton has created. If enough counterjihad sites link to it, like I am about to do, his site will rise to the top spot on a Google search for "conditions of Omar." His site is here. And this is what it says:
Dear Reader,
The Pact of Omar was a treaty drawn up between Muhammad’s successor Caliph Omar and the conquered Christians and Jews in his domain. The Pact was based on Muhammad’s treatment of conquered people. It set out the rules Christians and Jews had to abide by in order to be protected from further jihad attacks. This pact formed the basis of the Conditions of Omar.
Verse 9:29 of the Koran sets out the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims. It says,
In Islamic parlance “People of the Book” refers to Christians and Jews — they have a book (other religions at the time didn’t have a book). Under conquest they had a third choice other than conversion to Islam or death; this was to live under Sharia as inferior people suffering various humiliations, one of which was the jizyah, a tax levied only on non-Muslims. The non-Muslims are known as dhimmis (pronounced dimmees).
The relationship that the Conditions set up has the following characteristics:
Dear Reader,
The Pact of Omar was a treaty drawn up between Muhammad’s successor Caliph Omar and the conquered Christians and Jews in his domain. The Pact was based on Muhammad’s treatment of conquered people. It set out the rules Christians and Jews had to abide by in order to be protected from further jihad attacks. This pact formed the basis of the Conditions of Omar.
Verse 9:29 of the Koran sets out the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims. It says,
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture — [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.
In Islamic parlance “People of the Book” refers to Christians and Jews — they have a book (other religions at the time didn’t have a book). Under conquest they had a third choice other than conversion to Islam or death; this was to live under Sharia as inferior people suffering various humiliations, one of which was the jizyah, a tax levied only on non-Muslims. The non-Muslims are known as dhimmis (pronounced dimmees).
The relationship that the Conditions set up has the following characteristics:
- Jihad violence is held off (like a dragon on a chain) as long as the dhimmis do not breach the Conditions
- If the Conditions are breached (even by one dhimmi) the jihad violence is resumed against any or all of the dhimmi community
- Dhimmis therefore lived in a state of permanent vulnerability and fear. Each dhimmi and the dhimmi community as a whole faced a perpetual concern lest anyone breached the Conditions and brought about catastrophe
Other than paying the non-Muslim poll tax or jizyah what conditions had to be kept?
Dhimmis were forbidden from:
- Criticizing or mocking Islam or Muhammad. Only praise for Islam and Muhammad was allowed
- Criticizing the Conditions of Omar: the very conditions of subjugation under which they lived
- Testifying against a Muslim in court
- Studying Islam - thus keeping them ignorant of its teachings
- Cursing a Muslim
- Raising a hand against a Muslim, even in self-defense, on pain of having it amputated
- Displaying their religious symbols
These are only a sample of the Conditions, chosen to highlight why they are relevant today — which I will come to later. There were geographical and historical variants on the Conditions but they all held to the same theme — the humiliation and subjugation of non-Muslims and the maintenance of multiple forms of discrimination against them.
The Conditions also worked in conjunction with each other. For example, if a Muslim accused a Christian of a capital offence, such as trying to convert a Muslim, the Christians’ own testimony was not valid in their defence.
Dhimmis were ‘protected’ as long as they met the Conditions. If a dhimmi community (or any member of it) broke the Conditions it was the duty of the local Muslim community to restart the jihad against them.
A key outcome of this scenario is the desire of non-Muslims to avoid confrontations with Muslims and to police one another to prevent deviant individuals destroying the ‘protection’ of the Conditions.
Pakistan is a Muslim country where the Conditions of Omar are operating to some degree today. In March 2013, because one Christian was accused of blasphemy, some 3,000 Muslims attacked the Christian Joseph Colony of Lahore, burning two churches and 160 Christian homes.
In 2009 in Gojra, eight Christians were burned alive, 100 houses looted and 50 homes set ablaze after another blasphemy accusation.
We can see why dhimmis live in a state of perpetual concern for the potential impact of their personal actions on their whole community.
May 5th 2014, Bangladesh, a 3,000 strong Muslim mob attacked Hindu households and a temple after two youths were alleged to have slandered the ‘prophet’ Muhammad on Facebook.
These are just a few examples to show how the Conditions are applied in practise and that they are still active today. Islam as a body of belief has never discarded them and never will because, realistically, it can’t. You can read many more examples of the Conditions in action today if you look up Raymond Ibrahim’s Bulletin of Christian Persecution online. His book, "Crucified Again: Exposing Islam's New War on Christianity" is also very informative.
You might like to believe that the application of Islamic law or Sharia is receding. It isn’t. Over the last 60 years Sharia worldwide has been extending and intensifying. See here.
And that brings us to the here and now.
Muslim minorities in non-Muslim countries have brought Sharia with them. The Conditions of Omar are simply a subset of Sharia which sets out how Muslims should deal with non-Muslims under conquest.
You might well say that what Muslims do to Hindus or Christians or other non-Muslims in Bangladesh or Pakistan is none of our business. That is called the death of conscience.
You might well say that we have not been conquered. That is only partly true. A process of conquest is underway.
The Conditions of Omar are being established today right under our noses. They may not be coming about because we are under occupation but they are being established as norms of behaviour. Sometimes we are imposing the Conditions on ourselves as a gesture of goodwill or to prevent discrimination; sometimes we are imposing them due to fear of jihad terrorism or angry rioting; sometimes they are established by default.
One of the subtle ways we are surrendering to the Conditions is by policing what non-Muslims can say about Islam and Muslims. See this example.
Anyone living among Muslims today knows that being openly critical of Islam or Muhammad is risky. Plenty of examples have set the precedent: in 2004 Theo van Gogh was murdered for making a film critical of Islamic attitudes to women; in 1989 Salman Rushdie was forced into hiding after writing The Satanic Verses, his Japanese translator was murdered; in 2004 the Danish cartoons episode erupted in which 162 people around the world were killed during protests, again demonstrating how some Muslims will kill people totally unrelated to the ‘offence'.
These are a small selection but they point to two clear principles: (1) the author of something considered critical of Islam is liable to be killed; (2) anyone can be killed in revenge against the non-Muslim world. Both of these conform to rules set out in the Conditions.
As a result of such actions and threats most publications refused to print the cartoons. Public figures came to the defence of a religion they knew nothing about. Those seeking to rock the boat further by printing the cartoons became the targets of the condemnation of their fellow non-Muslims rather than the Muslims threatening violence.
Again, this conforms to the Conditions and the behaviour of dhimmi populations who feel vulnerable and threatened. The dhimmi populations turn to self-policing in order to prevent deviant individuals triggering violence from Muslims. This strategy buys into the idea that it is entirely up to non-Muslims to refrain from behaviour which upsets Muslims — a dhimmi outlook.
The principle has become established that non-Muslims should not confront Muslims about their behaviour or their beliefs. Only praise of Islam is allowed. This is submission – especially in view of the fact that Islamic beliefs call for the conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims.
In the UK and many European countries legal measures have also been put in place to suppress critical voices about Islam. The Race and Religious Hatred Act 2006 makes it an offence carrying a two year prison term for: “A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening... if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.”
Now how do you prove intent here? Is trying to warn one’s fellow citizens about the divisive and supremacist nature of a religion the same as stirring up hatred against followers of that religion? If so, there is no way to reasonably warn against such a religion. And who would benefit from that? …Not the intended victims, obviously.
Make no mistake; this is happening around you now. Paul Weston, a prospective Member of the European Parliament, was arrested outside the Guildhall, Winchester on April 26th 2014 for quoting Winston Churchill’s damning assessment of Islam. He was charged under the terms of the Race and Religious Hatred Act 2006 for racially and religiously aggravated harassment.
The incident described above is yet another example of the dhimmi relationship in action. Behind all the waffle about discrimination and protecting minorities there is something which explains all the rationalisation taking place: fear. Fear of Muslim violence directed at anyone and everyone for offences against Islam.
You will find the word ‘Islamophobia’ used to describe those who are critical of Islam. What does it mean?
It doesn’t really mean anything; it’s designed as an intimidating word to enforce dhimmi behaviour. It carries a cocktail of messages which have certain key aims:
I have tried to give you some understanding of what the Conditions of Omar are, how they are applied in Muslim controlled countries, and how they are being established in non-Muslim countries.
Why on earth should you enjoy the Conditions of Omar?
Given the reluctance of most people to face anything unpleasant, the invitation to enjoy is simply an enticement to get your attention. But it is also more than this.
The 20th century Muslim theorist Syed Qtub said that the only freedom that should be supported was the ‘freedom’ to choose Islam. Non-Muslims under the Conditions of Omar would be gradually stripped of their freedoms so that they were left with only one: the freedom to choose Islam. He said, with a completely straight face, that non-Muslims should enjoy this erosion of their freedoms.
Also, in today’s climate only praise of Islam is allowed. The statement is an expression of what it seeks to change. It’s meant ironically.
The statement is also designed to arouse your curiosity but to do so in a way that cannot be construed as ‘hate speech’. It is positive in mood, though the irony becomes clear later. It is in itself inoffensive but it carries an important message.
In accordance with the Conditions, your ignorance of Islam is required. In today’s world ignorance and silence about Islam are both forms of submission. ‘Dumb’ is a word that encapsulates both ignorance and silence. We are being made dumb and submissive.
The Conditions create a system of gradual enslavement and what the system most needs to succeed right now is your ignorance and silence about Islam.
Finally, you can enjoy the Conditions of Omar by resisting them. Open your eyes to where we are and accept that this is your place in history and do what is right. Many of those in the Greatest Generation who fought Nazism felt it was the best part of their lives. All non-Muslims now have the opportunity to fight for their cultures and their civilisations.
Fighting great evils puts us in a different moral space; we learn more about real human values like courage, truth, and goodness. By standing up to barbarism in defence of higher values we become minor heroes.
Even now, when Muslims are unleashing huge persecution against Christians and other non-Muslims, there is a reticence and dread of offending. There is a posture of apologising and appeasement, of trying to identify what it is in ourselves that is displeasing. All the while the driving force of jihad is ignored.
In the face of such obvious evil, is wearing a badge saying “Enjoy The Conditions Of Omar” too much to ask? By so doing you will act as a signpost that directs others to this webpage.
So, what's the point?
It doesn’t really mean anything; it’s designed as an intimidating word to enforce dhimmi behaviour. It carries a cocktail of messages which have certain key aims:
- Phobia suggests an irrational and exaggerated fear with no basis in reality. Fear is a negative reaction and under the Conditions only praise for Islam is allowed
- The word also suggests dislike or hatred of Islam. This is also a negative reaction and under the Conditions only praise for Islam is allowed
- Thus if you are positive about Islam you are a good person; but if you are negative about Islam you are a bad person. This creates a reluctance to find out more about Islam and discover what you really think about it. This fosters ignorance of Islam which is another requirement of dhimmis under the Conditions
I have tried to give you some understanding of what the Conditions of Omar are, how they are applied in Muslim controlled countries, and how they are being established in non-Muslim countries.
Why on earth should you enjoy the Conditions of Omar?
Given the reluctance of most people to face anything unpleasant, the invitation to enjoy is simply an enticement to get your attention. But it is also more than this.
The 20th century Muslim theorist Syed Qtub said that the only freedom that should be supported was the ‘freedom’ to choose Islam. Non-Muslims under the Conditions of Omar would be gradually stripped of their freedoms so that they were left with only one: the freedom to choose Islam. He said, with a completely straight face, that non-Muslims should enjoy this erosion of their freedoms.
Also, in today’s climate only praise of Islam is allowed. The statement is an expression of what it seeks to change. It’s meant ironically.
The statement is also designed to arouse your curiosity but to do so in a way that cannot be construed as ‘hate speech’. It is positive in mood, though the irony becomes clear later. It is in itself inoffensive but it carries an important message.
In accordance with the Conditions, your ignorance of Islam is required. In today’s world ignorance and silence about Islam are both forms of submission. ‘Dumb’ is a word that encapsulates both ignorance and silence. We are being made dumb and submissive.
The Conditions create a system of gradual enslavement and what the system most needs to succeed right now is your ignorance and silence about Islam.
Finally, you can enjoy the Conditions of Omar by resisting them. Open your eyes to where we are and accept that this is your place in history and do what is right. Many of those in the Greatest Generation who fought Nazism felt it was the best part of their lives. All non-Muslims now have the opportunity to fight for their cultures and their civilisations.
Fighting great evils puts us in a different moral space; we learn more about real human values like courage, truth, and goodness. By standing up to barbarism in defence of higher values we become minor heroes.
Even now, when Muslims are unleashing huge persecution against Christians and other non-Muslims, there is a reticence and dread of offending. There is a posture of apologising and appeasement, of trying to identify what it is in ourselves that is displeasing. All the while the driving force of jihad is ignored.
In the face of such obvious evil, is wearing a badge saying “Enjoy The Conditions Of Omar” too much to ask? By so doing you will act as a signpost that directs others to this webpage.
For your badge you can use our online SHOP or you can right click on the image above and select "Save image as" and save it to a location on your computer. You can then send it to any online maker of button badges. If you have the equipment you can even make them yourself.
So, what's the point?
- To spread the word about Islam's stance towards non-Muslims. Most non-Muslims are hopelessly ignorant of the Islamic worldview. They mistakenly assume that it shares the characteristics of other religions. Where they are generally positive about religion they assume that Islam must be a force for good. Where they are negative about religion they assume it is no worse or better than any other religion.
- To open people's eyes to the prison being erected around them. A climate has already been established in which opposition to Islam is framed as a crime. Sharia prohibitions against criticism of Islam and Muslims may not yet be directly applied but they are already indirectly applied by bogus "hate crimes"; "racism" — which is completely absurd since Islam is not a race and opposition to it cannot therefore be racist; and "Islamophobia" which is already gaining currency as a moral offence even though nobody can define it.
- To raise awareness that the Sharia prohibitions against non-Muslims defending themselves against Islam and Muslims are already being implemented. Criticism and mockery of Islam are forms of self-defence in today's circumstances but people have lost their jobs or been imprisoned as a result of their opposition to Islam and Sharia. This is a less draconian parallel to having one's hand amputated since one's livelihood is cut off.
- To raise awareness that an oppressive silence has taken hold; a silence that is the fruit of ignorance maintained by fear. There are plenty of things we could wear on a badge or T-shirt but would we get away with it? How about this: "Don't be fooled by Islam — Jihadwatch" or "Don't let Islam ruin your day." Apart from the problem of aggressive responses there's the problem that any statement of this type is seen as "hate" (an abstract thing which apparently is always bad) and the wearer's credibility is downgraded. Whatever he/she is saying is effectively locked behind an invisible wall of emotional fallacies. "Enjoy The Conditions Of Omar" teases the viewer's curiosity in a non-threatening way.
- And lastly, there is only one thing left to say to those who refuse to heed the warning: Enjoy the conditions of Omar.
Resources to help you
Your first battle is to reduce your own ignorance and to clear a path through all the misinformation being spread to mislead you. You can do this very easily by studying the many good resources available to you online. Here are a few:
www.InquiryIntoIslam.com has many informative articles and analyses of Islamic doctrine, history, contemporary issues, as well as primers for the novice.
www.PoliticalIslam.com has lots of resources on primary Islamic doctrine and the teachings of Muhammad.
www.JihadWatch.org gives insight into the Islamic justifications for current events including terrorism, persecution, and subversion.
Books
Mark Durie – The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude, and Freedom. This will help you understand the worldview created by Islam, the way Islamic doctrine works as a comprehensive system, and how it has affected non-Muslims throughout its 1400 year history
Robert Spencer – The Truth about Muhammad. This will help you understand the character of Islam’s founder and how Islam itself so closely reflects his character.
Read the Koran. You will soon get to see the tenor of it, with its constant denunciations of nonbelievers and the terrors awaiting them.
The Centre for the Study of Political Islam has a series of books that are particularly helpful.
Raymond Ibrahim – Crucified Again: Exposing Islam's New War on Christianity.
Read the biography of Muhammad known as the Sira. This will show you what the primary Islamic sources say about the ‘perfect model of conduct’.
Once you have attended to your own ignorance your next battle is to break the great silence in whatever way you can. If all you feel able to do is wear a badge saying “Enjoy The Conditions Of Omar” that is a lot more than most of your sleeping contemporaries, and it will point more people to the truth about Islam and its project of universal submission.
Get yourself a badge or tee shirt with the design on it here: Conditions of Omar shop.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)