Muslims Captured and Enslaved Hundreds of Americans

The following passages are excerpted from the excellent book, The Pirate Coast: Thomas Jefferson, the First Marines, and the Secret Mission of 1805, by Richard Zacks:

In 1801, just after the inauguration of Thomas Jefferson, Tripoli had become the first country ever to declare war on the United States. The ruler, Yussef Karamanli, had ordered his Janissaries to chop down the flagpole at the U.S. consulate to signal his grave displeasure with the slow trickle of gifts from America. Jefferson, when he learned the news, had responded by sending a small fleet to confront Tripoli and try to overawe it into a peace treaty.

For more than two centuries, the Barbary countries of Morocco, Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli (now called Libya) had been harassing Christian ships, seizing cargo and capturing citizens. Algiers once boasted more than 30,000 Christian slaves, including one Miguel Cervantes, before he wrote Don Quixote. European powers in the 1500s and 1600s fought ferocious battles against Muslim pirates like Barbarosa. However, over time, a cynical system of appeasement had developed. The nations of Europe paid tribute — in money, jewels, and naval supplies — to remain at peace. England and France — in endless wars — found it cheaper to bribe the Barbary pirates than to devote a squadron to perpetually trawling the sea off Africa. At its core, expediency outweighed national honor.

When the thirteen American colonies split off from mother England, they lost British protection. The United States found itself lumped in the pile of potential Barbary victims, alongside the likes of Sardinia and Sicily. (From 1785 to 1815, more than six hundred American citizens would be captured and enslaved. This nuisance would prove to be no mere foreign trade issue but rather a near-constant hostage crisis.)

In colonial days, preacher Cotton Mather had described Barbary slaves as living for years in dug-out pits with a crosshatch of bars above... Galley slaves also lived to tell of being chained naked to an oar, forced to row ten hours at a stretch. Slaves, facing forward, pushed the forty-foot-long oars by rocking back to near horizontal, as though in a grotesque limbo contest, and then lurching with full strength, again and again. During hard chases, they were sustained by a wine-soaked rag shoved in their mouths...

Rituals varied, but in one account (of a North African slave auction) an American stated that after being purchased: "I was forced to lie down in the street and take the foot of my new master and place it upon my neck." Another described being forced to lick the dust along a thirty-foot path to the throne of the [king] of Algiers (now called Algeria).

John Foss survived captivity in Algiers, and his popular account ran in several American newspapers in the late 1790s, fleshing out the nightmare. He wrote of prisoners (Americans who had been captured on American ships and enslaved) routinely shackled with forty-pound chains, forced to perform sunrise-to-sunset labor ranging from digging out sewers to hauling enormous rocks for the harbor jetty. He matter-of-factly described the most common Barbary punishment for light infractions: bastinado of 150 strokes: "The person is laid upon his face, with his hands in irons behind him and his legs lashed together with a rope. One taskmaster holds down his head and another his legs, while two others inflict the punishment upon his breech (his buttocks) with sticks, somewhat larger than an ox goad. After he has received one half in this manner, they lash his ankles to a pole, and two Turks (Muslims) lift the pole up, and hold it in such a manner, as he brings the soles of his feet upward, and the remainder of his punishment, he receives upon the soles of his feet."

In 1803, Tripoli captured the Philadelphia. The Americans onboard the beautiful 1,200-ton American frigate were captured too, most of them enslaved.

The loss of the Philadelphia and its 307 crewmen and officers on Kaliusa Reef in Tripoli harbor marked a national disaster for the young United States. The Bashaw (king of Tripoli), a wily and worthy adversary, would set his first ransom demand for the American slaves at $1,690,000, more than the entire military budget of the United States.

Navy officers like the fierce Captain John Rodgers would beg for the chance to attack Tripoli to avenge and free his comrades; diplomats such as Tobias Lear, a Harvard graduate, yearned for the glory of negotiating their release. But the man who would one day speed their freedom more than all others was a stubby disgraced former army officer...

Here's a quote by William Eaton (the stubby former army officer): "If the Congress do not consent that the government shall send a force into the Mediterranean to check the insolence of these scoundrels and to render the United States respectable, I hope they will resolve at their next session to wrest the quiver of arrows from the left talon of the American Eagle...and substitute a fiddle bow or a cigar in lieu."

Eaton also said, "Let my fellow-citizens be persuaded that there is no borne limit to the avarice of the Barbary princes; like the insatiable grave, they can never have enough. Consign them the revenues of the United States as the price of peace, they would still tax our labors for more veritable expressions of friendship. But it is a humiliating consideration to the industrious citizen, the sweat of whose brow supports him with bread, that a tithe from his hard earnings must go to the purchase of oil of roses to perfume the pirate's beard!

"It is true that Denmark and Sweden (and even the United States, following their example) gratuitously furnish almost all their materials for ship-building and munitions of war; besides the valuable jewels and large sums of money we are continually paying into their hands for their forbearance, and for the occasional ransom of captives...Without these resources they would soon sink under their own ignorance and want of means to become mischievous. Why this humiliation? Why furnish them the means to cut our own throats?"

After the crew of the Philadelphia was enslaved, the captives were hoping the U.S. government would pay their ransom and bring them home.

Everyone knew that ransom might take months or years, but they also knew that there existed a simple way for the men to become free immediately, and that was to convert to Islam. Less than three weeks into captivity, John Wilson, a quartermaster born in Sweden, decided to "turn Turk" (convert), as did Thomas Prince, a seventeen-year-old from Rhode Island. Three more Americans would follow them.

The officials of Tripoli, who encouraged and allowed the religious conversion, took the matter seriously. Since the Koran forbids Muslims from enslaving Muslims, a conversion meant freedom from slavery. As Ray put it, "Thomas Prince was metamorphosed from a Christian to a Turk." His choice word metamorphosed was quite apt. Not only did the ritual involve words of faith and promises to perform new rituals, but also a change of clothes and that inevitable loss of foreskin. While circumcision is not mentioned in the Koran (as it is in the Old Testament, Genesis 17:11), the rite became sanctified by Muslim theologians as far back as the seventh and eighth centuries.

The main story of the book is that William Eaton and seven U.S. Marines organized and led a group of thousands of enemies of the king of Tripoli and captured the second biggest city in the country, making the king willing to negotiate a treaty and return the captured Americans. A few years later, the American navy became powerful enough to put a permanent end to the Muslim capture of American ships in the Mediterranean.

The above (except what is in italics) was excerpted from the book, The Pirate Coast, by Richard Zack. Without ever saying it explicitly, these excerpts demonstrate that aggression toward Western nations in the name of Islam is not a modern phenomenon, and is not caused by recent grievances. Modern grievances used to justify violence are pretexts, used since Mohammad's time (read more about that here). The reason Thomas Jefferson knew this is because he read the Koran.  

If you would like to share the excerpts above, we've posted these same passages on Inquiry Into Islam (to make it easier to share). Use this link: Hundreds of Americans Were Captured and Enslaved. 

Why Are People Suspicious of Muslims?

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."

Seeing More Headscarves

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

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

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

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

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

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

No One Would Listen

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

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

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

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

But nobody believed him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

In July, Orthodox Muslims Were Urged to Start Forest Fires

On July 26, 2020, the Al-Hayat Media Center uploaded an animated video titled "Incite the Believers" to its Telegram channel. The narrator called upon Muslims living in non-Muslim lands to avenge their Muslim brothers using whatever weapons are available to them and to carry out jihad. Follow the link below if you want to see the video.

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:

Pro-ISIS Media Center Urges Muslim In The West To Set Forests, Factories, Agricultural Fields, And Buildings On Fire

MEMRI translates television and video clips from the Muslim world into English.

Read more about the video from Homeland Security Today:

ISIS Video Urges Arson as ‘Five-Star’ Terror Tactic, Shows California Burning

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.

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,

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:

• 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.

Stabbing for Allah

The attackers are hailed as brave heroes, with a youth soccer tournament named for Muhannad Halabi, who murdered two Israelis, wounding the wife and two-year-old son of one in a stabbing in Jerusalem in early October. Some terrorists, killed by Israeli security forces and police either during or in the immediate aftermath of their attacks, are revered as shahids (martyrs) and have had streets and squares named in their honor.

The bloody toll to date includes a dozen dead and at least 19 seriously wounded in 59 separate stabbing attacks, mainly in Jerusalem. Some 72 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli security forces, including 45 who Israel said were involved in attacks and another 27 Palestinians killed in clashes between stone-throwers and security forces.

The latest attack came on Friday afternoon, when a Palestinian stabbed an Israeli outside a supermarket in Sha’ar Binyamin “injuring him severely,” according to local authorities.

The above is quoted from an article by Paul Alster. Read the whole article here: Blade of Jihad.