How I Helped a Young Man Understand a Central Fact About the Koran

Earlier tonight I worked late and gave one of my workmates a ride home. On the way, I was telling him about a book I am reading: The Pirate Coast. I said, "It's an interesting story and well-written. You know the Marines Hymn? From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli? The book is about how the United States Marines defeated Tripoli and why. Do you know the story?"

"No, I don't think so," he replied. "Where's Tripoli?"

"It's where Libya is now. Used to be called Tripoli. This is back in the early 1800s. It's North Africa, along the coast of the Mediterranean. The countries along the whole North African coast had been conquered by Muslim warriors centuries before, and they were all making pretty good money capturing ships traveling off their coast. There have always been lots of ships carrying goods to and fro in the Mediterranean. So these pirates would seize ships, take all the goods and the ships and then either ransom the crew or enslave them. When a country complained, they said, 'We will not attack ships from your country if you pay us this much money per year.' Eleven European countries took this deal. And the United States also paid the tribute money because they didn't have a navy to speak of, so they couldn't defend themselves militarily. We were a new country and didn't have much money, and paying the tribute was cheaper than raising a navy."

I'm a fast talker and he seemed to be enjoying the story, so I kept going. I should mention that he and I have never talked about Islam before. He was relatively new at work and he and I had excellent rapport.

The reason I'm telling you this story is that I realized afterward that I had given him some important basic information about Islam without him ever even knowing that's what I was doing. He is very laid back, and kind of reminds me of a younger version of The Dude from The Big Lebowski — kind of a live-and-let-live sort of fellow, and if I had come at him head-on with information about Islamic doctrine, I feel sure he would have resisted. But I didn't do that and he didn't resist, and I don't think he will ever look at Islam the same way again.

Anyway, I told him, "The story takes place when Thomas Jefferson was president. But before he became president, he was the American ambassador to France and he met the ambassador to Tripoli. He and John Adams sat down with Tripoli's ambassador and asked him, 'Why does your country attack our ships? We've never done anything to you.' The ambassador said, 'Our Koran commands us to make war on the infidels.'

"Jefferson found this hard to believe, so he bought a copy of the Koran and read it. As far as I know, he's the only president who ever did this. I read the Koran myself, and let me tell you, it is a shocker. Jefferson found out that the Tripoli ambassador was telling the truth. It is a Muslim's duty to make war on infidels until the whole world is Islamic. It is not optional, according to the Koran. It is an obligation of all Muslims."

My workmate looked surprised at this, but I didn't pause. I said, "So when Jefferson became president, he knew that Tripoli was not someone the U.S. would be able to negotiate with. There was no 'working things out' like he might do with a European country. So he started finding the funds to build up a navy powerful enough to defeat Tripoli.

"But the book is really about a guy named William Eaton, who was very bothered by the fact that the United States was paying tribute. It irked him to no end, and he came up with a plan to defeat Tripoli, and against all odds, and through the most unlikely alliances and through sheer determination, he and a small number of Marines managed to actually do it. It's a great book. History is always stranger than you'd expect."

Of all the different ways I have used to help my fellow non-Muslim citizens understand Islamic doctrine, this method has consistently worked the best: Simply talk about an interesting book I'm currently reading, and add in a few fundamental facts in the middle in such a way that they don't want to argue with me because they want to hear the rest of the story. So they are left with this disturbing piece of information about Islamic doctrine, delivered in a very convincing manner (in this case, the Koran's ugly secrets were confirmed by Thomas Jefferson and me), and all done within a context of good rapport and in a way that remains completely non-confrontational.

This won't work for every circumstance or every person, certainly, but when it happens, it is a beautiful thing.

Profits for "the Prophet's" Followers: Where Does It Come From?

Since Muhammad, orthodox Muslims have found methods to simultaneously weaken non-Muslims while strengthening Islam. Muhammad raided the caravans of his enemies, for example, which materially supported his army while impoverishing Islam's enemies.

With the establishment of the jizya — the tax Christians and Jews must pay in Muslim countries — the power of the Muslim state increases while simultaneously weakening competing ideologies.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban are following Muhammad's example. The organizations and their operations are funded in two ways. One is by growing opium and selling it to the infidels, which of course, is a way to simultaneously strengthen their cause and weaken their enemies. The answer to this is to not buy their drugs, of course. And try to prevent it from being imported into our country. And to do whatever we can to stop funding the forces working against us.

The second way Al Qaeda and the Taliban are funded is with Saudi oil money, a source of money that also supports the Muslim Brotherhood, the Muslim Students Association, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (the OIC, the largest voting bloc in the U.N. and the largest international organization outside the U.N.).

Saudi Arabia is the most influential member of the illegal price fixing cartel, OPEC, and Saudi Arabia insists on keeping the world price of oil high — simultaneously strengthening orthodox Islam and weakening non-Muslims globally. Iran is also an influential member of OPEC. Iranian oil money funds their nuclear program, and financially supports Hezbollah and Hamas.

In other words, OPEC keeps the world price of oil high, which simultaneously strengthens their cause and weakens their enemies. The answer to this is to not buy their oil, of course. And try to prevent it from being imported into our country. And to do whatever we can to stop funding the forces working against us.

But there's a catch. We produce oil ourselves. Many people believe the answer is to keep using oil but avoid importing any. But whether we import OPEC oil or drill it at home, the world's oil price remains the same because OPEC produces such a large percentage of the world's oil supply that they can dictate the price. And if we don't import it, other infidels will, and at OPEC's inflated price. So the third jihad retains its funding whether we abstain from importing oil or not. In fact, even if we import none of their oil, we still import their price because our own oil producers sell it to us at the world oil price, not some specially discounted price for their fellow citizens.

But if we could drill enough, couldn't we lower the world's oil price? Yes, if we could drill the equivalent of what all twelve OPEC nations produce, we might do it. But the oil produced in infidel nations is more expensive to produce, so if our domestic oil producers drilled enough oil to drop the global price, it would likely stop being profitable for most of them. Saudi Arabia has the advantage because theirs is the cheapest-to-produce oil in the world.

So they have us over a barrel. But only as long as oil retains its monopoly. As soon as the fuel market has competition, the monopoly will be broken, fuel prices will drop drastically, new businesses will boom in our country because the new competing fuels will be produced domestically, and the regimes running the OPEC nations will collapse because they won't be able to sustain their spending. Funds now promoting jihad around the world will dry up. And the economies of the free world will thrive.

This is entirely possible. And this year we could see the oil monopoly go the way of AT&T's long-distance monopoly. Two developments in the United States show a great deal of promise: The Fuel Freedom Foundation will be initiating several pilot projects in U.S. cities in 2014, and a bill has already been introduced into the U.S. Congress that would instantly create fuel competition in America. It's called the Open Fuel Standard Act and several powerful organizations have endorsed it, including ACT for America and the U.S. Energy Security Council.

The end of oil's monopoly is the most effective way to end the third jihad. Breaking oil's monopoly on transportation would simultaneously weaken the global jihad and strengthen non-Muslim nations around the world. Please throw your weight behind this movement and help your fellow non-Muslims see the wisdom and urgency in opening transportation fuel to a free market. The way to win this war is to concentrate our forces at the decisive point. Oil's monopoly is the decisive point.

The Search For The Moderate Muslim

This may be one of the most difficult issues to deal with for those of us who are working to defeat the third jihad: What about the moderate Muslims? Is there such a thing? What does "moderate" mean?

I think what most of us hope it means is "a Muslim that openly and definitely repudiates the violent, intolerant, supremacist passages in the Koran."

But the more I read about mainstream "moderate" Muslim organizations in America, the more I realize that what I hope "moderate" means and what those "moderate Muslims" mean by the term are entirely different. I am getting the feeling that the term "moderate Muslim" is not only pointless, but misleading — perhaps even deliberately misleading.

We should stop using the term. We should come up with a name for Muslims who straightforwardly reject the violent, intolerant passages in the Koran and openly reject the supremacist ideology strewn throughout Islamic teachings.

In my opinion, someone who does that is not really a Muslim, but maybe they still enjoy praying five times a day and fasting during Ramadan, so they might prefer to call themselves Muslims. Maybe they don't want to be rejected by their community and family. Who am I to tell someone what they call themselves?

On the other hand, we non-Muslims need a term that draws a distinction between the two types of Muslims. One type is dangerous to non-Muslims and one is not. A Muslim may not care about this distinction, but it's pretty important to us non-Muslims.

I heard Walid Phares use the term "democracy-seeking Muslims" and I thought that was pretty good, but it doesn't go far enough. Until a Muslim acknowledges that there are, in fact, calls to violence and intolerance against non-Muslims in their central holy book, and then repudiates those specific Koranic passages, I don't feel that Muslim can be trusted.

I know that would sound terrible to someone who doesn't know anything about Islam. But really, this is a pretty straightforward matter. If you call yourself a Muslim, almost everybody on earth is assuming you think the Koran contains the core teachings you will follow. For us non-Muslims who have read the book, that's a scary thought. For those of you who haven't read it yet, these passages will give you an idea: What the Koran Says About Non-Muslims.

So a firm repudiation of those passages would at least acknowledge that the Muslim knows those passages exist and acknowledges that they should be rejected. I know it is entirely possible someone saying so could be lying, but it would at least be a start.

What should we call Muslims who repudiate intolerant and supremacist Islamic teachings? "Moderate" isn't good enough. How about "Scrubbed Muslims?" "Jihad-rejecting Muslims?" "Freed Muslims?" "Friendly Muslims?" "Non-jihadi Muslims?" "Pluralist Muslims?"

I like "Jihad-rejecting Muslims," or JRMs. As far as non-Muslims are concerned, JRMs are the only ones we should engage in "interfaith dialogs" and the only ones allowed to provide counsel for the FBI and the only ones translating documents for security services.

JRMs are the only Muslims who should be allowed to preach in mosques in free countries or teach in madrassas. This is just simple, reasonable self-preservation. A person who calls himself a Muslim but does not openly reject the killing of non-Muslims for being non-Muslims, and who does not reject the overthrow of legitimate democracies, and who does not reject Shari'a law, should not be allowed into those positions. That should be a no-brainer for any person who cares about their government's survival.

So far there aren't many Muslims who are clearly JRMs. The term "moderate Muslims" lets them off the hook — they don't have to risk rejection by their families or perhaps even risk their lives openly repudiating specific Koranic passages, and non-Muslims are left with no way to tell who is a friend and who is a foe.

The term "moderate Muslim" also allows Muslims to remain "undeclared." They don't have to decide whose side they are on. They can secretly harbor a wish that some day their democratic country will be ruled by Shari'a, that some day Islam will reign supreme over the whole world, and that some day all kafirs will pay the jizya (tax on non-Muslims), and yet they may look in every way like a good citizen, trusted by non-Muslims, allowed into influential positions, etc. But if circumstances permitted, they would work toward their Islamic supremacist fantasy. They can function like a kind of sleeper cell in our midst.

By making our own term and defining it, we can make a clear distinction for ourselves and for Muslims, between who is an enemy and who is a friend.

I don't know if simply rejecting jihad would be even be enough, however. One of the most fundamental principles of Islam is that loyalty to Islam comes before loyalty to anything else, including one's country or even one's family. Wouldn't that be a potential problem if the person is working for the government? But maybe our definition of a JRM could include a repudiation of this Islamic hierarchy of loyalties as well.

Another problem is that it says in the Koran 91 times that a Muslim should use Mohammad as an example to emulate. And Mohammad ordered the torture of people, personally participated in beheading 600 people in one night, ordered and led raids on caravans, captured, owned and had sex with slaves, and spent the last ten years of his life conquering and subjugating people. So the definition of a JRM would also have to include a bold rejection of the idea that Mohammad is someone who should be imitated.

Since the stakes are so high for us non-Muslims (being the target of the violence), and since it is easy enough to find out what it actually says in the Koran (that it's a Muslim's duty to fight against the unbelievers until no god is worshiped in the world but Allah), we would be foolish to cavalierly grant our trust to Muslims until they prove themselves trustworthy.

The onus, the burden of proof, is not on non-Muslims.

Muslims will have to prove themselves trustworthy. This whole thing is difficult for all of us, but this distinction must be made. It's a sane response for non-Muslims to make to this sticky situation.

If any Muslim thinks this is offensive or intolerable or somehow outrageous, I think we have discovered someone who is trying to pretend those dangerous passages are not in their holy book, and that sounds like someone we cannot trust.

But if non-Muslims named and defined who we would be willing to trust, and we did it clearly and defiantly, we might find out how many Muslims are on the side of freedom, equality, and pluralism. What do you think?

Monty Python's Michael Palin Scared to Make Fun of Islam

Comedians in the free world will make fun of anything, right? Well, not quite. The following was originally published on Answering Muslims:

Trey Parker and Matt Stone received death threats after announcing that Muhammad would be appearing on an episode of South Park, so the network scrubbed the episode of anything remotely offensive in order to avoid becoming a target.

The writers for that week's episode of The Simpsons sympathized with Stone and Parker, acknowledging that criticizing Islam is simply too dangerous:

 

Likewise, Penn Jillette (of the comedy duo "Penn and Teller") said that he and Teller won't mock Islam because they "have families."

Now the great Michael Palin is admitting that he's afraid to make fun of Islam.

How long can Western civilization continue to claim, on the one hand, that Islam is no different from other religions, and, on the other hand, that Islam is clearly far more dangerous than other religions?

Daily Mail—During his Monty Python days he poked fun at everyone from the Establishment to Christianity.

But thanks to the threat of ‘heavily armed’ fanatics, Michael Palin has admitted there is one comedy taboo he is too scared to break - Islam.

The 70-year-old said religious sensitivities have increased so much since his comedy days it would now be impossible to make 1979 film Life of Brian - which satirised the life of Jesus - let alone laugh at Muslims.

He said: ‘Religion is more difficult to talk about. I don’t think we could do Life of Brian any more. A parody of Islam would be even harder.

‘We all saw what happened to Salman Rushdie and none of us want to get into all that. It’s a pity but that’s the way it is. There are people out there without a sense of humour and they’re heavily armed.’

In 1989, Mr Rushdie was forced into hiding after the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, issued a fatwa calling for him to be killed in revenge for his novel The Satanic Verses. (Continue Reading.)

Of course, comedians and comedy writers aren't the only ones who have admitted their fear of Islam. During a Question and Answer session, textual critic Bart Ehrman said that the reason he doesn't write about the Qur'an the way he writes about the Bible is that he values his life. Watch a short video of Bart Ehrman saying so by clicking here.

Will Muslim organizations like CAIR and ISNA condemn Palin, Ehrman, and others as "Islamophobes" and "bigots" for saying that it's too dangerous to criticize Islam? Or is the silencing of critics precisely the goal of these organizations?

For more on this topic, be sure to watch "Don't Make Fun of Muhammad."

A Woman in a Burqa

When you see a woman in your town wearing a burqa, does it make you feel invaded? If so, does that mean you are an intolerant racist? Does that mean you are a narrow-minded bigot?

Let me ask you another question: If you see a nun in your town wearing a nun's habit, do you feel invaded? If you see a Tibetan Buddhist monk in your town wearing monk robes, do you feel invaded? If not, then "narrow-minded bigot" and "intolerant racist" must miss the mark. Something else is causing you to feel invaded when you see a woman in a burqa.

A burqa is a visible sign indicating that the wearer is following a particular ideology. If we see a Catholic nun in a Catholic nun habit, we can guess with a high degree of certainty what ideology she follows. If we see a Tibetan monk with a shaved head and a saffron robe, we can guess with a high degree of certainty what ideology he is following. If we see a man who has shaved his head and has a swastika tattooed on his neck, we can guess with a high degree of certainty what ideology he follows.

Back to the woman in a burqa. Why are you bothered by seeing a woman in a burqa walking down your local street, but many of your fellow citizens are not the slightest bit bothered by it? Some of your fellow citizens would be much more bothered by the fact that you feel invaded. Why? Because they don't know much about Islamic doctrine. They believe Islam is just like any other religion. They may see the woman in a burqa as a wonderful manifestation of multiculturalism. You see it as an invasion. The only difference is how much you each know about Islam.

If you know someone who is not bothered by a woman in a burqa, talk to them about Islamic doctrine. Do it gently. Think small bits and long campaigns. Use Inquiry Into Islam to help you. It may take awhile for the reality to sink in, but when it does, we are in a better position to marginalize, discredit, and disempower orthodox Islam. The fewer non-Muslims unacquainted with Islam the better off we'll be.

Social Studies Textbook Review in Tennessee and Texas

The following was written by Roy White, Chapter Coordinator for ACT! for America in San Antonio, Bexar, and Kendall:

We all know of plenty of examples of the bias in social studies textbooks revealed by various groups and individuals. Concerned Tennessee citizens formed a group called Textbook Advocates that conducted reviews of over 50 textbooks that can be found here. Many of those errors involved Islam to include incomplete information on Muhammad, overstating Islam’s influence and simple disparity in word/sentence count on discussions of Islam versus other religions. Their findings are not surprising to readers of Jurisprudence and others who follow this topic.

The cleverly named, The Textbook Tattler was published to provide citizens with a synopsis of the typical errors found. It is likely these same errors are found in many of the textbooks found in states around the country. Tennessee’s efforts resulted in the current methodology of textbook selection to be under review and will most likely be replaced in the next legislative session. Their landmark success has inspired others to follow their lead including a group in Texas.

In early 2014 Texas begins the process of reviewing Social Studies textbooks that will be used for the 2015-16 school year. A group called “Truth in Texas Textbooks” or “Triple T” have begun recruiting volunteers from inside of Texas and outside who would be willing to help review the Social Studies textbooks that will be submitted by publishers.

Over 48 million textbooks are sold in Texas alone! This is a huge contract for publishers. Estimates range from 50-80% of school districts in the nation choose the same textbooks as those used in Texas schools. Publishers know, what sells in Texas will lead to millions of dollars in other states!

The purpose of TTT is simple, to provide Social Studies textbooks that are truthful and factual that meet the Texas Education Knowledge Standards (TEKS) as defined here. Fortunately Texas has put in place a well-defined set of standards that were recently updated with this resolution on eliminating the pro-Islamic/anti-Christian bias found in the current social studies textbooks.

TTT will not simply focus on eliminating this bias but many other “PC” related themes that are so often found in textbooks today. We are not affiliated with any other NPO or national organization but are independent and have reached out to groups and individuals around the country (including Tennessee) for volunteers who are willing to help us.

The long-term goal would be to have one site, such as www.textbookadvocates.com be the single depository of these textbook reviews being done around the country so teachers, parents, advocates can have a single one stop shopping place to go and see a consolidated list of reviews of textbooks.

Publishers get away with their PC tainted textbooks because in the past groups around the country didn’t talk to each other or communicate their findings. Building on what Tennessee has done Texas wishes to continue this movement to put these reviews, along with others, in the public domain at a single website that will give information to everyone who is interested.

Anti-smokers advocacy groups weren’t effective until they banded together against the tobacco companies and shared the data from all their findings. TTT wishes to take the same approach.

The most effective method for having an impact on your children’s textbooks may very well lie on not focusing on your own local school or state but helping Texas adopt the most accurate and factual textbooks which will in turn be likely to show up in your own school district. Additionally you can go through a process with other like-minded individuals who can help you learn the process for conducting reviews.

Collaborative online project management tools, conference calls, use of webinars and other methods will be used to coordinate the efforts of those interested in volunteering. It doesn't matter where you live, you can help Texas and in turn help millions of other children around the country by joining TTT and volunteering. Please share this with teachers, active and retired who are tired of teaching inaccurate or misleading information.

For those interested in serving on the TTT review team, please email truthintexastextbooks@gmail.com and get on the mailing list. You will be asked to complete a survey of interest, experience and level of commitment to the effort. TTT will conduct training beginning in early 2014 to provide reviewers with materials and templates of the best practices found among those experts who review textbooks. If you want to stop the spread of PC myths disguised as facts in social studies textbooks and pro-Islamic/anti-Judeo-Christian biases then please join the TTT team.

Recruiting for experts in the field of US government, history, world history, civics, constitutional law, world history, geography are some of the specific knowledge sets that are needed. Advanced degrees or self-taught are the same to TTT; your knowledge and effort in this endeavor will benefit millions of children for years to come.
______________________

Roy White, Chapter Coordinator
ACT! for America San Antonio, Bexar, Kendall
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/actbexar
Twitter: @ACTBexar

Alleged Kansas Bomber Wanted to Be "Obedient Slave of Allah"

A friend sent me the following: You're probably aware of the attempted bomb attack of the Wichita airport recently. Below is a short description of the event. At the end is a link to the criminal complaint filed in the U.S. District court against Terry Loewen. The complaint is worth reading because of the insight it gives into the thought process of an orthodox Muslim.
......................

An FBI sting has led to the arrest of a Wichita, Kan. man who thought he was about to die in a suicide car bombing that targeted a terminal at the city's Mid-Continent Airport.

Terry Lee Loewen, 58, worked at the airport as an avionics technician. This gave him access to airport grounds. He was arrested before dawn Friday after he tried to open a security gate and get on the tarmac, the Kansas City Star reports.

According to a three-count complaint, Loewen discussed his view of faith as a Muslim. That included expressing "his desire to engage in violent jihad on behalf of al Qaeda" during an online conversation with someone whom, unbeknownst to him, was an FBI employee.

"I don't understand how you can read the Qur'an and the sunnah of the Prophet (saw) and not understand that jihad and the implementation of Sharia is absolutely demanded of all the Muslim Ummah," Loewen allegedly wrote Aug. 5. "I feel so guilt-ridden sometimes for knowing what's required of me but yet doing little or nothing to make it happen. I love my Muslim brothers and sisters, whether they agree with me or not, it's just hard to deal with the denial that some of them appear to be going through."

Osama bin Laden and American-born al-Qaida cleric Anwar al-Awlaki "are a great inspiration to me, but I must be willing to give up everything (like they did) to truly feel like a (sic) obedient slave of Allah (swt)," he wrote a few days later.

Later that month, he asked for help finding "someone who is active in jihad and could use an occasional influx of 'help' ... I just hate the kaffar government and those who are following it to the Hellfire, and the sooner it and its followers get there, the better."

Loewen was trying to drive a van packed with explosives to a terminal as part of a plan he spent months developing, a Department of Justice statement says. He "talked about his commitment to trigger the device and martyr himself."

The explosives were rendered inert by the FBI and the public was never in danger. Agents were drawn to Loewen early last summer after he made statements about jihad. He is with trying to use a weapon of mass destruction, and attempting to provide material support to al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, a designated foreign terrorist organization.

Many national Islamist groups have criticized similar sting operations, arguing the FBI is manufacturing a terrorist threat where it might not exist. If Loewen's correspondence in the complaint proves accurate, however, he was a man with the motivation and access to pull off a horrific attack. Left alone, he might have found ways to make his own bomb.

At one point, Loewen acknowledged not knowing whether he could trust his contact. But it wasn't enough to discourage him from pursuing an attack. "my greatest fear is not being able to complete an operation because I was set up," he wrote. "I hate this government so much for what they have done to our brothers and sisters, that to spent (sic) the rest of my life in prison without having taken a good slice out of the serpents head is unacceptable to me."

If convicted, Loewen could face life in prison.

................................

The complaint, filed Friday, December 13, 2013: http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/2281.pdf#page=13