Bosch Fawstin: Calling Islam "Islam"

Western intellectuals and commentators refer to the enemy's ideology as:

"Islamic Fundamentalism", "Islamic Extremism", "Totalitarian Islam", "Islamofascism", "Political Islam", "Militant Islam", "Bin Ladenism", "Islamonazism", "Radical Islam", "Islamism", etc....

The enemy calls it "Islam".

Imagine, if during past wars, we used terms such as "Radical Nazism", "Extremist Shinto" and "Militant Communism". Those who use terms other than "Islam" create the impression that it's some variant of Islam that's behind the enemy that we're facing.

A term such as "Militant Islam" is redundant, but our politicians continue praising Islam as if it were their own religion. Bush told us, "Islam means peace" -- after 2,996 Americans were murdered in its name.

He maintained that illusion throughout his two terms, and never allowed our soldiers to defeat the enemy. And now we have Obama, who tells us, from Egypt: “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear." Washington's defense of Islam has trumped the defense of America and this dereliction of duty could well be called Islamgate.

Islam is a political religion; the idea of a separation of Mosque and state is unheard of in the Muslim world. Islam has a doctrine of warfare, Jihad, which is fought in order to establish Islamic ("Sharia") Law, which is, by nature, totalitarian.

Sharia Law calls for, among other things: the dehumanization of women; the flogging/stoning/killing of adulterers; and the killing of homosexuals, apostates and critics of Islam. All of this is part of orthodox Islam, not some "extremist" form of it. If jihadists were actually "perverting a great religion", Muslims would have been able to discredit them on Islamic grounds and they would have done so by now. The reason they can't is because jihadists are acting according to the words of Allah, the Muslim God. From the Koran:

"Slay the idolators wherever you find them..." Chapter 9, verse 5

"When you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads until you have made a great slaughter among them...." Ch. 47:4

Beyond the doctrine, there is the historical figure of Mohammad, who, more than anyone, defines Islam. How would you judge a man who lies, cheats, steals, rapes and murders as a way of life?

This evil man is Islam's ideal man, Mohammad. Whatever he said and did is deemed moral by virtue of the fact that he said it and did it. It's no accident that the only morality that could sanction his behavior was his own.

Nor is it an accident that Muslims who model themselves after him are the most violent. For the 13 years that Mohammad failed to spread Islam by non-violent means, he was not so much peaceful as he was powerless. It was only through criminal activity that he gained power and a large gang of followers.

But he wanted his moral pretense, too, so he changed Islam to reflect the fact that the only way it could survive was through force. And so, acting on Allah's conveniently timed "revelation" that Islam can and should be spread by the sword, Mohammad led an army of Muslims across Arabia in the first jihad.

From then on, violence became Islam's way in the world. And today, acting on Mohammad's words, "War is deceit", Muslims use earlier "peaceful" verses from the Koran as a weapon against the ignorance and good will of their victims.

Those "peaceful" passages in the Koran were abrogated by later passages calling for eternal war against those who do not submit to Islam. How Mohammad spread Islam influenced the content of its doctrine and therefore tells us exactly what Islam means.

Note also that the only reason we're talking about Islam is because we've been forced to by its jihad. And where are Islam's "conscientious objectors"? Nowhere to be found, for even lax Muslims have been silent against jihad. But that doesn't stop desperate Westerners from pointing to them as representives of "Moderate Islam".

Far from being a personal faith, Islam is a collectivist ideology that rejects a live-and-let-live attitude towards non-Muslims.

And while the jihadists may not represent all Muslims, they do represent Islam.

In the end, most Muslims have proven themselves to be mere sheep to their jihadist wolves, irrelevant as allies in this war. Recovering Muslims call the enemy's ideology "Islam", and they dismiss the idea of "Moderate Islam" as they would the idea of "Moderate Evil". When, based on his actions, Mohammad would be described today as a "Muslim Extremist", then non-violent Muslims should condemn their prophet and their religion, not those who point it out.

Islam is the enemy's ideology and evading that fact only helps its agents get away with more murder than they would otherwise. Western politicians have sold us out, so it's up to the rest of us to defend our way of life by understanding Islam and telling the truth about it in whatever way we can.

If we can't even call Islam by its name, how the hell are we going to defend ourselves against its true believers? One could argue that we'd be better off if the West would just choose one of the many terms currently used for the enemy's ideology. For my part, I call the enemy what they are, "Jihadists", and our response, "The War on Jihad." But behind it all, it's Islam that makes the enemy tick.

Despite my frustrations with the refusal of many to call Islam "Islam", I know that those who speak out against Jihad put themselves in danger, and I respect their courage. But it's important that we acknowledge Islam's place in the threat we face and say so without equivocation. Not saying "Islam" helps Islam and hurts us. So let's begin calling the enemy's ideology by its name.

Let's start calling Islam "Islam."

Bosch Fawstin is an ex-Muslim, caricature artist and the author "Propiganda", a caricature presentation of Islam. Visit his website: http://fawstin.blogspot.com/. This article appeared in Infidel Bloggers Alliance website.

Thanks to Islam Watch

Amil Imani: The Spirit of Christmas and Islam

This is the time of the year that the air is filled with everything Christmas. There is something for everyone: gifts for family and friends, prayers at churches, and Christmas music everywhere. It puts me in a contemplative mood, particularly when I hear the delightful Christian refrain, peace on earth, goodwill to men.

This is the gift I want. This is my Christmas. When there is peace on earth and all people dispense and receive good will.

Yet, I am saddened to see the world as it is, particularly with what Islam is doing to it, which is the exact opposite of working for peace and extending goodwill to all people.

My contemplation takes me to the genesis of Islam.

Something I have come to view as a scourge of humanity, and here are a few of my random thoughts about the founder of Islam: the person who launched a religion that has denied peace to mankind right from the start, the person who advanced a religion that began with war, continues with war, and aims to carry on with bloodletting to the end of time. All this makes me think and shake my head in bewilderment.

Starting with the premise that an all-knowing powerful God is the creator of this awe-inspiring universe where we humans are an infinitesimally insignificant part of his creation humbles me.

Muslims call this creator Allah—a recast of one of 360 idols in the pre-Islamic Idolatry of Mecca—and attribute numerous superhuman qualities to him. It is awe-inspiring to realize that a being of that description may indeed exist.

That leads me to some questions: Why would such an indescribably exalted creator, with his ascribed boundless wisdom and resources, pick an illiterate Bedouin to become his prophet for then and forever? The man himself, Muhammad, admitted in the Quran to his own illiteracy. Yet, Allah persisted in choosing this man? Was Allah bored with the rest of his universe and playing a joke on us helpless mortals? Or was it a case of Allah not being able to get any reasonably literate man to take the job?

I don’t have an answer to this or a bevy of other questions and the answers I have seen so far from Muslims are far from satisfactory. I am forced to mark this as one of the enigmas of life and move on to further look into Muhammad, his claims, his life and the way all might come together with Allah’s choreography of our life of drama.

Muslims claim that Muhammad was the most perfect man, the kind of saintly man that each and every one of us should adulate and aspire to follow. On the top of their list is the desire to lead their lives in such a way that would please Allah, if they can.

Muhammad has done that, Muslims claim. And apparently Allah, in his infinite kindness, does not require the rest of us mortals to do things that we are incapable of doing. And Muhammad has brought us the perfect life manual, the Quran, to help us in our quest, we are told.

Besides, a great inducement for me to check Islam out is the promise of eternal life in an indescribably lush sensual paradise of Allah if I make the grade. If I fail, I am told, my forever destination is the dreadful inferno of hell.

More at Islam Watch

Questions for Every Muslim

By Bill Warner

When you study the incident of Major Hasan at Fort Hood, you realize that there were some questions that needed to have been asked. But, no one knew what to ask, since the wrong questions might seem, well, politically incorrect. No one wants to be politically incorrect. We don’t want to offend.

If you look around you will find that no one is asking any Muslims hard questions. Never mind the Major Hasan types, no one asks questions to the Muslim at work. It turns out that there are many questions that each and every Muslim should be asked. These are simple ones that deal with the core of Islam. Every Muslim knows the answers.

“Do you believe that the Koran is perfect?” This is not offensive. Muslims must believe that the Koran is perfect, without error. They also believe that it is eternal and universal. Most of all, it came from the lips of Mohammed.

“Is Mohammed the ideal Muslim? Should Muslims pattern their life after Mohammed?” Again, don’t worry that Muslims will find this awkward. Mohammed is admired, looked up to, and idealized. He is the perfect father, husband, friend, warrior, wise elder and best companion that could be.

These questions establish the Islam of the believer. Every Muslim believes that the Koran is perfect, and Mohammed is the ideal human.

Islam is only partially based on the Koran. Far more of a Muslim’s life is governed by Mohammed than the Koran and Allah. Why is this so important? The practical way to understand Islam and what Muslims believe and think is to know about Mohammed. This is very good news. Anyone can understand Mohammed’s life.

However, once you get to know Mohammed, the perfect Muslim, Islam becomes problematic.

From the first days of being a prophet Mohammed not only preached a better way of life, but he attacked all those who did not believe him. He created a new type of human being called the kafir, usually called unbeliever, but this is not an accurate translation. A kafir is the worst person in the world; an unbeliever is just someone who does not believe. A kafir can be mocked, deceived, tortured, enslaved, murdered, robbed, raped, and plotted against. Kafir is the worst word in the human language.

Now we are ready to ask a Muslim another question. “Am I a kafir?”

The only answer is yes, but that is not the answer you will get. If you are a Christian you will be told no, you are a person of the Book. That sounds nice, but if you don’t believe that both Jesus and Mohammed were the prophets of Allah and that the Gospels are false, then you are a Christian kafir. They also might say that you are a non-Muslim, but that is not what the Koran says. The Koran says that you are a kafir.

Now we come to more questions that should be asked, but most people do not have the knowledge to ask them, since the questions are based on knowing Mohammed’s life. As an example, Mohammed repeatedly advised Muslims to deceive kafirs if it would advance Islam. So: “Have you ever deceived a kafir?” is appropriate to ask.

Mohammed assassinated kafirs, tortured, enslaved, robbed and plotted against them. His entire life as a prophet was an attempt to make kafirs submit to Islam by any means possible. It is proper then to ask: “How do you feel about what he did?”

If you are a Christian, ask: “Over 60 million Christians have been killed in jihad. Christians are persecuted daily in Islamic lands. Have you ever apologized for this?”

If you are a black American, ask: “Islam sold slaves on the West coast of Africa, the east coast of Africa and the Mediterranean. You enslaved over a million Europeans. Why do you never take any responsibility for slavery?”

If you are a Jew, ask: “How do you see the war against Israel as jihad?”

The other reason we do not ask questions is that we have become a nation of deceivers under political correctness. We don’t ask Muslims any question that would make them feel “uncomfortable”.

It is completely reasonable to ask anyone about their ideology. Christians, Jews, liberals, conservatives and every other ideology have to answer questions about what they believe. Why not Muslims?

That is the true question for kafirs: “Why are Muslims the only people in the world who don’t have to be asked difficult questions about what they believe?”

All Muslims must answer questions about Islam, questions about Mohammed and the Koran for the only way to know a Muslim is to know their Islam.

Western Front

Do Muslims Have A Legal Right Over Jerusalem?

IN The Year 2000, Israelis and the Palestinians were on the verge of signing at Camp David, under the auspices of the then American President Bill Clinton, a historical agreement that would have settled all the disputes between them and brought peace and prosperity to the Middle East, in general, and to the Muslims of Palestine and the Jews of Israel, in particular.

This agreement would also have made our earth a much better place for all of us to live in relative peace.

But when all the arrangements were ready for the signing of the agreement, the Palestinians backed out, demanding, among others, that the Israelis grant them complete sovereignty over East Jerusalem’s Islamic holy site, in particular, the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

But what right do the Muslims have to claim their complete sovereignty over East Jerusalem and why Israel should not cave in to their demand? To find the answer to this crucial question, we need to go to the Quran and see what it says about Jerusalem and if Muslims have at all any right over it.

The name “Jerusalem” does not appear in the Quran.

However, a verse in it supposedly alludes to Jerusalem, saying:

17:1: “Glory to (Allah) Who did take His servant for a Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the farthest Mosque, whose precincts We did bless,- in order that We might show him some of Our Signs: for He is the One Who heareth and seeth (all things).”

Muhammad was clearly the speaker of this verse. He claimed that Allah took him for a journey by night from the Sacred Mosque (in Mecca) to the farthest Mosque whose precinct Allah blessed in order that he could show Muhammad some of His Signs. Muhammad, however, did not describe where that farthest mosque was located and what Signs of Allah he had seen at or in the vicinity of that mosque.

In the footnote to the above verse, Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, one of the foremost Muslim scholars, confirms that the Mosque referred to in the verse was located in Jerusalem.[1] N. J. Dawood holds the same opinion.[2] Abdullah Yusuf Ali, having been helped by the Hadith literature as well as by his strenuous study of them, which also enabled him to elucidate the mystical meaning of the journey, maintains: “The holy Prophet was first transported to the seat of the earlier revelations in Jerusalem, and then taken through the seven heavens, even to the Sublime Throne, and initiated into the spiritual mysteries of the human soul struggling in Space and Time.”[3]

The location of the so-called ‘Farthest Mosque’ (‘Masjidul Aqsa’ in Arabic) thus established, let us now focus on whether the night journey Muhammad had allegedly made was corporeal, or a dream

But before doing that, let us note one important fact, it being: curiosity to know has always been one of mankind’s strongest instincts. It is not that this instinct is possessed only by the humans, even animals, such as ape and bear et al, are also born with it that allows them to know their surroundings before they can venture out into a difficult and dangerous world of their own.

The fact that man had always been curious to know about him, his supposed creator, his surroundings and the universe is manifest from the religious scriptures, in which, at least eighty-five percent of today’s world population firmly believe, supposedly, in order to live a “righteous life.” From these scriptures, we learn how our distant ancestors had tried to uncover the heavens’ secrets. Two of the secrets they tried to unveil related to our origin and the mysteries that abound in the heavens.

Because all humans have originated from a single couple (i.e. Adam and his wife who had only sons and no daughters), all humans in the beginning naturally spoke a single language. Using the unity brought to them by their common language, they took to building a tower to the heavens, so that they could learn what was going on inside each one of the seven heavens.

More at Islam Watch

Fitna and the Kafir, Part Two

By Kenneth Roberts

[Part One]

Both Sunnis and Shi’ites believe in the use of sacred violence. The right to coerce the infidels and subdue them was given by Allah to Mohammed as owner of the earth.

Theologically, mocking Mohammed’s method of controlling the infidels is blasphemy, for the violent method of Mohammed comes directly from Allah.

Allah’s method trumps human logic, even the Western ideal of free speech that is based on mere human philosophy and mere human reasoning, rather than Allah’s Divine Command.

In mere human philosophy, Mohammed’s fitna-prevention method is built on a fallacy of logic called the Appeal to Force in place of logical argument. But this fallacious argument is the main argument of the Koran. Muslims know that the Koranic argument for violence against the infidels takes up 2/3 of the Koran and they further know that the Koranic argument cannot be wrong, for it comes directly from Allah and Allah is not a liar.

Mohammed’s method for eliminating fitna is jihad and all Muslims should freely use Mohammed’s method, since Mohammed is their role model. This is what Muslims did in the Danish cartoon riots.

It is also what motivated Dr. Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood on November 5, 2009.

Normally, Muslims will not kill infidels for merely thinking non-Islamic thoughts. After all, who knows what another person is thinking, even one’s own spouse? Sacred violence is authorized when open disagreement with Mohammed is expressed in the public domain, as with a cartoon or an anti-Islamic book. It need not be the guilty person who is punished, so we can never be sure of the physical safety of any infidels, since throughout history, jihads have often included mass slaughters and genocides of men, women and children.

Mohammed approved of such indiscriminate killing of unbelievers on occasion, if it was convenient for him. During a night-time sneak attack on a town, Mohammed was asked about his customary method of sparing women and children (so that they could be sources of revenue as slaves). According to the Hadith by Abu Muslim 19:4322 , Mohammed responded, “They are of them.” In other words, the women and children are accomplices in the fitna of the defending males. And besides, it was inconvenient to attack and carry lanterns to check everything that moves in the dark.

Here Mohammed authorized wholesale slaughter of an entire community. The justification for this was the political charge of fitna. So no infidel is ever innocent of fitna, a capital crime.

Such logic was used by Major Nidal Hasan when he committed a wholesale slaughter http://www.faithfreedom.org/islam/islamic-mind-major-nidal-hasan of 13 unarmed American soldiers: …the American army opposes Mohammed’s method…it is guilty of fitna…and the 13 slaughtered soldiers ‘are of them.’

This made Dr. Hasan a hero to the former mullah of his mosque, because he executed the enemies of Mohammed using deceit and surprise, just like Mohammed did. Mohammed frequently executed unarmed prisoners of war. Dr. Hasan is a rational, pious Muslim. His ideas agree with the official scholarly concensus of normative Islam.

Mohammed’s brilliant method of ruthless assassination silences fitna by paralyzing the brain with fear. Mohammed’s method may not be judged by any external standard, because his method is itself the standard. Forget the obvious ethical flexibility or opportunism. Mohammed’s method takes a position above human logic, ethical analysis and philosophical discourse. To analyze Mohammed’s ethical inconsistencies is fitna.

Today, Islamic governments are seeking new ways to control fitna beyond their borders. Kafir fitna is temptation or luring that tempts Muslims to question or lose their faith. Kafirs commit fitna every time they disagree with Sharia law in the public domain, when they mock Mohammed’s violent method in cartoons or use reason or logic on the Internet to show Mohammed is wrong.

Such politically incorrect utterance keeps the Islamic state from insuring all information supports the unity and power of that State and its jihadist army.

Information control is normative Islam and is fully acceptable to all pious Muslims, since it prevents fitna, the ultimate crime. Modern Muslims agree that fitna should be removed from human society through censorship of discourse that disagrees with Islam, even in the Human Rights Council of the United Nations. By removing the right to disagree with Islam at the UN, Muslim governments hope to implement global information control.

Politically, this will allow Islamic governments to totally ignore all human rights complaints by claiming Muslims have a unique human right: the right of not hearing any criticism.

When governments of the Islamic Conference say they wish to remove utterances that criticizes Islam, they actually mean ‘fitna’…public disagreement with Mohammed.

Islamic governments know fitna control is needed before discriminatory Sharia law can be fully implemented and jihad can go ahead. They seek to shut down the freedom of UN diplomats to discuss any human rights aspect of Islam. They cast a veil over Islamic discrimination against women and minorities in view of the radical claim that Muslims have a superior, unique human right which infidels do not possess.

More at WesternFront

Fitna and the Kafir: Part One

By Kenneth Roberts

Why do cartoons constitute a capital crime in Islam? Why did writing ‘The Satanic Verses’ bring a death sentence and bounty upon Sir Salman Rushdie?

Why does a military psychiatrist fire more than 100 rounds into an unarmed crowd he was trained to heal? Why do Muslims express violent anger concerning differences of religious opinion? The one-word answer to these questions is ‘FITNA‘.

Fitna is one of the most important concepts in Islam, but it is a totally alien concept to Western philosophy. The concept of fitna totally abnegates our notions of free expression or logical discourse.

The concept of fitna subjugates all thought to the method of Mohammed.

Fitna is spotted by the mullahs who also pick the Islamic response to it. In response to the Danish cartoons, they instructed Muslims to riot. Grand Imam Sayyed Tantawi, the paramount authority in Islam, demanded the closing of Jyllands Posten to prevent further fitna. Muslims studiously avoid the word fitna when talking to infidels.

What is fitna then?

The definition is surprisingly simple: Fitna is any disagreement with Mohammed. More precisely, Fitna is any islamicly-incorrect thought which is communicated to others in the public domain.

This definition fits all the confusing facts and makes sense of all the Islamic dualisms. Fitna is a thought crime. Fitna is a dualistic cocktail of blasphemy and treason.

As with almost everything in Islam, fitna is very hard to explain, because it is couched in Islamic dualism. Even Muslims have trouble explaining it, but they can identify it when they see it. And when they see it, they react violently.

There are two distinctly different classes of fitna: inter-Islamic fitna and infidel fitna. In relation to the evil infidels, fitna means ‘tempting’, ‘enticing’ or ‘luring’ another to disagree with Mohammed. Fitna comes from an old Arabic word that means removing the dross from pure metal. Pure Islam is held in check by fitna, so it must be purged.

In modern Islamic usage, fitna is used to describe ideas that cause controversy, testing, fragmentation, scandal, chaos, or discord, disturbing social peace and order within the Muslim community, …such things as openly disagreeing with the head of state of Egypt or Iran or with something found in Sharia law. When a professor at an Arab university quotes original research on the primary sources of Islam, he is immediately accused of fitna and his life is simultaneously threatened. Inter-Islamic fitna is what most Muslims understand when they think of the word ‘fitna’.

Muslims cast a veil over ‘kafir fitna’…the politically incorrect free speech of wicked infidels that justifies jihad and brings Allah’s just punishment upon them.

Mohammed discovered a brilliant way to criminalize differences of opinion with himself. He called his invention ‘fitna’ and made it the worst crime in his new religion. Any utterance that tests Mohammed’s method is a chargeable offence and a capital crime if it persists. The religious charge of blasphemy veils the serious political charge of treason against Mohammed.

Mohammed is Allah’s vice-regent on earth. Not only does Mohammed define the truth, but he has a right to punish those who disagree. Moreover, Mohammed is both the constitution and the Islamic state. By disagreeing with Mohammed, you are calling him wrong, in error or worse yet a liar. That is slander and character assassination, but it is also the crime of treason against the Islamic Nation.

The Koran likes to say infidels are accusing Mohammed of being a liar, since that sounds more dramatic and culpable. The Koran commands the punishment of fitna after making it sound reprehensible. Anyone disagreeing with Mohammed in any way has become an enemy of the state who should be treated severely and with violence.

Private disagreements with Mohammed are acceptable, as long as they do not reach the eyes or ears of Muslims. However, public disagreement demands public Islamic punishment. ‘Punishment’ euphemistically means the death penalty, normatively by beheading.

More at WesternFront

Amil Imani - Islam is Misunderstood!

Everybody just relax.

Islam is badly misunderstood. The negative stereotype of Islam is the usual evil-doings of Zionists in America and their foolish fellow travelers, fundamentalist Christians. Please don’t listen to what these hatemongers say about Islam and hear us out. So implies the nationally-launched campaign of Muslim organizations in the United States.

Ads are popping up in newspapers and magazines proclaiming the magnificence of Islam and aiming to refute the “false allegations” of Islam’s ill-wishers.

Huge billboards are festooning major highways, such as the one along Highway 101 and Tully Road in San Jose, California, with crafty messages. Bold letters on the billboard proclaim: Islam You Deserve to Know. A toll-free number, 1-877-WhyIslam and website, WhyIslam.org beckon the public to get the real scoop about the religion of peace.

The billboard sneakily reminds the viewers about their kinship with Muslims. “Islam: The message of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Mohammad.”

Well folks—Christians and Jews—the overwhelming majority of the people in the United States, you need to relax about Islam. Muslims are family. They are your kindred through your shared progenitor, Abraham.

Having Abraham as an ancestor would demand that the “children” be loving siblings. That’s the message the American Muslims try to convey. And that’s the way they aim to keep us in the deadly slumber of complacency and the delusion of multiculturalism.

For one, multiculturalism and multi-religionism are not interchangeable and are not one and the same. Muslims and their frequently well-paid apologists use the multiculturalism umbrella only in non-Islamic lands to shield themselves from the torrent of legitimate criticisms that those who know Islam better shower on this cult of violence peddled as the religion of peace.

Don’t listen to me and don’t listen to these conniving dissimulators. Find out for yourself. See if the euphemism of multiculturalism is ever even mentioned by any Islamic leader, ever printed in the Islamic press, or ever appears in any form anywhere in Muslim countries. This multiculturalism gambit is Islam manufactured wool to pull over the eyes of the non-Muslims while the Muslims carry on with their unrelenting campaign of eradicating anything or anyone non-Islamic anywhere in the world.

Those of us, through reason and tremendous act of will, who have freed ourselves from the enslaving yoke of Islam placed around our necks from birth, know about all the heinous inside dirt of this plague of humanity. We hardly need to call a toll-free number to hear a phony canned message of deceptions and lies.

We have experienced Islam first-hand and up close from the inside. We have studied the Quran, the Hadith, and the Sunna. We have seen Islam in action where it wields sway. Some of us even tried desperately to cling to this security blanket that was wrapped around us from birth. Yet, the more we studied and the more we experienced Islam, the more our effort to remain in the fold became untenable.

We broke away from Islamic slavery and found it to be our solemn duty to expose this fraud of a religion, help other Muslims to free themselves from it, and warn the good-hearted and gullible non-Muslims against falling prey to it.

The Muslim organizations in America, generously financed by the oil-rich Muslim government and sheikhs, are directed to sell Islam Lite for long enough until the cult runs deep roots and the Real Islam is introduced. One can see how the scheme played out in Europe. Much of Europe is already past the stage of Islam Lite and knee deep into the quagmire of Real Islam. And that’s exactly where things are headed in America. Read more here ...

Source: Amil Imani

Mohammed is now the third most popular boy's name in England. So why this shabby effort to conceal it?

By Max Hastings

This week, the Office of National Statistics published a list of the most popular boys' names in Britain: Jack, Oliver, Thomas, Harry, Joshua, Alfie, Charlie, Daniel.

They reflect a cultural tradition as old as the nation's history, and would provoke approving nods from Jack the Ripper, Oliver Cromwell, Thomas Becket and Harry Hotspur.

There is just one small problem: the list is deceitful. In reality, the third most popular choice for boy children born last year in England and Wales was not Thomas, but Mohammed.

The ONS explains blithely that it had no intent to deceive. Its normal practice is to catalogue different spellings separately, as in Mohammed, Muhammed and so on.

But if you add these variants together, as surely seems logical, then Mohammed is right up there, near the top of the list.

Unfortunately, in recent times we have been given plentiful cause for paranoia about attempts by official bodies to conceal from us information about the changing face of Britain which our rulers know that many people will not like.

Immigration figures are routinely distorted. In a rare moment of honesty, a Labour Home Secretary conceded that he had no idea just how many migrants dwell in this country, because of the huge and unquantified pool of illegals.

Many EU nations decline to collate statistics about the religious affiliations of their populations, to avoid rousing sentiment against Muslims.

The ONS's hit parade of children's names, as released for publication, seemed designed to mask a simple truth which dismays millions of people, and which politicians and bureaucracies go to great lengths to bury: the Muslim population of Britain is growing extraordinarily fast.

Read more here,,,,,

Source: Mail Online

H/T: DF

Dutch embrace Islamic name

Bruno Waterfield, Brussels | August 15

MOHAMMED, or other variations of the name of Islam's founding prophet, has become the most popular name choice for baby boys in the four biggest cities of Holland.

The country's social security agency found that traditional Dutch names have been displaced in Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht as the country's Muslim population grows.

In The Hague, variations of the name Mohammed have taken first, second and fifth place in the table of most popular names for boys, replacing traditional favourites such as Jan, Luuk, Gijs or Daan. At a national level, Mohammed is now the 16th most popular name for boys.

The figures, obtained from the Dutch Social Insurance Bank, differ from official statistics, which have in the past counted various spellings of Mohammed, Muhamed or Muhammad as different names.

Previous government name counts, separating the different versions, avoided controversy by keeping the name of Islam's founder outside the top 20.

Geert Wilders, leader of the far-right, anti-Islam Freedom Party, which leads the Dutch opinion polls, has demanded a government investigation after a report last week that more than a fifth of the EU's population is forecast to be Muslim by 2050. Cabinet ministers will discuss 79 parliamentary questions tabled by his party concerning levels of ''non-Western immigration'' and its impact on Dutch society.

Official statistics show that European societies are being transformed by immigration and demographic trends. In 2008 just 5 per cent of the EU's total population was Muslim. But low birth rates among Europe's indigenous population and rising immigration are having rapid and widespread effects on the population mix.

Recent studies have indicated that fears over the radicalisation of young Muslims have been exaggerated, however.

Nonetheless the changing population poses policy questions in a range of areas from education and housing to the arts and foreign affairs.

Muhammad is also the most popular first name in the world.

It is quickly gaining popularity in the US and Britain. Muhammad is reported to be the second-most popular baby name in Britain. According to the US Social Security Administration, the first name Muhammad takes 639th spot in the list of baby names. Overall, the surname Muhammad is among the most common names borne by Muslim families throughout the world.

Source: The Age