Islam

	The whole earth has been declared unto me a mosque.
	– Muhammad, Sahih Muslim, Book 004, Number 1062

	The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers…
	– Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Prime Minister of Turkey

	Here’s a brain-teaser for you.
	If the majority of muslims are moderates and only a tiny–almost insignificant–minority are dangerous “extremists”, why are the majority of calm, reasonable, moderates unable to stop the tiny number of extremists from enforcing sharia law, degrading their women, executing apostates and homosexuals, committing honor killings, and waging a centuries-long jihad against everyone else?
	It’s almost as if the best thing you can say for them is that a moderate muslim doesn’t want to do the work demanded by his religion but is perfectly ok with more hardcore muslims committing these atrocities.
	Either that or Erdogan here is correct.

~:~

	As demonstrated in this interview, the answer is simple. “As a Muslim, I don’t support the actions of IS.” “As a Muslim, I don’t support beheading journalists and murdering women and children.” As a Muslim, I don’t support killing religious minorities; they do not do this in my name.”
	Try getting them to say it. Just try. They won’t. They’ll do anything to avoid answering that question. They’ll deflect and strawman and do mental gymnastics, but they’ll never condemn extremism. Why do you think their default response to being challenged is to dredge up colonialism, the war on terror, Israel, and any other minor injustice they can remember from Islamic history, real or imagined, that fits their victim complex? Because they fucking support it.
	Islam and extremism are inseparable. They may not be willing to give up their cushy lives and go pick up a gun–they may not be willing to cut off a guy’s head with their own knife–but if IS rolled into town tomorrow, they wouldn’t take up arms against them, they wouldn’t fight for their Christian and Jewish and Hindu and Sikh and secular neighbors, they wouldn’t stand up and advocate for the people who have payed their welfare and educated their children and healed their sick. They’d stand there and watch them be slaughtered, and they wouldn’t even lose sleep over it. Because that’s what it means to be a Muslim. Not a religion of peace, but a religion of passive indifference to violence committed in your name. You know the difference between a Westerner and a Muslim? Westerners protested the war on terror, they protested intervention, immigration, and they have advocated for and protected their Muslim neighbors. Not all of them, and not every time, but frequently enough to make it obvious that not everyone supports these actions. You know who Muslims have advocated for and protested for?
	Themselves. That’s it.

~:~

	There is an easy response to this. Simply ask whether the prophet Muhammad was a Muslim and whether he led an exemplary life. As he spent most of his as a roving warlord, if his life was a good example, then IS is living the example much more than any westernized kebab. If this doesn’t work, ask whether the person with whom you are conversing agrees that beliefs affect behavior. For example, if one believes that homosexuality, apostasy, and blasphemy are crimes that should be punished by death, do you think that makes the person holding that view more or less likely to commit violence against a blasphemer, apostate, or queer?
	Ask what counts as Islam and “Islamic”. If the words spoken by Muhammad and the life he lead don’t count as Islamic, call bullshit. Do the things Jesus said count as Christianity? Of course. Give a counter example. If a Quaker or Buddhist or Hare Krishna goes on a killing spree and says he is doing it in the name of Jesus or Buddha or Krishna, are there any parts of the Bible or Buddhavacana or Bhagavad Gita that support him? Did the Buddha ever encourage murder? No. So you could very easily say that the attack was un-Buddhist or un-Krishna. Give examples of systemic Islamic violence. Saudi Arabia has public stoning as a (rare, but) legal form of execution. Homosexuals, adulteresses, blasphemers, and apostates are regularly executed. Is that un-Islamic? Seriously, is Saudi Arabia un-Islamic? That would be like suggesting that Vatican City isn’t Catholic.
	This all boils down to people thinking that religious beliefs are all the same, which is utter bullshit. Some religious teach peace and have long histories thereof (Buddhism, Jainism, Hare Krishna-ism, Quakerism, etc.); others teach violence and have histories of violence–Islam being the chief proponent.

~:~

	Muslims have never been different from what they are now. The “peaceful Islamic society” of the past is a total fabrication. They’ve changed a bit in modern times, but their religious doctrines require obedience to the Quran and Shariah. In fact, the whole thing about Muslims desiring and raping white women isn’t new, either. The fetishizing of white European girls seems to have tangible roots in Arab Islamic and North African culture. Many sympathetic people who want to make nice with Muslim immigrants will deny that the aggressive lust and/or sexual violence toward white women has anything inherently to do with Islamic religion or Middle Eastern culture, but well-documented history (and their own explicit scriptures) seem to suggest otherwise. The Muslim lust for white women seems to go way back to the beginning. There was a lot of sexual exoticism expressed among the early Arab and North African invaders who saw white women as the ideal of beauty, and so lusted after them in the conquest of Byzantium and other parts of Europe. Similarly, it’s reported that certain Moorish conquerors demanded the capture of innumerable blonde virgins from Spain to keep in their private harems as sex slaves.
	And here’s where it gets explicit. To the medieval Muslim mind, according to Islamic researcher Ahmad M. H. Shboul (author of Byzantium and the Arabs: The Image of the Byzantines as Mirrored in Arabic Literature), Byzantium was especially representative of ‘white people’–fair haired/eyed Christians or, as they were known in Arabic, Banu al-Asfar; “children of yellow” (reference to blonde hair and light skin). Shboul writes, “The Byzantines as a people were considered as fine examples of physical beauty, and youthful slaves and slave girls of Byzantine origin were highly valued. The Arab’s appreciation of the Byzantine female has a long history, indeed. For the Islamic period, the earliest literary evidence we have is a hadith (saying of the prophet). Muhammad is said to have addressed a newly converted Arab, ‘Would you like the girls of Banu al-Asfar?’ Not only were Byzantine slave girls sought after for the caliphal and other palaces (where some became mothers of future caliphs), but they also became the epitome of physical beauty, home economy, and refined accomplishments. The typical Byzantine maiden who captures the imagination of literateurs and poets had blonde hair, blue or green eyes, a pure and healthy visage, lovely breasts, a delicate waist, and a body that is like camphor or a flood of dazzling light.”
	Despite the overly romantic tone of the Muslim author in the passage above, it reminds me all too much of when the Islamic State captured blonde Yazidis in Sinjar and then sold the girls with blue or green eyes for the highest price on the sex slave markets. The justification was to break their heretical preservation of Yazidi bloodline and impregnate each girl with an Arab Muslim child.

~:~

	It must be incredibly frustrating as an Islamic terrorist not to have your views and motives taken seriously by the societies you terrorize, even after you have explicitly and repeatedly stated them. Even worse, those on the regressive left, in their endless capacity for masochism and self-loathing, have attempted to shift blame inwardly on themselves, denying the terrorists even the satisfaction of claiming responsibility. It’s like a bad Monty Python sketch.
	“We did this because our holy texts exhort us to to do it.”
	“No you didn’t.”
	“Wait, what? Yes, we did…”
	“No, this has nothing to do with religion. You guys are just using religion as a front for social and geopolitical reasons.”
	“WHAT!? Did you even read our official statement? We give explicit Quranic justification. This is jihad: a holy crusade against pagans, blasphemers, and disbelievers.”
	“No, this is definitely not a Muslim thing. You guys are not true Muslims, and you defame a great religion by saying so.”
	“Huh?! Who are you to tell us we’re not true Muslims?! Islam is literally at the core of everything we do, and we have implemented the truest, most literal, and honest interpretation of its founding texts. It is our very reason for being.”
	“Nope. We created you. We installed a social and economic system that alienates and disenfranchises you, and that’s why you did this. We’re sorry.”
	“What? Why are you apologizing? We just slaughtered you mercilessly in the streets. We targeted unwitting civilians–disenfranchisement doesn’t even enter into it!”
	“Listen, it’s our fault. We don’t blame you for feeling unwelcome and lashing out.”
	“Seriously, stop taking credit for this! We worked really hard to pull this off, and we’re not going to let you take it away from us.”
	“No, we nourished your extremism. We accept full blame.”
	“ALLAH ABOVE, how many people do we have to kill around here to finally get our message across?!”

~:~

	In 1752, Muslim governor captured Sikh women and gave them the option to convert to Islam or have their babies massacred. Their refusal to accept Islam resulted in Islamic slaughter of over 300 infant Sikh children by chopping their limbs, impaling the babies on spears, while still alive toddler’s inner organs were taken out and thrown around the mothers’ necks. Still these brave women remained steadfast on their Sikh ideals and not one embraced Islam that day.

STATISTICS

1. Pew Research (2007): 	26% of younger Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are justified.
				35% of young Muslims in Britain believe suicide bombings are justified (24% overall).
				42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified (35% overall).
				22% of young Muslims in Germany believe suicide bombings are justified (13% overall).
				29% of young Muslims in Spain believe suicide bombings are justified (25% overall).
2. ICM Poll: 			20% of British Muslims sympathize with 7/7 bombers.
3. NOP Research: 		25% of British Muslims say 7/7 bombings were justified.
4. FSIS: 			18% of Muslim students in Britain would not report a fellow Muslim planning a terror attack.
5. ICM Poll: 			25% of British Muslims disagree that a Muslim has an obligation to report terrorists to police.
6. Pew Research (2007): 	Muslim-Americans who identify more strongly with their religion are three times more likely to feel that suicide bombings are justified.
7. CSC: 			33% of British Muslim students support killing for Islam.
8. Policy Exchange: 		33% of British Muslims believe anyone who leaves Islam should be killed.
9. GfK NOP: 			28% of British Muslims want Britain to be an Islamic state.
10. NOP Research: 		68% of British Muslims support the arrest and prosecution of anyone who insults Islam.
11. Policy Exchange: 	51% of British Muslims believe a woman cannot marry a non-Muslim. Only 51% believe a Muslim woman may marry without a guardian’s consent.
12. NOP Research: 		62% of British Muslims do not believe in the protection of free speech. Only 3% adopt a "consistently pro freedom of speech line.”
13. Parisian Muslims:	75% of women wear their masks out of fear–including fear of violence.

1 & 6. http://www.pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=60
2  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html
3. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06
4. http://www.fosis.org/uk/sac/FullReport.pdf and danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist
5. http://www.icmresearch.com/pdfs/2004_november_guardian_muslims_poll.pdf
7. http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/files/1231525079_1.pdf (if site is down - mirror: conservativehome.blogs.com/files/1292336866_1-1.pdf)
8, 9, & 11. http://www.civifas.org/uk/pdf/ShariaLawOrOneLawForAll.pdf
10 & 12. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06
13. http://www.nugget.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3402230

FSIS: Federation of Student Islamic Societies
CSC: Center for Social Cohesion

~:~

Peace, Violence, & Abrogation

	Muslims in the West are quick to point to passages such as Qur’an 109:6 (“You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion”) and 2:256 (“There is no compulsion in religion”) as evidence that Islam is a religion of peace. When confronted with harsher passages such as 9:5 (“Slay the idolaters wherever you find them”) and 9:29 (“Fight those who believe not in Allah”), Westernized Muslims interpret these verses in light of the more peaceful teachings of the Qur’an, typically saying something like: “Well, the Qur’an can’t be commanding us to kill unbelievers, since it says that there’s no compulsion in religion.” Hence, Westernized Muslims pick the verses of the Qur’an they find most attractive, and they use these verses to sanitize the rest of the Qur’an. But is this the correct way to interpret the Qur’an? Unfortunately, the answer is no. The Qur’an presents its own method of interpretation—the Doctrine of Abrogation.

Whatever verse we shall abrogate, or cause [thee] to forget, we will bring a better than it, or one like unto it. Dost thou not know that God is almighty?
	– Qur’an 2:106

When We substitute one revelation for another—and God knows best what He reveals (in stages)—they say, “Thou art but a forger”: but most of them understand not.
	– Qur’an 16:101

	According to the Qur’an, then, when Muslims are faced with conflicting commands, they aren’t supposed to pick the one they like best. Rather, they are to go to history and see which verse was revealed last. Whichever verse came last is said to abrogate (or cancel) earlier revelations. What happens when we apply this methodology to Qur’anic verses on peace and violence? When we turn to Islam’s theological sources and historical writings (Qur’an, Hadith, Sira, and Tafsir), we find that there are three stages in the call to Jihad, depending on the status of Muslims in a society.

STAGE ONE

	When Muslims are completely outnumbered and can’t possibly win a physical confrontation with unbelievers, they are to live in peace with non-Muslims and preach a message of tolerance. We see an example of this stage when Muhammad and his followers were a persecuted minority in Mecca. Since the Muslims were entirely outnumbered, the revelations Muhammad received during this stage (e.g. “You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion”) called for religious tolerance and proclaimed a future punishment (rather than a worldly punishment) for unbelievers.

STAGE TWO

	When there are enough Muslims and resources to defend the Islamic community, Muslims are called to engage in defensive Jihad. Thus, when Muhammad had formed alliances with various groups outside Mecca and the Muslim community had become large enough to begin fighting, Muhammad received Qur’an 22:39-40:

Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them; Those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause except that they say: our Lord is Allah…

	Although Muslims in the West often pretend that Islam only allows defensive fighting, later revelations show otherwise.

STAGE THREE

	When Muslims establish a majority and achieve political power in an area, they are commanded to engage in offensive Jihad. Hence, once Mecca and Arabia were under Muhammad’s control, he received the call the fight all unbelievers. In Surah 9:29, we read:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

	Notice that this verse doesn’t order Muslims to fight oppressors, but to fight those who don’t believe in Islam (including the “People of the Book”—Jews and Christians). Not surprisingly, we find similar commands in Islam’s most trusted collections of ahadith (traditions containing Muhammad’s teachings).

Muhammad said: “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: La ilaha illallah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and whoever said La ilaha illallah, Allah will save his property and his life from me.”
	Sahih al-Bukhari 6924

Muhammad said: “I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah.”
	Sahih Muslim 30

	Here again, the criterion for fighting people is that the people believe something other than Islam. It’s clear, then, that when Muslims rose to power, peaceful verses of the Qur’an were abrogated by verses commanding Muslims to fight people based on their beliefs. Islam’s greatest scholars acknowledge this. For instance, Ibn Kathir (Islam’s greatest commentator on the Qur’an) sums up Stage Three as follows: “Therefore all people of the world should be called to Islam. If anyone of them refuses to do so, or refuses to pay the Jizyah, they should be fought till they are killed.”

When Muslims Reach Stage Three
	Abrogation also accounts for shifting attitudes regarding Jews and Christians in the Qur’an. While Muslims are to be friendly to Jews and Christians when the former are outnumbered, the Islamic position changes when Muslims reach Stage Three, at which point Christians and Jews are to recognize their inferior status and pay the Jizyah (a payment made to Muslims in exchange for not being killed by them). Consider some of Muhammad’s later teachings about Christians and Jews:

O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.
	Qur’an 5:51

And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!
	Qur’an 9:30

Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein. They are the worst of creatures.
	Qur’an 98:6

Muhammad said: “I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.”
	Sahih Muslim 4366

Muhammad said: “Do not give the People of the Book the greeting first. Force them to the narrowest part of the road.”
	Al-Bukhari, Al-Adab al-Mufrad 1103

	Needless to say, these teachings can hardly be considered peaceful or tolerant.

Muslims in the West
	Since Muhammad obviously commanded his followers to fight unbelievers (simply for being unbelievers), why do Muslims in the West deny this? Here we must turn to Surah 3:28, which reads:

Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security.

	According to this verse (which uses a variation of the word Taqiyya, meaning “concealment”), Muslims are not allowed to be friends with non-Muslims. However, if Muslims feel threatened by a stronger adversary, they are allowed to pretend to be friendly. Ibn Kathir comments: “In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship outwardly but never inwardly.” Abu Darda, one of Muhammad’s companions, put it this way: “We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.”

Assessment
	Is Islam a religion of peace? No. Islam is a religion that pretends to be peaceful when Muslims are too weak to win a war. When Islam is dominant, Muslims are commanded to subjugate or kill everyone around them. (Just look at how non-Muslims are treated in Muslim countries; compare this constant abuse and persecution with what is being proclaimed about “peaceful” Islam by Westernized Muslims.) Of course, there are many Muslims who aren’t violent. Many Muslims in the West love peace and tolerance. But they didn’t get these values from Islam. They got them from the West, and now they’re reinterpreting Islam based on their Western values. For dedicated Muslims, however, there are only two possible situations: (1) fighting unbelievers, and (2) pretending to be peaceful while preparing to fight unbelievers. Either way, conquering the world in the name of Allah is always the goal.

~:~

	As long as the Muslim population remains under 2% in any given country, they will, for the most part, be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

	United States – 0.6%
	Australia – 1.5%
	Canada – 1.9%
	China – 1.8%
	Italy – 1.5%
	Norway – 1.8%

	At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize to other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from prisons and street gangs. This is happening in:

	Denmark – 2%
	Germany – 3.7%
	United Kingdom – 2.7%
	Spain – 4%
	Thailand – 4.6%

	From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves–along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

	France – 8%
	Philippines – 5%
	Sweden – 5%
	Switzerland – 4.3%
	The Netherlands – 5.5%
	Trinidad & Tobago – 5.8%

	At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Shariah, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Shariah law over the entire world. When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Is1am and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections in:

	Guyana – 10%
	India – 13.4%
	Israel – 16%
	Kenya – 10%
	Russia – 15%

	After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, as in:

	Ethiopia – 32.8%

	At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, as in:

	Bosnia – 40%
	Chad – 53.1%
	Lebanon – 59.7%

	From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of nonbelievers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Shari’ah Law as a weapon, and jizya, the tax placed on infidels, as in:

	Albania – 70%
	Malaysia – 60.4%
	Qatar – 77.5%
	Sudan – 70%

	After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some state-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, as has been experienced–and in some ways is ongoing–in:

	Bangladesh – 83%
	Egypt – 90%
	Gaza – 98.7%
	Indonesia – 86.1 %
	Iran – 98%
	Iraq – 97%
	Jordan – 92%
	Morocco – 98.7%
	Pakistan–97%
	Palestine – 99%
	Syria – 90%
	Tajikistan – 90%
	Turkey – 90%
	United Arab Emirates – 96%

	100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’–the Islamic House of Peace. Here, there’s supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the madrasses are the only schools, and the Quran is the only word, as in:

	Afghanistan – 100% Muslim
	Saudi Arabia – 100% Muslim
	Somalia – 100% Muslim
	Yemen – 100% Muslim

	Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states, the most radical Muslims intimidate, spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims for a variety of reasons. Quote:

	“Before I was nine, I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world; and all of us against the infidel.”

	It is important to understand that even in countries with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Shari’ah Law. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Quran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate. Today’s 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world’s population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other groups.

Islamic History

	March 1785.
	Thomas Jefferson and John Adams arrive in London to negotiate with Tripoli’s envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. Upon inquiring “concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury”, the ambassador replied:
	“It is written in the Quran that all nations which have not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave, and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.”
	Islam is terror.

~:~

Some historical events that preceded the First Crusade:
AD 632 — Muhammad’s death.
AD 635 — Christian Damascus fell to invading Muslims.
AD 636 — Christian Antioch fell to invading Muslims.
AD 638 — Christian Jerusalem–and later Alexandria–fell to invading Muslims.
AD 642 — Egypt falls to Muslims
AD 650 — Muslim armies reached Cilicia and Caesarea of Cappodocia. In the same period, Muslim forces carried out raids on Cyprus, Rhodes, Crete, and Sicily, carrying off thousands of Christian slaves.
AD 668 — Muslim armies laid siege to Constantinople. They were repulsed.
AD 711 — Muslim armies invaded Spain. By AD 715 they had conquered most of Spain.
AD 717 — Muslim armies again laid siege to Constantinople. Again repulsed.
AD 732 — Muslim armies invaded France. Charles Martel stopped them at Tours.
AD 792 — The Muslim ruler of Spain, Hisham, called for a new invasion of France. An international Islamic crusade was assembled, and was repulsed by the French.
AD 827 — Muslim warriors invaded Italy and Sicily, terrorized monks, and raped nuns. Sicily was held by Muslims until AD 1091.
AD 846 — Muslim armies reached Rome, where they forced the Pope to pay them tribute.
AD 848 — France was again invaded by Muslims. And again repulsed.
AD 1095 — Pope Urban II launched the FIRST Crusade.

By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.

~:~

	The Muslim “golden age” is almost entirely a myth. As it turns out, they only preserved 10% of the Roman records whereas Europeans preserved more than 80%–better than the Romans themselves, to a certain degree. Part of that is because we started using vellum as a writing medium and it lasts forever while papyrus rots away. But it is also due to the fact that other than a single geographer, I can’t find a an actual Muslim scientist. And let’s be honest, Muslim means Arab. The Arabs displaced the native Persian, Egyptian, and Phonetician populations by taxing them into extinction, sometimes at 200% income per year. Back in the Classical Era, the Levant was white. Those Greeks and Persians were the primary translators of classical records. When they ceased to exist, so did scholarship in any meaningful sense. More than that, when the Arabs took over new construction essentially stopped and very few large buildings are raised at all. This is also seen in Visigoth Spain.
	Arabs are parasites which fed on a Levant and Spain splintered by war (Byzantium vs. Persia and civil war in Iberia), afterward squatting on the existing infrastructure and allowing it to fall into decay. The first Caliphate lasted only 7 years. Now, the Roman Empire had a problem with civil wars–it had one every 30 years or so–but no Caliphate lasted more than 10 years without a civil war. The Arabs and Turks even came to rely on cheap black slaves to maintain what they had stolen.
	Our impression of Saracens having secret Greek learning is derived from retards in the Renaissance who though that the older meant better and republished work from the middle ages as the work of Greeks via the Saracens. Later, retards in the Enlightenment who hated the middle ages pushed this as truth like the leftists they were. The Chinese, on the other hand, are odd, They have things of their own, it seems, but they don’t really seem to make anything new anymore. Sort of calls into question the nature of the creators of the very oldest Chinese things…

~:~

	After WWII, Lebanon was a prosperous, predominately Christian country. It was a popular vacation, commercial, and banking center, often compared to Switzerland. Beirut was called the Paris of the Mideast. Circa 1950, Lebanon generously took in Islamic refugees from Syria, Palestine, and other war-torn areas. The refugees were very grateful for asylum. However their next generation considered themselves native Lebanese and they had no gratitude whatsoever. All they knew was the ingrained hatred of jihad  in the name of Islam and loathing for all infidels. Now Lebanon is hell on Earth. A multifaceted civil war among Christians, Sunnis, Shiites, and other sects from 1975-1990 simmers to this day. It will never end. Europe is making the same mistake in accepting these Islamic migrants.

~:~

	be raided, enslaved, raped, murdered, and conquered for 500 years your homelands suffer from destitute poverty because of the constant sea raids destroying naval trade and transport routes 	Byzantium is begging for help, southern France is easy picking for slavers, Spain is conquered and France is invaded, churches are burned and nuns are raped en masse in conquered cities, southern Italy and Sicily live in fear
	call upon nobles, peasants, the poor and rich alike to put an end to centuries of oppression and evil and retake the holy lands that are dear to you
	sell your lands, your estate, your everything to buy armor, a sword, and enough food to make it halfway across the world, knowing you wont return but believe in the cause of justice
	lose hundreds of thousands of good men for over a hundred years in perpetual war
	a thousand years later your ancestors piss on your grave and bend over for the very people you traveled through hell itself to stop

~:~

	I know it won’t count for much–and people will accuse me of being edgy–but I’d just like to get off my chest that every single Muslim on this Earth must die. Until there are extermination camps all over Europe, it does not suffice. There is a great war coming and the Muslims cannot win it. If they had just bode their time for another 20 years, it might have been too late for the Europeans when they chose to arise. Now, however, they are hammering the nails into their own coffin.
	Thanks to the permanent economic malaise of Europe, the left-wing media is losing its ability to control the populace. They will not be able to control the reaction as they did with 9/11. More attacks will follow, and the people will just get angrier and angrier. The West–exemplified by the left-wing middle-class–is unravelling as we speak, only to reveal the atavistic brutality of the continent which it had temporarily displaced. By 2025, there will be war, but this time no one will stop us.
	Sadly, the bloodlust of Europe will not be fully sated. While the criminal Muslim minorities will make for easy targets, no longer do European states have the power projection capabilities to march into the Middle East and commit genocide there, as well. It’s sad, but one cannot have everything. Although I would like few things more in this world than to look into the eyes of Muslim fathers, over and over again, as this children are shot into the head right in front of them, I will have to content myself with seeing this enacted only on home soil. Oh, well.
	“But what about the unarmed populace?” my American friends might say. “The Eurocucks don’t have the balls–or even the ability–to enact large-scale violence!” This is a serious objection, but it ignores two things: 1. Europeans are already arming themselves, as Germany and Austria show. We do not have to reach 100% gun density tomorrow. 2. Although the overthrow of the current European governments will have to proceed from the people, it can be accomplished with little firearm violence. The Nazis took power via politicking, too, with only low-level street violence involved to unnerve the public and the parliament. For the overthrow of the government, one does not need many guns, and once that is accomplished you can rely on state power. If anyone cares to read Why Not Kill Them All?: A study of genocides throughout history, you will find that popular violence tends to be sporadic and self-limiting. It is government-backed violence that leads to the deaths of millions.
	This is the reason the US will not see the kind of widespread violence that Europe will–free speech is constitutionally protected and its politicians are too willing to indulge radical rhetoric. They therefore allow people to let off steam. The same is not true for Europe. There right wing dissent is a revolutionary act. The right wing is therefore far more radical, as are the people who support it. The closed ranks the hard left media present only contribute to this circumstance. There is no Fox News here to make you feel as if you “oppose” the mainstream culture. If you’re a right-winger here, you’re ostracized and branded as a Nazi. In good times, when there are few discontent people, this strategy is effective. In the present bad times, when the discontent are many, it seals the fate of the left.
	You might think that the French or the Swedes or the Germans are defeated. You have seen nothing yet. The Muslims are not organized. They are not disciplined. Without institutional power, their numbers mean nothing. Their idiotic provocations will only marginalize them more and more, removing them further and further from access to the weapons they need. Horror is coming to Europe again. It’s not talked of much, but people feel it in their bones. When it does, the unleashed violence will be so monumental and so brutal that the erstwhile cocky Muslims will claw at the Earth in desperation, begging that it should swallow them whole.

~:~

	Numerous studies show that male behavior is heavily influenced by the operational sex ratio–or the ratio between fertile females and sexually active males. If male and female numbers are equal then the best strategy is for a male to find a female, pair off, and protect/provide for his own kids.
	If there are more fertile females than males, the best mating strategy for males is to put less resources caring for their kids and more resources trying to mate with multiple females. (note l: urban blacks in America fall into this category because of the amount of young black males either in prison or killed by other black males. result is that black males spend more time chasing other women and less time being fathers) (note 2: possibly bigamy became common in these societies to prevent the excess of available females from encouraging men to sleep around instead of be fathers)
	If there are more males than females, the males that have mates get obsessed with protecting them from the surplus males, who form rape gangs to try to get access to the smaller numbers of females. In polygamous societies, every man that has two wives creates a man who can never mate unless he rapes. Bigamy effectively turns a balanced operational sex ratio into a heavily male-biased one. Islam is a codified set of behaviors for protecting females from rape gangs (burka, can’t go outside without male guardian) and exporting the surplus males to neighboring societies so they don’t bother the local females (jihad). That is, essentially, Islam–a code of behaviors designed by a guy with multiple wives in a bigamous society to keep womanless men away from his wives.
	The surplus males generated by bigamy are told, “These women are off-limits; they’re spoken for by more powerful men in your society. If you want to get laid, your only option is to go out and conquer something and take their women.” This is how Islam spread so quickly in its first few centuries and this is the driving force behind the huge amount of young men flooding into Europe today. They are not refugees, they are sex tourists. It should be no surprise they are so rapey.

~:~

	Monogamy is how a society encourages the weakest males to be productive, since it ensures they’ll be able to find a mate. Another argument you can use is that polygamy brings about social instability. Due to the fact that older, richer, more established men grab all the women, it means that the search for a mate among the younger males is all the more desperate, and violent. Polygamous societies are inherently unstable, prone to great social unrest from the younger men that cannot find a woman. Now, this is fine and dandy if you want to motivate those men to join the army and go conquer someplace else and steal their women, as well as the fact that war attrition will get rid of plenty of those young men, but once your empire has expanded as much as it can the same problems crop up, but this time with no possible outside outlet.
	It is no coincidence that enduring civilizations made the switch from polygamy to monogamy over the course of their history, and I highly suspect the troubles Arab civilizations faced around the 14th and 15th century were in large part caused by their reliance on polygamy. You can argue that current Arab societies are what they are because of polygamy. Women are a rare commodity that are fiercely guarded, hence the restrictions placed on their behavior and the need to have a male relative escort them when they are out, lest they be stolen by some other family. The high level of inbreeding could also be part of this, with a family trying to keep all the wealth and power among themselves.