Speaking of…our freedoms. People, we had better start paying closer attention to what is going on. We speak of the Constitutionally protected Freedom of Speech, but the fact is, we have already lost it to a certain degree, under the guise of Political Correctness, Human Rights and Hate Laws. A new McCarthyism is alive and well in one of our closest neighbors, Canada, and should be more than a cautionary tale – it should be call to arms.

I’m sure most are aware of Canada’s infamous Human Rights Commission, who, for the crime of saying one thinks homosexuality is against God’s Law, or for drawing a link between Islam and terrorism, can fine, and ensure that an author is never published or able to write or be read in Canada again. You don’t even have to live in Canada, or the piece have originated in Canada, as has been shown by the current case of Mark Steyn. After excerpts of his book, America Alone, were published in a Canadian magazine, he was accused of “subject[ing] Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt” and being “flagrantly Islamophobic.” If the writing, not even the author, appears in Canada, it’s fair game for the CHRC.

If found guilty by the CHRC Tribunal, which he surely will be, as they have a 100% conviction rate, among other things, Steyn will no longer be able to write anything that is published or heard in Canada. While the determination has yet to made on what turned out to be a kangaroo court, Steyn has commented, “I’m done in Canada.” Nor will the magazine, Maclean’s, who excerpted his book and published his column, be allowed to publish it, or any other articles, which may be ”likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.”

Note the word “likely.” They may as well have used the word “might.” No one has to prove the writings or words inspired any crime, any assault – or that they are even the genesis of a “hate crime.” Just that perhaps, sometime in the future “maybe” they would. That something that person wrote or said “may” make another look disparagingly at the group or person in question.

In his book, Steyn eloquently discusses the challenges and issues facing the West by Islamic fundamentalism. Many of his columns addressed the same issues.

Rev. Scott Boisoin, a Canandian, was convicted last November by the CHRC because he sent a letter to the editor of a local newspaper critical of the active homosexual agenda. “…this is aimed precisely at every individual that in any way supports the homosexual machine that has been mercilessly gaining ground in our society since the 1960s. I cannot pity you any longer and remain inactive. You have caused far too much damage…Your children are being warped into believing that same-sex families are acceptable; that men kissing men is appropriate. ”

Just recently the “remedy” was ordered: Boisoin, a pastor, and his organization, The Concerned Christian Organization, have been banned for life to speak or publish “in the newspapers, by email, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.. they … are prohibited from making disparaging remarks in the future about … Lund [the complainant] or … Lund's witnesses relating to their involvement in this complaint. Further, all disparaging remarks…[regarding] homosexuals are directed to be removed from current Web sites and publications of Mr. Boissoin [sic] and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc.,” by the quasi-judicial group, the CHRC.

Boisoin and his group, jointly and severally, must also pay a $5,000 fine to the complainant and $2,000 to the “judge” for her time. Additionally, while he has said he will not do it, Boisoin and his group have been ordered to write a public apology to the complainant, and publish it in the same newspaper that published his letter to the editor.

The funny thing about this is, according to the CHRC, there was “no specific individual who can be compensated as there is no direct victim who has come forward.”

Get that? No actual victim. So the complainant, who alleges he is not gay, and no harm was actually done to him, was compensated, as was the “judge,” a divorce attorney, who laid down the punishment. Curiously, a prominent gay group, and a gay magazine, while not supportive of Boisoin’s sentiments, have both supported his right to express them. Certainly, if anyone would have been a “victim” of Boisoin’s letter, it would have been someone actually in the homosexual community.

 Notice also, no disparaging remarks about homosexuals. That means no disapproval, no reproach, nothing critical or, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, to not “speak of in a slighting or disrespectful way.” The means, Boisoin cannot even read verses from the Bible, which speak against homosexuality.

The CHRCs were established in the 1970s to initially address discrimination in housing and employment. They soon began using their authority, however, “to silence citizens who declined to embrace the new vision of Canada … by then-Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau: multicultural and pacifist; blindly tolerant; anti-tradition, anti-family and anti-life.”

But, don’t get this wrong – this isn’t about Canada, sexual preference, or religion, or even the people who have been hauled in front of this egregious tribunal. This is about free speech. The right to express one’s thoughts and opinions, even if they go against the grain. Or, “hurts someone feelings.”

This is about the United States, and what is, and has been happening here. While we don’t yet have anything like the CHRC, we have the government and our “anti-intimidation laws”, now in place in 47 states, the courts, and our educational monitors. And, we are hobbled with political correctness – to the point where one cannot tell the truth and must couch it in ambiguities, or fear public or judicial reprisal. 

Generally, it is conservatives who are targeted.

The people, who are concerned about the many problems illegal immigration brings, and want secure borders, are considered racist. Somehow the concerns about the one are translated into a bias against all Latinos.

 Those who question the current global warming hysteria, and “refuse to join the fight,” have been likened to Hitler or to Josef Fritzl in Austria, who locked his daughter and her children in a cellar for 24 years. To be skeptical “about the conventional wisdom on climate change is akin to the monstrous crime committed by Fritzl.” Those who question the veracity of global warming have also been likened to Holocaust Deniers.

The people who fear the encroaching Islamic jihad are called Islamophobic. Those who speak about or discuss the negative and frightening aspects of Islam are accused of religious intolerance, or xenophobia, and are accused of hating all Muslims and all of Arab descent. One must question why Muslims are so sensitive to concerns regarding their beliefs. Christians’ beliefs are questioned and bashed all the time. “It is illogical for a member of a religion to fear the articulation of other beliefs if he is certain of its truth.”

Portions of the Bible are considered by many to be hate speech. Christians are considered to be purveyors of hatred and intolerance if they follow their beliefs. They are often considered extremists and fundamentalists if they believe and follow their scriptures. Historical information becomes a hate issue, rather than what it is – historical fact or detail.

A recent report to congress, the U.S. State Department “Office of Global Anti-Semitism, said “the New Testament record that the Jews had Christ crucified is ‘classical anti-semitism.’ This edict makes millions of bible-believing Christians into ‘anti-semites – potential ‘hate criminals.’ Anti-semitisim is…a hate crime in Canada, Australia, and most European countries, punishable by harsh fines and imprisonment.” The one question one must ask, is why is it anti-Semitism to record historical facts?

In some countries, to deny the Holocaust is a crime, punishable by fines and imprisonment. Frankly, while I cannot understand how one could deny that it took place in the face of masses of historical data and substantiation, it should not be a crime to deny a historical event or evidence.

To think a certain way, and to publicize those thoughts, when not censured due to political correctness, and the fear that it might incite violence, “hurt someone’s feelings” or put someone in a bad light, even if justified, has become a crime. Such nonsense is being bolstered by the judicial system; with the effect that rational dialogue on a number of issues is being quashed.

The courts are being used more effectively than ever before to stifle the dissemination of thought and public discourse on issues. While this is not specifically about Islam, “lawfare,” a legal jihad, which is being waged, is a prime example. The practice is predatory, often without a serious expectation of winning, but used as a means to “intimidate and bankrupt defendants.” It is a method, using the Western democratic court systems to “suppress freedom of expression [and] abolish public discourse critical of Islam…”

“Forum shopping, whereby plaintiffs bring actions in jurisdictions most likely to rule in their favor, has enabled a wave of ‘libel tourism’ that has resulted in foreign judgments against European and now American authors mandating the destruction of American-authored literary material.”

Rather than face lengthy and expensive litigation, regardless of the merit of the works, “most authors and publishers targeted have issued apologies and retractions, while some have paid fines…” The recent case of Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, author of Funding Evil, published in the United States, who alleged financial ties between wealthy Saudis and terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda, is a good example.

Ehrenfeld, an anti-terrorism analyst and director of the American Center for Democracy, was sued in a UK court, because something like 23 copies of her book were sold online by Amazon. com to people who live in the UK. This is despite the fact neither she nor her accuser lives in the UK. “Ehrenfeld lost on default and was ordered to pay heavy fines, apologize, and destroy her books -- all of which she has refused to do.” Instead, she counter-sued in a New York State court in an attempt to have the UK judgment declared unenforceable in the United States.

She lost the case because the NY court ruled that it “lacked jurisdiction over the Saudi resident who, the court said, did not have sufficient connections to the state.” Afterwards, the Association of American Publishers criticized the ruling “as a blow to intellectual freedom and ‘a deep disappointment for publishers and other First Amendment advocates.’"

When Cambridge Press was threatened with a lawsuit for publishing Alms for Jihad by American authors Robert Collins and J. Millard Burr, the “publisher immediately capitulated, offered a public apology…pulped the unsold copies of the book, and took it out of print.”

There is a real danger in censuring thought and the verbal or written expression of it. We are quickly moving into an Orwellian society. What many in the United States and other Western nations don’t seem to understand yet, when some ideas are censured, others will surely follow. This excludes those who are waging jihad against us, because they clearly understand that. It is their purpose to quash anything that may be perceived as derogatory.

Basically, what has already happened in Europe, Australia and Canada (all which used to have the freedom to express one’s thoughts and ideas), is happening here in the United States. To think a certain way, and to express those thoughts, are fast becoming crimes – or dangerous. Making a statement of fact, if it wounds someone’s sensibilities, can be cause to be fired, fined, and perhaps even jailed. In some cases, people sometimes actually fear for their lives due to community response.

Take, for example, what happened to a teacher several years ago, when, during a public forum, he explained that at his school, it was the male black teenage boys who were causing the bulk of the problems. The audience was aghast, and he was promptly accused of racism. He lost his job, and the media had a field day with him. Ultimately, he was vindicated, but the whole event made one thing clear – even if it was the truth, substantiated by facts, making such a statement could be dangerous and have severe consequences.

It wasn’t politically correct to state, or even imply, that one group was causing problems over another, even if it was true. Rather than being a statement of fact, which it was, it was seen as racist. Which is what has happened with illegal immigration. Rather than recognizing that people are concerned about illegal immigration, which coincidentally happens to be primarily from Mexico, it becomes an indictment of all Latinos. That’s like assuming because a women fears rape, she hates all men. An equally absurd conclusion.

Public opinion isn’t always right. It wasn’t right when people thought African Americans were less than human. It wasn’t right when people thought the earth was flat. Just because a segment of the population, including much of the media, thinks certain things shouldn’t be said because they may somehow physiologically injure someone else, doesn’t make it right. Just because many are convinced of the veracity of global warming, doesn’t make it right. And, just because the courts have decreed someone’s feelings might be hurt by saying something, doesn’t make it right. The intolerance we are now seeing towards “alternative and dissident opinions betrays the powerful anti-democratic impulse” now prevalent in our society.

What is right, however, is to uphold and defend our Constitutionally protected First Amendment right of Free Speech. The expression of our thoughts. Our country was founded on controversy. We broke from the subservience of European thought and edicts when we became a free nation. If we don’t fight for this right on every front, for the right to express our thoughts, we will lose it. It will slip away, unnoticed by many until it’s too late – and the expressions of our thoughts, our words, and our every deed, will be governed by whoever is in power.

There is one truth people must understand - for the most part, Muslims’ religious beliefs and political ideology are inextricably intertwined as they come from the same source – the Qur’an, the edicts of Allah, through their prophet Muhammad. One can no more separate their religious beliefs from their political ideology than you can separate a person from their skin color. While a person’s skin color doesn’t define what they become, it is part of who they are. To make a religious analogy: it would be like trying to separate Jesus from Christianity.

One caution: when discussing Islam with Muslims – or even other groups or people - comparisons to Christianity or Judaism are often made, or statements like, “this is in all religions.” This is a diversion. Stick to the facts of Islam. When discussing one’s faith, it is not necessary to compare it to other beliefs. The facts of that particular belief should be sufficient.

This “Cheat Sheet” is an attempt to define some important terms and concepts. Without some basic knowledge, one cannot hope to understand Muslims or what they believe. But, the topic is complex. My attempt is merely to give a base from which you can do further study. Otherwise, the explanations, should at least give a basic knowledge of what has become an important topic.

It has also become longer than I anticipated. As I said, the topic is complex.

Allah - God. Muslims say it is the same god of the Christians and Jews. However, this is a debate in which I would not enter unless or until you are thoroughly versed in the God of the Christians and the Jews, as well as the god of Islam, through their texts.

Apostate – [Islam] Defined as a Muslim who has rejected Islam by word or deed, or one who does not adhere to all aspects of the Qur’an and it’s edicts.

Caliph, calif or khalif - The head of state's position (Caliph), and is regarded as a successor of Muhammad, and is always male.

Cleric [Muslim] - may be likened to a priest or minister

Dhimma - treaty of protection granted to a certain population after conquest. Generally granted to “People of the Book” (Followers of the Holy Books) which historically have been Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians. As long as Muslim rulers permit, their lives and property are exempt from jihad. However, should dhimmis violate any conditions of the dhimma, or fail to show proper deference to Muslims, the jihad will continue.

Dhimmi - are conquered people who fall under the dhimma, or treaty of protection. The dhimmi are generally safe, as long as they are economically useful to the Islamic state. Dhimmi are non-Muslims who have less rights than Muslims – which all non-Muslims do in Islamic states or under Islamic law. There are many restrictions on dhimmis, including the building of churches, overt expressions of their faith, even on religious holidays, or to assist an unbeliever in any fashion against a Muslim. Dhimmis must also show proper deference to Muslims. In some ways, one could compare them to indentured servants, with the difference that a dhimmi can never pay off his debt, or be released from bondage.

A noted Turkish historian of Ottoman science, who is now the Secretary-General of the Organization of Islamic Countries, explained to an American audience, that the “privilege of becoming a protected minority via an act of dhimmiship was given only to the followers of a prophet to whom a sacred book was revealed.”

It is now a term often used to connote non-Muslims, by non-Muslims and is sometimes used interchangeably with kafir. The difference being that dhimmis pay a tribute to Muslims, whereas kafir are simply infidels.

Faqih - Jurist. One who is an expert in Islamic law

Fitna - civil war

Hadith, ahadith (pl) or al-hadith - Writings based upon oral tradition about the life, statements, actions or views of Muhammad. They are often considered an important adjunct to the Qur’an. Not only is the narrative important, but also the chain of narrators, since the chain of narrators is the only way to even attempt to ascertain their veracity. During the 8^th and 9^th centuries they were evaluated and written down, and are still referred to in matters of history and Islamic law.

There are a number of categories of hadith: authentic (sahih); good (hasan); weak (da if); fabricated (mawdu); ignored or rejected (munkar). Only the first two, sahih and hasan, are considered reliable and are also considered acceptable for use in Islamic legal discussion.

With the exception of Hadith Qudsi, hadith are not believed to be the word of God like the Qur’an. The Hadith Qudsi are exceptions in that they are believed to communicate divine revelations given to Muhammad, but are not included in the Qur’an. Unlike the Qur’an, however, the words are believed to be Muhammad’s, although the ‘thoughts’ divine. All hadith are ranked lower than the Qur’an.

While not used to interpret the Qur’an in it’s entirety, the hadith are often used to assist in the interpretation of parts of it, which may be confusing or not clear. They are also used to support certain views.

The Sunni, the Shi’a and the Ibadi do not all accept the same hadith, or consider them trusted. It may also vary from scholar to scholar which hadith are considered valid.

Ibadi [Muslims] - are distinct from the Shi’a and Sunni. It is believed to be one of the earliest forms of Islam, and is said to have been founded less than 50 years after the death of Muhammad. It is the dominant form of Islam in only one Muslim country, Oman. There are also Ibadis in Algeria and Libya.

Imam - often the leader of a mosque and/or community. He leads the prayer and is the one Muslims most often turn to for spiritual guidance, as well as guidance for other issues. He is considered the lawful temporal leader of the Islamic community, and often claims descendency from Muhammad. An imam can also be any one of the founders of the four schools of law and theology, or an authoritative scholar who founds a school of law or theology.

Infidel - literally, one without faith. In the context of Islam, it connotes anyone who is not a believer, not a Muslim. However, Muslims generally use the term kafir to connote a non-believer.

Isnad - the list of citations for narrators or transmitters going back to the original narrator. Used to determine the authenticity of the hadith. The more trustworthy the narrators, the more reliable the hadith, and the more highly prized and categorized.

Jizya - a special tax imposed on non-Muslim citizens. In return, they are permitted to practice their faith, and are entitled to Muslim protection from outside aggression. The Qur’an states what the payment of the jizya should be. “It is the most conspicuous means by which the Muslim exploit the dhimmi. But the jizya is not merely economic in its function; it exists also to humiliate the dhimmi and impress on him the superiority of Islam.”

Jihad - is literally translated as "struggle." It does not actually mean "holy war." Many will try to explain it as an inner struggle, a spiritual struggle, which to a certain degree it is. Muslims are commanded to struggle against laziness, especially laziness in prayer, and other inner struggles.

However, a Muslim is also commanded to struggle against the infidel. Every Muslim must wage jihad: it is their duty and obligation from Allah, and cannot be ignored nor evaded. According to the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hasan Al-Banna, Muslims must take up arms against unbelievers. He said, “The verses of the Qur'an and the Sunnah summon people in general (with the most eloquent expression and the clearest exposition) to jihad, to warfare, to the armed forces, and all means of land and sea fighting." This was said by him in 1928, and parrots what is written in both the Qur’an and the sunnah. So, the concept of physical jihad, of martyrdom, is not a new one.

Jihad is a wide concept, which includes every effort involved in both the preparation and execution of war, such as funding it.  While it is always true to describe “fighting in the way of Allah” as jihad, “it can also refer to other aspects of armed jihad or to peaceful jihad.”

However, the use of the word in the Qur’an and hadith, and throughout the more than 1300 years of Muslim history, has clearly imbued the word jihad with a meaning of struggle, usually through military means, to expand the domain of Islam. Almost all Muslims understand that “warfare” (qital, qatala) is the essential meaning of the word.

It is clear that the Muslims are commanded to struggle not only against their inner issues, but also struggle in physical combat against the infidel and spread Islam.

Kafir - is the Muslim term for infidel, a non-believer, or one not of the Muslim faith.

Kitman  - is another important concept to understand. It is similar to taqiyya, but rather than “deliberate dissimilation,” means to tell only part of the truth, with “mental reservation” justifying the omission. A good example is when a Muslim asserts that jihad means “a spiritual struggle,” and neglects to add that this definition is recent in Islam (little more than a century old), he misleads by holding back, and is practicing kitman. When he gives the hadith in which Muhammad, returning home from one of his many battles, is reported to have said that he had returned from “the Lesser Jihad to the Greater Jihad” as an example, and doesn’t add, that this is a “weak” hadith (which all Muslims know), and is regarded by the most respected muhaddithin as of doubtful authenticity, he is further practicing kitman. So, while he has not actually lied, he has not told the truth. (Fitzgerald: Islam for Infidels, Part One)

The Hijra, Hijrah or withdrawal, is the migration of Muhammad and his followers to the city of Medina in 622 AD. The year of the Hijra is considered to be more significant than the year of Muhammad's birth or death or that of the first Quranic revelation because above all, Islam is a political-military enterprise. The years of the Islamic calendar (which is based upon lunar months) are designated in English "AH" or "After Hijra."

Mahdi or al-Mahdi - is "the rightly-guided one" who, according the hadiths, will come before the end of time to make the entire world Muslim, and therefore, a perfect world. There is no mention of him in the Qur’an, but there are numerous hadith on the Mahdi.

The advent of the Mahdi is not universally accepted in Islam and among those that do accept the concept, there are basic differences among different sects of Muslims about the timing and nature of his advent and guidance. The Shia believe he has already been here, and will return from hiding The Sunnis believe he has yet to emerge.

Mosque - Muslim house of worship

Muhaddith or muhaddithin (pl) - one who intimately knows and narrates hadiths, the chains of their narration and the original and famous narrators.

Mujahid, mujahedeen (pl), mujahideen (pl), mujahidin (pl) or mujaheddin (pl) – literally, one who struggles, and comes from the same Arabic root as jihad. Documented since 1958 in English, the word has meant, "one who fights in a jihad.” In modern usage, it has become a synonym for "Muslim guerilla insurgent.” Even in Arabic, the term has taken on meanings that are “specifically religious, or specifically military or paramilitary, or both.”

In the late 20th and early 21st century, the term mujahideen became the term for various armed fighters who “subscribe to militant Islamic ideologies and identify themselves as mujahideen, although there is not always an explicit ‘holy’ or ‘warrior’ meaning of the word.” The best-known mujahideen are various loosely aligned Afghan opposition groups. However, in addition to Afghanistan, mujahideen have fought, and fight, in Thailand, Chechnya, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iran, Iraq, Kashmir, the Philippines, Myanmar (Burma) and Somalia.

Mujahid, mujahedeen (pl), mujahideen (pl), mujahidin (pl) or mujaheddin (pl) – literally, one who struggles, and comes from the same Arabic root as jihad. Documented since 1958 in English, the word has meant, "one who fights in a jihad.” In modern usage, it has become a synonym for "Muslim guerilla insurgent.” Even in Arabic, the term has taken on meanings that are “specifically religious, or specifically military or paramilitary, or both.”

In the late 20th and early 21st century, the term mujahideen became the term for various armed fighters who “subscribe to militant Islamic ideologies and identify themselves as mujahideen, although there is not always an explicit ‘holy’ or ‘warrior’ meaning of the word.” The best-known mujahideen are various loosely aligned Afghan opposition groups. However, in addition to Afghanistan, mujahideen have fought, and fight, in Thailand, Chechnya, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iran, Iraq, Kashmir, the Philippines, Myanmar (Burma) and Somalia.

naskh or al-naskh wa al-mansukh or (the abrogating and the abrogated). This is an important concept, which is often confusing to non-Muslims. The Qur’an itself presents the principle of abrogation, which instructs that “verses revealed later in Muhammad's career can cancel and replace earlier ones they may contradict.” Therefore, “passages revealed later in Muhammad's career, in Medina, overrule passages revealed earlier, in Mecca.”

qital, qatala - Warfare

Qur’an, Koran, Quran or Alcoran is Islam’s holy book and is their central religious text. According to Islamic teaching, the Qur’an came down as a series of revelations from Allah through the Archangel Gabriel to the Prophet Muhammad. As he was illiterate, Muhammad dictated his revelations to his followers, who memorized what he said. Later, they wrote what he said down on whatever they could find. After Muhammad’s death, these fragments were complied into book form. The Qur’an is about the size of the Christian New Testament and is comprised of 114 suras.

“Orthodox Islam does not accept that a rendering of the Quran into another language is a "translation" in the way that, say, the King James Bible is a translation of the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. A point often made by Islamic apologists to defang criticism is that only Arabic readers may understand the Quran. But Arabic is a language like any other and fully capable of translation. Indeed, most Muslims are not Arabic readers.” (Islam 101)

Muslims say, that unlike the Bible, the Qur’an is uncorrupted, that they have had the exact same Qur’an all over the world, and it is Muhammad’s unedited and exact words. However, Osman (the 3^rd Caliph) burned 26 Qur’ans, including Muhammad’s. So, it appears there were different versions of the Qur’an. Osman then ordered 4 people to write a new one, which is called Osman’s Qur’an and is kept in a museum in Istanbul. It is not punctuated, which makes it different than the ones the Muslims now read, since one cannot read Arabic without punctuation.

Ramadan is a Muslim religious observance during the ninth month of the Islamic calendar, which is the month in which it is believed the Qur’an began to be revealed. During this time Muslims fast and pray and read the Qur’an. They are to read the whole Qur’an again during this period.

Salafism is a generic term, depicting a Sunni school of thought that takes the devout ancestors (Salaf) of the patristic period of early Islam as exemplary models. Salafis view the first three generations of Muslims, who are Muhammad's companions, and the two succeeding generations after them as examples of how Islam should be practiced.

Sira - Biographies of Muhammad

Shi’a or Shiites (pl) [Muslims] believe that only the heirs of the fourth caliph, are the legitimate successors of Muhammad. In 931 AD,  the Twelfth Imam disappeared. It was not "until the ascendancy of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1978" did they believe that they had once again begun to live under the authority of a legitimate religious figure.

Shar’ia or sharia  is Islamic religious law in which both the private and public life are regulated. There is no separation between the political and religious. It also includes politics, finance, business, family, social issues and private issues such as marriage, sexuality and even hygiene. It encompasses all aspects of Muslims’ lives. “While it is in theory possible for an Islamic society to have different outward forms - an elective system of government, a hereditary monarchy, etc. - whatever the outward structure of the government, Sharia is the prescribed content. It is this fact that puts Sharia into conflict with forms of government based on anything other than the Quran and the Sunnah.”

Sunnah - Details about the Prophet Muhammad: how he lived, what he did, his non-Quranic utterances and his personal habits. They are considered to be indispensable knowledge for any faithful Muslim. The Sunnah is as binding upon a Muslim as is the Qur’an.”… the relation between the Qur’an and Sunnah is that of the soul and the body. In other words, the soul or the spirit of the Qur’an is given, in the Sunnah of the Prophet …Both go together to complete the … edifice of Islam. Take away any one of them, and the whole structure falls apart.” (Difference Between Hadith and Sunnah)  

Sunni –[Muslims] believe that the first four caliphs--Muhammad's successors--rightfully took his place as the leaders of Muslims. They recognize the heirs of the four caliphs as legitimate religious leaders. These heirs ruled continuously in the Arab world until the break-up of the Ottoman Empire following the end of the First World War.

Surah or sura - A sura may be likened to a chapter.

Taqiyya or taqiyyah - religiously sanctioned doctrine of deception. This is a critical concept to understand when attempting to understand Muslims and what they say. Taqiyya is religiously sanctioned “deliberate dissimulation” about religious matters which may be used to protect Islam and it’s believers. An example would be a Muslim stating  “there is freedom of conscience in Islam, and then quoting that Quranic verse -- “There shall be no compulsion in religion.” But the impression given will be false, for there has been no mention of the Muslim doctrine of abrogation, or naskh, whereby such an early verse as that about “no compulsion in religion” has been cancelled out by later…verses.”

Therefore, when a Muslim states they are tolerant of persons with other religious beliefs, for example, they tend to ignore the Quranic edicts to either bring them under submission or kill them.

The Five Pillars of Islam are the most basic tenets of the religion.

1. Faith in the oneness of Allah and the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad (indicated by the declaration [the Shahadah] that, "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah").

2. Keeping of the five scheduled daily prayers

3. Almsgiving

4. Fasting

5. Pilgrimage to Mecca for those who are able.

The five pillars don’t really explain much about Islam, or what a Muslim is supposed to believe or how he should act. The second through fifth pillars are shared by many religions. The finality of the prophethood of Muhammad, however, is unique to Islam. One cannot understand Islam and what it means to be a Muslim, without understanding Muhammad and the revelations given through him by Allah, which make up the Qur’an. (thanks to Islam 101)

Ulema or Ulama (pl) -  Muslim scholars trained in Islam and Islamic law.

Ummah - Muslim communities

The topic is difficult to write about, abhorrent to read about. And, I warn you; some of it may shock and disgust you. If you are easily offended, perhaps you should read no further. But, note that the offense isn’t mine, but rather of those who have most foully betrayed the hospitality offered them. My offense is merely in the relating of information and statements from perpetrators of the vile crime of sexual assault – perpetrated not only against their own kind, but most often against those in the country they have chosen to emigrate to.

There is something else that must be considered. In most of Europe, sex has been looked at differently than it is in the Untied States – except for predominantly Catholic countries or areas, such as Italy. In Europe, consensual sex has often been looked as just another part of life – part of a relationship. Unless there are religious considerations, pre-marital sex is common, and is looked at as just another part of the dating world, or a relationship. For the most part, it as looked at as a source of pleasure, rather than commitment. Virginity, as it is looked upon by Christians, is often not a commodity that is considered necessary, or even advantageous. Fidelity among certain groups in Europe is not commonplace. In fact, fidelity amongst younger people is often looked at as an oddity. I know things have changed in the U.S., but these are attitudes, which have been held by many Europeans for a long time. They were that way when I lived there, and were that way long before. Not much has changed in that regard.

But, one should not confuse the different sexual mores as an invitation to unwanted sex. One is consensual, the other is not. And, I reiterate, sexual assault is not about sex – it is about power. It always has been, and always will be. Men will often excuse their behavior, saying it is a biological imperative. Perhaps it once was, thousands of years ago. But, most cultures evolved beyond that point. Regardless of a man’s excuse, regardless of how he felt “she was asking for it,” or they “couldn’t control themselves,” it breaks down to power – they are stronger and decide to take what they like. And have no regard for their victim. She is merely a means to an end.

If there is one set of fundamental functions of rape, civilian or martial, it is to display, communicate, and produce or maintain dominance, which is both enjoyed for its own sake and used for such ulterior ends as exploitation, expulsion, dispersion, murder. Acts of forcible rape, like other instances of torture, communicate dominance by removing our control over what enters or impinges on our bodies. Rape is a cross-cultural language of male domination…” (Rape as a weapon of War)

The genesis of this article was some information I read about Sweden in To the Readers of Little Green Footballs. In little more than one generation, the number of rapes in Sweden has risen approximately 400-500 percent, and sexual assaults involving children under the age of 15 are six times as common. The increase in sexual assaults mirrors the influx of immigrants. As in the U.S., in other countries the increase in rapes is attributed to more being reported. This rationalization does not come even close to explaining what is going on, however. In Sweden, Muslim men of Arab ethnicity dominate the group of rape suspects.

In some countries, the ethnicity or country of origin of perpetrators is not often reported due to what is often considered an informal censorship. In others, frankly, the censorship is not so informal – it is quite blatant and often falls under the purview of “hate speech.” This is due to concerns that one group or another may be discriminated against, although this may not be not commonly known outside the particular country. Specific data, therefore, is often difficult to obtain. Additionally, there are no international standards on how crime statistics should be produced or presented, therefore making international comparisons difficult.

In France, for example, ethnicity-based censuses are banned. According to researcher Farhad Khosrokhavar in his book “Islam in Prisons,” Muslims make up some 70 percent of the prisoners in France. He said, “… complexion, names and religious traditions like prohibition of pork indicate that Muslims constitute an overwhelming majority in prisons.” It is often only through such information that one is able to glean what population is perpetrating what crimes.

In some communities in France, gang rapes of teenage girls and young women have become commonplace. These horrific crimes are called “tournantes” (pass-arounds) or basement plans, as that is often where the crime occurs. The government has initiated training to recognize the special circumstances of domestic violence, including the fact that some women immigrants may face further violence (or death) if sent back to their countries of origin… (Violence Against Women in France)

Such crimes often occur in the areas populated primarily by immigrants, “mostly from France's former colonies.”  According to sociologists and prosecutors, teenage boys “often loosely organized into gangs, prey on neighborhood girls. Many of the boys are raised in closed, traditional families and are hopelessly confused or ignorant about sex; others are simply street toughs. In this world, women enjoy little respect; often girls who appear weak, or wear tight-fitting clothing, or go out unaccompanied by their fathers or brothers, are considered fair game.” While it is not directly stated – because it is illegal in France - it is implicit as to which population this is directed towards.

According to a study from the Swedish National Crime Prevention Council, Brå,

it is four times more likely that a known rapist is born abroad, compared to persons born in Sweden. Resident aliens from Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia dominate the group of rape suspects. Commonalities between the four countries cited include Islamic religion and Arab ethnicity. According to these statistics, almost half of all perpetrators are immigrants. In Norway and Denmark, we know that non-Western immigrants, which frequently means Muslims, are grossly overrepresented on rape statistics. In Oslo, Norway, immigrants were involved in two out of three rape charges in 2001. The numbers in Denmark were the same, and even higher in the city of Copenhagen with three out of four rape charges. Sweden has a larger immigrant, including Muslim, population than any other country in northern Europe. The numbers there are likely to be at least as bad as with its Scandinavian neighbors. The actual number is thus probably even higher than what the authorities are reporting now, as it doesn't include second-generation immigrants. Lawyer Ann Christine Hjelm, who has investigated violent crimes in Svea high court, found that 85 per cent of the convicted rapists were born on foreign soil or by foreign parents. (Fjordman: Immigrant Rape Wave in Sweden)

Muslims are clear about their take on the issue. A Mufti in Copenhagen sparked a political outcry after he publicly declared that women who refuse to wear headscarves are "asking for rape." Australia’s most senior Muslim cleric blamed “immodestly dressed women who don’t wear Islamic headdress for being preyed on by men and likened them to abandoned ‘meat’ that attracts voracious animals.”

This attitude is prevalent among Muslims, as was elucidated by four young men with immigrant backgrounds. One of them, Hamid, a Muslim immigrant, explained their take on the issue. "It is not as wrong raping a Swedish girl as raping an Arab girl," he said. "The Swedish girl gets a lot of help afterwards, and she had probably fu**** before, anyway. But the Arab girl will get problems with her family. For her, being raped is a source of shame. It is important that she retains her virginity until she marries." He said, it was no coincidence that it was a Swedish girl that was gang raped by immigrants in Rissne. "It is far too easy to get a Swedish whore….. girl, I mean;" and laughed over his choice of words. "I don't have too much respect for Swedish girls. I guess you can say they get fu**** to pieces." (Fjordman: Immigrant Rape Wave in Sweden)

In Sweden, as in a number of other European countries, it is "racist" and therefore illegal to even suggest that certain ethnic or religious groups are worse than others. If one criticizes oppression of women, one must state that all men are equally bad. In a speech in 2002, Swedish politician Gudrun Schyman posited that Swedish men were just like the Taliban. A male columnist in newspaper Aftonbladet agreed with her. During a rally in March 2007, a man carried a sign that read, "While Swedish girls are being gang raped by immigrant gangs the SSU is fighting racism." He was arrested and later sentenced by the local court because he "expressed disrespect for a group of people with reference to their national or ethnic background." The court felt free speech had its limits, and he had acted in a provocative manner.

No matter what country one looks at, which Western nation, the number of rapes committed by Muslim immigrants, or those born to Muslim immigrants, is exceptionally high. It becomes difficult to view them as random acts. Rather, they are the acts of an invading or conquering army. Conquering armies throughout history have taken and used the women (under Islamic standards, young girls and teenagers also frequently fit into that category), not only as part of the humiliation of the men, but also because they considered them booty, or property, to be used as they saw fit.

It has been done at times of war by the Vikings, the Mongols, the Germans and the Russians during WW2, and all the way up to the Balkans in the 1990s… [their actions] …resembles warfare. This happens in most Western European countries, as well as in other infidels countries such as India. In Bradford, England, Channel 4 pulled a documentary about Pakistani and other Muslim men sexually abusing white English girls, some as young as 11. Writer Theodore Dalrymple thinks that "thanks to their cultural inheritance, (Muslim) abuse of women is systematic rather than unsystematic…" (Rape: Nothing to do with Islam?)

However, in Islam, it is not only a political ideology, but also part and parcel of their current religious beliefs. This behavior is sanctioned in the Qur’an and explained in the hadiths. It is against Islamic law to rape [Muslim] women, but is encouraged for women captured in battle. So, despite what the Muslim apologists say, the behavior is condoned, and even encouraged by their most holy book and the hadiths.

This hadith provides the context for the Qur’anic verse (4:24):

The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain.  They met their enemy and fought with them.  They defeated them and took them captives.

Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers.  So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." (Abu Dawud 2150)

There are several hadith in which Muhammed is asked for his opinion on how women should be raped following their capture. Bukhari 34:432 speaks to the fact that Muhammed told his men it was acceptable to rape them as long as they ejaculated within the women. Female slaves were bought and sold by Muhammad and his Muslims (Ibn Ishaq 693), traded like any other simple commodity. (The Myths of Muhammad)

Because non-Muslims are considered infidels, they are exhorted to either conquer us or destroy us. In Muslim eyes, crimes against infidels do not really constitute crimes. Rather, they are considered following their religious imperative. The actions of the Muslim immigrants in Europe clearly show they feel entitled. If they are viewed as a conquering army, their actions in Western nations not only make sense, but is in full accordance with Islamic law.

From Robert Spencer on rape and jihad,  “It is not understood that Western women are not so much regarded by most Muslims as individuals, but as "their women," the women who "belong" to hostile Infidels. They are booty, to be taken, just as the land of the Infidels someday will drop, it is believed, into Muslim hands –“

They find Western culture and mores to be offensive. They recognize Islamic law. If they “act, in accordance with the local laws” it is “ only insofar as they do not contradict Islam -- that is only because of darura, the doctrine of necessity -- and that necessity, that darura, is of course only temporary.”

Bernard Lewis, perceived by many as  “the intellectual godfather behind the administration’s decision to invade Iraq,” warned in a lecture that “the Islamic world was now attacking the West using two tactics: terrorism and migration....”

If rape isn’t considered terrorism, I don’t know what is. If the number of Muslim immigrants committing these crimes versus the number of the indigenous population doesn’t say something, I don’t know what does.  If the staggering rise in the number of rapes, which mirror the influx of this population doesn’t say something, I don’t know what does. The fact that Muslims get away with behavior not acceptable from other cultures and religions should speak volumes.

I’ll end this with a statement from Appeasement is not working:

“…the current strategy is not working for us infidels, i.e. APPEASEMENT. But it is working to the benefit of Islam… The invasion by Islam continues. So do we fight it? Or this time surrender? It seems our leaders has chosen to do the latter. But I don't believe the good people of Europe will. There will be a straw that will break the camel's back and when that happens then all hell will break lose. I'm rooting for the infidels.

In a recent thread in the ATS Conspiracy Forum, “So I just signed up on a Muslim extremist board…” I was floored by some of the comments from the posters. The original poster Sublime620  signed up because he “wanted to discuss politics with the ‘enemy’. People that don't like white Americans and Jews. While they don't actively state that they want to destroy America, it is clearly stated as an objective of theirs to make the world dominated by Islam.”

Sublime620 joined the board because “it was featured on Fox News as being a Muslim extremist website…” But, his real question was, after joining this board, if he would be “added to the terrorist watch list? Will my phone be tapped? Will they personally monitor my internet activity? Will I have trouble flying?”

He continues: “As for Christian extremists... Do you mean the neo-cons? I discuss them all the time. Hate 'em. But I know everything about Christian extremists. I have never argued with a Muslim extremist. I really was just curious as to what it would be like to have a casual debate with them [Muslim extremists].”

“…I have a different opinion and I wanted to discuss and debate that with them. Doesn't that show that I have more respect for them than most people do?”

JmanFIVek: “I love chatting with islamic extremist. It's interesting to try and understand their perspective.”

ANOK; “Why can't people see extremists Muslims as just a 'bunch of nuts' instead of painting the whole religion as evil? …It has nothing to do with religion, but a lot to do with the media and the power of persuasion.”

Res Ipsa: “I hate being ignorant about the different Muslim groups and what is pissing them off so bad. I just hate being ignorant about anything…”

SpartanKingLeonidas: pointed folks to some other thread he had begun, One called “Muslim’s Are Not The Problem, You Are!!! ” You have been duped by ignorance and are blind to the truth. The Muslim religion, is just like Christianity, exactly like it in fact…”

Sometimes it amazes me that my enemy is so naïve, superficial, and stupid…Syrian Ambassador to the U.S. 'Imad Mustafa, which aired on Al-Jazeera TV on May 5, 2008

These comments and comments like them show exactly what most of the American people are – ignorant of Islam, ignorant of their beliefs, and ignorant or the threat they pose. Unfortunately, it isn’t only “extremists” who are a threat.  There is abundant material from so-called “moderate” Muslims who speak about world domination and the destruction of those who do not follow the faith. The Muslims who do not believe this are apostates…in order to adapt within whatever culture they are in, and not become jihadists, they must ignore huge chunks of their holy book, the Qur’an and the hadiths. It is nothing like Christianity, as some would attest. The Muslims themselves agree their belief is nothing like Christianity.

In a sermon that aired on Hamas' Al-Aqsa TV on April 11, 2008, Yunis Al-Astal, Hamas MP and cleric, told worshipers that Rome, "the capital of the Catholics, or the Crusader capital," would soon be conquered by Islam, just as Constantinople was. It then, he said, would become "an advanced post for the Islamic conquests, which will spread through Europe in its entirety, and then will turn to the two Americas, and even Eastern Europe."

"If the Islamic shari'a is applied in America… "I am proud to be a fundamentalist Muslim, because I know, I follow, and I strive to practice the teachings of Islam. Every Muslim should be proud to be a fundamentalist Muslim... it gives benefits to society. On the basis of this knowledge, every Muslim should be proud to be a fundamentalist Muslim." [...]

"I would stress that every Muslim should be a terrorist. I repeat: Every Muslim should be a terrorist. A terrorist is a person who terrifies others, who terrorizes others. Public address delivered by Indian cleric Ashraf Mohamedy, which aired on Peace TV on April 22, 2008:

In late August, 2004 at the Egyptian Journalists' Union in Cairo, Sheikh Dr. Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood movement and one of the most important religious authorities in Islamist circles, issued a religious legal opinion permitting the abduction and killing of American civilians in Iraq.

Statements like the one from ANOK, “ Why can't people see extremists Muslims as just a 'bunch of nuts' instead of painting the whole religion as evil? …It has nothing to do with religion, but a lot to do with the media and the power of persuasion” show how little people really understand Islam. Their religion and their political ideology are one and the same – all “penned” from the same man. From the mouth of the same man they revere as their prophet. The man who if cartoons or pictures are made of, they will kill because of. And, please, for any who want a make a comparison with other religions – let us first remember that Muhammad, Abu l-Qasim Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Hashimi al-Qurashi, was a man. Not a god. Not God. Or even the Son of God. He was an illiterate man who saw and heard things, including at one point djinns – or in English, a genie. He related having conversations with one. In fact, the Qur'an has a whole discourse on them, and it states that Muhammad was sent as a prophet to both “humanity and the Djinn”.

What many want to call extremists, are, in fact, fundamental Muslims. The only valid comparison one can make between them and Christians is that fundamental Christians also believe every jot and tittle in their holy book, the Bible, and they believe in God. But, it is not the same God. Other than that, there is no comparison on any level.

Plus, Muslims lie. It is not only an accepted behavior, it is expected. It is so written in the Qur’an and in their hadiths.  They all believe in taqqiyah, which basically means to simulate whatever status you need to in order to win the war against the enemy…which is everyone who does not follow Muhammed. From The Truth About Islam, Taqqiyah & Jihad (Deception & Holy War), taqqiyah, or dissimulation, is a form of deception, which Muslims use to conceal the truth. This Islamic concept to deceive an enemy (i.e., non-Muslim, infidel, kafir, etc.) is not only a common practice, but is considered a virtue among Muslims. It is used by all Muslims, not just Shias, as Sunnis will assert.

Just remember this practice of deception whenever you hear ludicrous remarks like "Islam is a religion of peace," or "Violence is completely foreign to Islam."

So, aside from any other issue regarding Islam, one must remember that what they say (such as in an open forum, during a debate or political negotiations) must always be questioned. The fruit of the tree is where one sees the truth. There are good Muslims – Muslims who want the Qur’an to be reinterpreted. To adapt. But remember, they do not accept the Qur’an in its entirety. Because if they did, they would be jihadists. It is so written.

The Quilliam Foundation is one such group. They are a counter extremism think tank, created by former activists of radical Islamist organizations. They believe that Western Muslims should revive Western Islam, and find harmony in West-Islam relations.

And, of course, there are duplicitous Christians and Jews and folks of other beliefs. But, their scriptures say lying is wrong. It is not acceptable behavior. In Islam, however, it is not only considered acceptable, it is often considered necessary as it serves their belief and their cause.

From Understanding Dishonesty and Deceit in Islam

When someone first becomes curious and wishes to begin learning about Islam, it is imperative that they first understand the degree to which lying is not only permitted, but actually fostered and even, at times, commanded in Islam.  When a Christian wishes to teach others about Christianity, it is simply understood that honesty will be an essential aspect of that sharing.  In Islam however, most westerners have a hard time relating to the fact that purposeful exaggerations, covering of the truth and occasionally – outright-deliberate lying is a core part of the religion of Islam.  There are actually specific doctrines and traditions that foster a culture of dishonesty within Islam…of course, there are some verses and traditions in Islam that discourage lying:

 And cover not Truth with falsehood, nor conceal the Truth when ye know (what it is). -Surah 2:42 (Yusuf Ali)

 But, it is the exceptions to the rule that have actually become the rule itself. 

In order to understand how a religion can rationalize and justify lying, the model of jihad and the goals of Islam must be examined.  Within Islam, jihad is essentially viewed as a struggle to bring all things into submission to Allah and Islam.  This is critical. There is the personal inner struggle, which is fought by every Muslim to overcome his or her own weaknesses. Then there is the need to wage jihad to make others submit to Islam.  This is similar to what Christians call evangelism.  In Islam it is called Dawah.  “Flowing on down the spectrum, there is the imperative for Islam to take over local and eventually national governments.  This is the point, unfortunately where the true face, the violent face of Islam is often revealed and, where jihad usually begins to get bloody.”

This is what is we’re seeing throughout the world today.  So, while many non-Muslims think of jihad as personal struggle, and simply fighting against non-Muslim governments and nations, the concept in Islam actually includes all aspects of life, which the western world is beginning to see as shari’a law, among other things. “ In the Muslim mind, even the struggle to convert non-Muslims to Islam is part of jihad.  Evangelism in Islam is more than just “sharing the good news, it is war.” Muhammad said, “War is deception.”  So, in this context,  “Islam encourages Muslims to use an aggressive jihad/war-time mentality that is literally defined by deception.”

And, until people realize the degree to which this mentality plays out, people in the western world, who are being purposefully deceived, are like sheep being led to the slaughter.

So, yes – most of us are as stupid and naïve as they think we are. And, people will continue to be so until they truly inform themselves about Islam and not listen to the Muslim apologists who continue to compare Islam with Christianity or tell us it is a religion of peace. Because anyone who has actually reads the Qur’an know that isn’t true.

Speaking of … recent discussions about the issue of the press, specifically the American press, not publishing the Danish cartoons of Muhammed, I don't think I've ever been more disappointed with them than I was during this issue. Had all the papers and magazines printed the cartoons, the Muslims would have blustered and carried on. But, it's much more difficult to threaten a lot of people. Little people have power when other people don't do things. And the more silent people are, the more power they gain.

It's easy to threaten a couple of people. It's the bully mentality - and it won't stop, doesn't stop, until people stand up to them, a lot of people. As it is, they are getting what they want. They keep flexing their muscles and we keep backing down. Think of it like a war and the soldiers are to keep a piece of land. Every time they fall back, they lose a bit of that ground. Keep falling back and at some point, the ground is lost. Whether it's lost little by little or in one fell swoop, it doesn't matter. In the end, it's lost....

Except, in this case, it's not a frontal attack. It's backdoor ... but it doesn't mean they don't gain ground.... they are and they have. Until or unless the mainstream media (MSM) begins stepping out on a limb, there is going to be precious little left of our highly valued free speech, what's left of it. Some of them may not notice it now, because, for the most part, much of what the MSM writes is based on current public opinion or PCness. But, that's not what the press is supposed to be about. I mean, due to concerns about racist allegations, there are things they won't talk about either - except in the most cursory way.

I get a thing from the media everyday. About the media ... some interesting, some minutiae. For the most part, the people who report on the media are aware of these problems ...and, they are problems. But again, the more people write about these things, the less power they will hold ....

And, this is America - big brother to all. Ready to step in and right a wrong. Ready to stand up for the little guy. Ready to stand up for it's ideals. You see, one of the problems as I see it, is people are looking at it incorrectly - they're looking at it as offending their religion. But, even if that was the case, if one is to be sensitive about another's religious beliefs, they should be equally so of others'. Nary a week will go by without Christians or Jews being berated or made fun of in one publication or another. Yet, regardless how offensive something may be, one doesn't fear for one's life or safety.

But, it's not really religious. It's just under the guise of religion...it's political. People seem to have a difficult time understanding that. It's not like Christians or Jews who have a political agenda. With Muslims, with Islam, it's one and the same. All from the same source ... a lot of people don't seem to understand that, including much of the media. Without them knowing more about the Qur'an, it's a difficult concept to explain. Trying to seperate their political agenda from their religious beliefs is like trying to seperate one from their skin color. It can't be done. In the case of skin color, it may not define who they are or what they are capable of (both good and bad), but is an integral part of who they are and what they have become.

Just being a Muslim doesn't necessarily make one a terrorist of jihadist. There are many Muslims who are peaceful and adapt, or want to adapt to whatever culture they're in. However, in all cases, these Muslims are considered apostates ... in order to retain their beliefs they must ignore huge chunks of their holy book and hadiths. The political ideology we see in "extremists," is in fact, an integral part of their religious beliefs - all straight out of the Qur'an. And which they are taught from birth.

In a funny way, I think the MSM has become a part of the problem by acquiescing to the terrosits' demands. As many know, doing nothing in many cases makes one complicit. Which, perhaps unwittingly, the MSM has become -