Political Islam 101

Political Islam 101

Web Page Document Version: 202001190932

Formal-education can get you a job; Self-education can possibly make you wealthy; Self-education about Political Islam could very well save your life.


Recommended Sites
The Story of Mohammed, Islam unveiledRecommended Reading
Bill WarnerRecommended Reading/Videos
The ProjectRecommended Reading
Islam in Australia ListRecommended Reading
Study what they believeRecommended Reading/Listening
Jihad WatchRecommended Monitoring
Islamic Halal TaxResearch page
Read or listen to the KoranText and audio of the Koran

Index:

1. Why call it Political Islam?
2. What is Taqiyya (sinless Islamic deception)?
3. Why don't Islamic followers stop the killers among them?
4. But I have Islamic friends who tell me....
5. Islamaphobe, racist, bigot
6. The lie that is Palestine
7. But statistics show more people die from....
8. Re-writing Australian history tactic
9. The often cited 'peaceful' verse
10. Not the same god
11. But Islamic followers are the real victims of....
12. So why the 'love-fest' with Political Islam?
13. You are the cause of continued Islamic terror....
14. Mohammedan vs Muslim
15. Funding Political Islam through our domestic food market
16. To the shores of Tripoli
17. Islam Supports Feminism
18. Fakeugees
19. Bible scripture in the Islamic texts
20. You need to educate yourself....
21. All migrants had this, it is just our turn now
22. The Crusades were just as bad....
23. We do not know what motivated the attack....
---- (The Political Islamic Attack Flow Chart)
24. Islamaphobia, Islamaphobe
25. Self-righteous, arrogant intolerance and perpetual victimhood
26. Sunni vs Shiite
27. Manus and Nauru - The Truth
28. ISIS fighters/supporters wanting to return
29. infidel or kafir
30. The UN Hypocrisy
31. Know Thine Enemy
32. Why do Islamic followers migrate to non-Islamic nations
33. Islamic Covering for Women
34. Tolerance and Inclusion
35. Allahu Akbar is not a terrorist slogan
36. My reflections on 9/11
37. Radicalised/Moderates


1. Why call it Political Islam?

Essentially Islam is not 'just a religion' and is more like a completely encapsulated political system that encompasses a political, military, social, legal and religious 'ethos'. It exists as a holistic system saturated by sharia which is core governance of how an Islamic follower is to lead their life, where the religious aspects are only part of the overall conduct and beliefs.

Political Islam can be more likened to Communism or a theocratic dictatorship where only the imposed Islamic system is permitted. In comparison to our modern democracies, under Political Islam there is no separation of church and state. By its very nature there is no freedom of speech or the ability to freely challenge its ideals and beliefs - thereby making Political Islam a complete opposite to democracy.

In contrast to some of the world's main religions such as Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and Confucianism, Political Islam was founded by a warlord who sought to subdue anyone who did not submit (the word Islam means to submit or surrender) to his rule. The warlord founder actually led nine of the twenty-seven military campaigns to establish Political Islam's dominance. The contrast being that the actual founders of the mainstream religions engendered a 'live and let live' attitude towards others regardless of whether they accepted the belief system or not. Under Political Islam no other legal system, code of ethics or specifically 'religion' is accepted. (Koran 3:85).

If someone insists that Political Islam is only a religion then it is important that they are asked what is the form of government in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Afghanistan? And to the Islamic follower one would simply ask what government system they would prefer to see in place in countries like Australia - the answer can only truthfully be, Islam.


  • Back to Index

    2. What is Taqiyya? (sinless Islamic deception)

    Taqiyya is where an Islamic follower is allowed to lie or deceive others if doing so for the cause of furthering 'Islam'. The actions or statements by the person practising taqiyya are not counted against them given their goal is ultimately to trick/fool others in order to conceal their true intentions for the sake of 'Islam'.

    Based on the Koranic verses such as 3:54 ("god is the best of the deceivers") and other verses sustaining this Islamic fact (7:99, 8:30, 10:21, 13:42), it is little wonder that excused lying is an acceptable practice of Islamic followers. Sadly based on this very fact we, the kafir (a scum-like term for non-Islamic person(s)) in their eyes, would never truly know if the truth was being told and adds weight to the inherent distrust of Islamic followers.

    As all aspects in Islam (political, militant, legal, social, religious) are considered far superior by Islamic followers to any other man-made 'system' or other 'religion', they are free to be 'truthful' only to their sharia ethos. This is why we see the obvious contempt by Islamic followers with regards to our court systems and with our overall 'laws of the land' (eg., legal court rulings, council regulations, by-laws). By all assessment, it is safe to assume that the practice of sharia law exists within Islamic communities inside non-Islamic countries.

    While taqiyya is the main practice ("The attack is nothing to do with Islam.", "Islam is a religion of peace.", "We condemn this latest attack.", "We do not support terrorism.", "We will not hold funeral prayers for jihadists.") it is important to note some other similar or distinct practices of deception that are permitted in Political Islam:

    Taysir: The provision of Sharia excuses Islamic followers from complying with the doctrines and demands of Islam when they live where sharia is not the law of the land or where they might find it difficult or impossible to live and earn a living and still keep all aspects of Islamic law.

    Darura: This is an Arabic term that means the need to abolish the law. (eg., allowed to eat Haram foods when nothing else is available).

    Khitman: To deceive through telling a half-truth. An example is quoting Koran 5:32 but leaving out 5:33 which then leaves the 'nice' text of 5:32 to mean well for all people - it does not when you include 5:33 which shows this only applies to Islamic followers, all others are to be killed/crucified.

    Muruna: To blend in with the enemy or surroundings. Islamic followers can forget the commands of the Koran if their motives, actions and goals are towards a better focus and fulfilment of the Koran.

    Tawriya: To lie under an 'oath' to deceive but not actually break the oath itself.

    Hudabiah: Claiming a 'treaty' of peace that is then later broken.

    Hijra: The use of 'migration' to infiltrate a non-Islamic country and eventually take over. This has been seen with the flood of young fighting-aged men flooding into Europe and the UK claiming to be 'refugees'.


  • Back to Index

    3. Why don't Islamic followers stop the killers among them?

    One is always puzzled why seemingly 'nice' and well-mannered people fail to stop and oust the killers among them before an attack happens. A quick glance through the commands by their warlord founder as recorded in the Koran in so many verses such as 2:190-193, 2:216-217, 2:244-245, 4:74-77, 4:95-96, 5:33, 8:12-15, 9:5, 9:14, 9:41, 9:123, 47:4.... to cite a few, clearly show a mandate to subdue all non-believers, even murdering them [for which there is no sin, but a reward in eternity]. Essentially ALL Islamic followers are to be in the 'struggle' to see Political Islam established as the 'law of the land' in the place they find themselves. Koran 2:216 even addresses their possible reluctance to be part of the 'conquest', but are assured their 'god' knows what is best for them regardless of the unpleasantness of it all. Koran 2:216 reads:

    Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not.

    It is vital to note that all Islamic followers are taught from the cradle to expect the eventual world domination by their warlord founder's system and they are expected to help usher in their sharia system in the country they find themselves in, by whatever means necessary. One only needs to hear from those who fled their former homelands at how they were persecuted at the hands of the would-be Caliphaters who were simply going along with the ruling Islamic 'status quo'. Their once 'peaceful', 'tolerant' and 'accepting' Islamic neighbours and Islamic 'friends' turned on them in a heartbeat to join in the subduing, and in some cases killing, of the kafir. To think a nation like Australia would be exempt from such a future were it to start to happen here, or in any other non-sharia country, is just pure ignorance and foolishness.

    The Islamic follower remains in a state of war (Dar Al-Harb) until the place where they live is brought under Political Islam (Dar Al-Islam, a state or house of Islam, or Dar Al-Salem, a state or house of Islamic peace).

    It has sometimes been proposed that Islamic followers are afraid to oust the killers among them for fear of repercussions from the Islamic community but in truth the motive is really simply just one of supporting their 'jihadists' whom they see as martyrs for Political Islam. Surveying the state of countries that were usurped by the warlord founder's system in every instance is a pure text-book case of how this plays out for everyone involved (Islamic State of Turkey, Islamic State of Iran, Islamic State of Afghanistan, Islamic State of Egypt, Islamic State of Lebanon [most recent example]).

    You will be met with a few Islamic followers who will claim the attacks do not represent them and that it is not the 'true' Islamic belief system to kill people and the list goes on [...religion of peace.. etc]. The supposed 'silent majority' excuse is tended but by all historical accounts, the 'silent majority' are of no relevance [as cited by people like Brigitte Garbriel] when the 'strongarm' of Political Islam takes over.

    And so despite the plethora of repeated excuses, innocent people just going about their daily lives are murdered by Islamic followers throughout the world daily.


  • Back to Index

    4. But I have Islamic friends who tell me....

    One can often see the good hearts and hear the pleadings of non-Islamic followers who will tell you that their Islamic friends and Islamic work colleagues say that they are peaceful, that they don't support the jihadists/terrorists and that these practices are not part of their belief system... but the fact is, these Islamic 'friends' are either ignorant of their own system's teachings or this is simply taqiyya (permissible deception) as detailed on this page. By all assessment the goodwill intended is never truly reciprocated.

    Citing the repeated testimonies from non-Islamic followers who fled their former homelands (Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Egypt, Iran.... the real 'refugees') , we are told the same basic stories of how their once beloved Islamic friends and Islamic neighbours turned on them when Political Islam took control of their country.

    The followers of Political Islam, in defence of such betrayal, will cite the commands from their warlord founder's system:

    SourceVerse
    3:28Let not believers take disbelievers as allies rather than believers.
    3:118O you who believe! do not take for intimate friends from among others than your own people
    4:89...therefore take not to yourselves friends of them (unbelievers)
    5:51O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends;
    9:23O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you taketh them for friends, such are wrong-doers
    9:123O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you

    So by clear Koranic texts it is counted against an Islamic follower if he/she has non-Islamic followers as friends and brings disfavour upon them from their 'god' for doing so. This does not mean they can't befriend someone for the sake of their cause or for some kind of 'self-preservation', but ultimately they will be compelled by their Koranic teachings to never let any kind of 'true friendship' develop, at least from their own heart's perspective.

    To Islamic followers non-Islamic people remain the kafir - filthy scum-like sinners. There are only two 'categories' or 'classes' of people under Political Islam, the Islamic follower and the kafir.


  • Back to Index

    5. Islamaphobe, racist, bigot

    When expressing a contra-opinion on Political Islam one is often subjected to the term islamaphobe which is a manufactured 'silencing' word for anyone who voices any kind of opposition to Political Islam. It was 'invented' by the Muslim Brotherhood.

    When Islamic followers and non-Islamic followers call you a racist they clearly don't understand that Political Islam is not a race, therefore one cannot be racist, and a more correct term would be anti-Islam or counter-culturalist (that being at odds with the 'cultural' adherences of Political Islam). The term racist was originally 'created' by Trosky, a Communist, who knew if he could single out anyone who spoke against him as being 'prejudice' towards Trosky and the people from his background, then others would follow suite and not give the 'racist' a voice. Again, an attempted silencing term that does not apply to someone for simply having an opinion and trying to express valid concerns.

    When one surveys the repeated commands to subdue, attack and kill the Jewish people (an actual race) throughout Islamic texts, it is more obvious who the real racists are.

    Another popular word is bigot and by analysis of this word and how it applies to someone who is counter-Islam is again a 'silencing' word at best. People are free to believe the Islamic lies (taqiyya), but this does not empower them to then feel they can be abusive and cruel to those who don't.


  • Back to Index

    6. The lie that is Palestine

    Historically the Hamas Islamic run State (aka modern day Palestine) never historically belonged to Islamic followers and gained its name from Ancient Greek times (Herodotus) based on the original people of that region. Throughout the centuries the region of Palestine has been occupied by virtually 'everybody' who was 'ruling' the area at the time, which included the Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Jews, Arabs and other peoples in the region. The final 'official' naming of Palestine was actually taken from the Bible by the Romans who had observed the former ancient occupants of the land being the Philistines, who were conquered by the Ancient Israelites - so with the fall of the Roman Empire the region would still be technically part of Israel. Palestine was conquered by the Islamic followers after the Islamic warlord's death. It changed hands a couple of times between Christians and Islamic followers. The Ottoman Empire came much later and ruled it for about 500 years till it was liberated by the English and French forces during WW1.

    In 1948 with the establishment of Israel as a sovereign state, Palestine still remained under the control of Jordan, which refused to release the area or adopt the 'two-state' solution proposed by Israel at the time. In 1967 the 6 Day War saw the area was returned to Israeli control. Despite negotiations, Islamic followers still have rejected the two state solution and is a pawn in the Islamic world's struggle to conquer modern-day Israel. It is important to note here that the "Palestinian" or "Palestinian State" did not exist before this time as a country/state.

    Instead of improving the region for its occupants to build a viable economic state and better quality of living, it still receives hundreds of millions of dollars per year in aid, of which close to half of these funds are used to fuel the Hamas war machine in its perpetual plight to commit terrorist acts on Israel, almost daily (that seldom appear on world media reports), in its quest to conquer Israel and annihilate its people.

    When one surveys these items taken from the Muslim Brotherhood's The Project document, one can see why Palestine has been used as a 'tool' to keep the world blindly at odds with Israel over its current hostile interactions with the Islamic followers of the region.

    Extracts from The Project document:

  • 20. Make the Palestinian Issue a global wedge cause for Muslims;

  • 21. Adopt the total liberation of Palestine from Israel and the creation of an Islamic state as a keystone in the plan for global Islamic domination;

  • 22. Instigate a constant campaign to incite hatred by Muslims against Jews and reject any discussions of conciliation or coexistence with them;

  • 23. Actively create Jihad terror cells within Palestine;

  • 24. Link the terrorist activities in Palestine with the global terror movement;

  • 25. Collect sufficient funds to indefinitely perpetuate and support Jihad around the world.

    On source document: Muslim Brotherhood's The Project


  • Back to Index

    7. But statistics show more people die from....

    We often hear 'excuses' with wording similar to this to make light of the knife edge of Political Islam's killing machine. Apparently even beds kill more people than Islamic followers, as stated by one apologist. But the stark difference is none of these inanimate objects saturate themselves in an ideology where killing of the kafir is encouraged and the killers heralded as 'fighters' and 'martyrs' for the cause.


  • Back to Index

    8. Re-writing Australian history tactic

    Australia as a nation has its own history, both sad and tragic, mixed with victories and an overall desire by most to embrace the Australian way of life and to celebrate in its indigenous and migratory past.

    Recently a group have tried to perpetrate a lie that Australia was first settled by Islamic followers and cite the limited, if any, interaction with the Islamic followers of the then southern part of Indonesia and our indigenous tribes in the north of Australia. There is no historical evidence to support any of this despite their desire to re-write Australian history. There are no relics or ruins of mosques or other dwellings. It is sought through this farcical claim that Political Islam somehow now has the sovereign right to our continent.

    One key historical fact that refutes the goals of this tactic is that, when you survey the Islamic nations around the world today there is virtually no remnant of the society and people they replaced, save a few who are often persecuted (Egypt, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Libya, Syria). However Australia still has the legends of the Dreamtime and the existence of the cultural beliefs and practices of the various tribes that wandered the lands of Australia before the British settlement. The settlers of the time did not find an intolerant Koranic people bent on wiping out anything that was not set down by its warlord founder, instead they found a peaceful nomadic people steeped in their own languages and traditions.


  • Back to Index

    9. The often cited 'peaceful' verse

    It is vital that one understands that the Koran is not laid out in historical order and it is advisable that you get Harry Richardson's Book - The Story of Mohammed, Islam unveiled if you truly want to get an objective and non-Islamic tainted view of Islam and the life and conduct of its warlord founder. Other works of invaluable reference for those seeking the truth about Political Islam can be found in the Recommended Sites section at the top of this web page.

    For those who watched the Oscars in 2017 would have heard a reference to the Koran as being an inspirational verse for all humanity, "To save one life is to save all humanity.", and those of you who have had any interactions with Islamic followers in general will see this verse cited when defending the 'peaceful' reputation of Political Islam. But like all writings throughout history, one can easily take a snippet of a sentence and take the 'good' part from it to present, but if you do not survey the actual full text(s) and and its meanings, you can very easily misquote something which could be the complete polar opposite to what the 'good' actually implies:

    5:32: Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.

    .... but when you also include the next verse, 5:33, that follows on from 5:32, it is easy to see this is not a good scripture, at least not for the kafir:

    Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,

    If you do not submit to the Islamic god and the teachings of his warlord messenger, then you are one of those who wage war against the Islamic system and are therefore deemed to suffer whatever punishment that can be enacted upon you. It is vital that when looking at the belief system texts, one must always be mindful that the process of abrogation is applied which means the older and more peaceful and tolerant texts are superseded by the later texts, which often means that the 'peaceful' scriptures are replaced or overridden by the more violent and intolerant ones.


  • Back to Index

    10. Not the same god

    When the warlord founder of the political sharia ethos went to the Jews and Christians in Saudi Arabia at the time (and dare it be questioned how many Jews and Christians are in Saudi Arabia today?), he told them he had received visions from the angel Gabriel and was the new and final prophet to the world. The Jews and Christians told the warlord that they recognised Abraham, Moses, Jesus (by Christians) but him, not so much. Nor did they accept that his visions or teachings came from their G-d/God. The warlord then sought to subdue and kill anyone who did not accept his 'divinity'. It only takes you a few quick searches in the Islamic texts to see how much hatred and anti-Semitism fill the countless pages and explains why the Jews in particular are targeted daily by sharia followers. And if questioned the sharia adherents can't give an actual answer for why they have such anti-Jewish/anti-Israeli 'visible' hatred.

    When one compares the nature of the Islamic god and that of the G-d/God of the Jews and Christians, some stark differences can be seen immediately. Firstly there can be no 'personal' relationship for the sharia follower with their god - he is considered too holy for such a communion with people, other than his pet human, the warlord founder. All the followers of sharia remain as slaves, unlike Christians and Jews who are continually reminded in their belief system texts that G-d/God is their Father ('I will be their G-d/God and they will be my people....'). The Islamic god remains sovereign and aloof/unreachable - this is in stark contrast to the Jewish G-d who yearns to be close to His people - He desires to be in a person's life. When we come to Christianity, Christ taught of His loving Father who desires to be in every aspect of our human lives - in every minute and intimate detail.

    So under Judaism and Christianity there is a direct and distinct relationship of Father son/daughter. In Christianity Jesus is the only begotten Son of God and the Holy Spirit forms what is termed the Holy Trinity of God being three-in-one; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Islamic god has no son nor is there a Holy Spirit - the Islamic god's power alone reigns supreme over all other aspects of his being. The expected 'prophet' who will be called out from among the Jewish people in the book of Deuteronomy (18:15) is known to Christians as 'Christ' and to the Jews as the coming Messiah, however in Islam this person is their warlord founder. So by all examination, the warlord founder of Political Islam is a 'false' prophet and antichrist in nature. To suggest he replaced the Christ is simple heresy in the eyes of Christian doctrine.

    Sharia followers believe Christ did not die on the cross for the salvation of all humankind and that He was only a prophet who will one day return to part of the Islamic world to destroy the crosses and pigs. In the Bible Christ told anyone who wishes to follow Him must take up their cross daily and the only reference to Jesus doing anything bad to pigs was when He allowed demons possessing two men to pass into the bodies of the pigs, which subsequently drowned themselves.

    So when Christ actually said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me." (John 14:6), sharia followers reject this and claim that the only mercy one can receive from their god is through the warlord founder - in a nutshell the warlord founder has replaced Christ.

    Sharia followers teach that their 'christ' did not die on the cross but the 'person' who was crucified was actually Judas Iscariot. So from the Islamic perspective viewing Christians, the Christians all believe the personage of the "Crucifixion" was in fact Judas (who in Christian scripture hanged himself). Apparently the Islamic god deliberately deceived the then Christians, Romans and Jews into somehow mistaking Judas as Jesus on the cross, thus further removing the divinity of the Christian Jesus and the Christian message that Christ died on the cross for the sins of the world.

    At no time did Christ teach followers to kill anyone for whatever reason. To reach paradise a sharia follower who deliberately kills people for the cause of Islam will enter paradise (jannah) immediately surrounded by 72 virgins (houri), however, if you are a woman, you simply end up being in charge of your husband's virgins. There is also no need to have Islamic prayers said for Islamic killers at their funeral as they have already entered the Islamic paradise. Judaism and Christianity teach that such murderers would face eternal damnation in hell.

    Not only does the warlord founder replace Christ as the expected Messiah in the book of Leviticus, when Christ told His disciples in the book of John (14:16) that He was sending them an advocate, a helper, who would be with them forever, whom Christians know as the Holy Spirit, again in Islam this is where the warlord founder is 'slotted' into this original Christian context as replacing the Holy Spirit.

    In summary of the 'god' comparison, the only similarity for the Islamic god and that of the Jews is that they are the only god/G-d (monotheism). In Christianity there is only one God, but has three distinct parts (Father, Son and Holy Spirit).

    As an extra note on the religious comparison of Political Islam to the other 'actual religions' such as Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, Confucianism, to name a few; all of these 'actual religions' were laid down by people of intended goodwill to all people regardless of who they were and what they believed - there were no commands to kill and subdue others for the sake of the religion itself. While throughout history 'some' have sought to do this, it goes against the originators intent and has simply been railroaded to serve the lust for an individual's or group's power over others - under Political Islam such forced submission is commanded of them for all followers (Koran 2:216).

    Islamic followers will claim that the Jews and Christians will also be accepted by the Islamic god by Koran 2:62 , but in true abrogation this is later cancelled in Koran 3:85. So when sharia followers say 'we' are all united under the same Abrahamic code/faith, this is again deception (taqiyya) . To them there is only one 'valid' code of faith descending from the prophet Abraham - Islam.
    When thinking of the warlord founder's self-substantiated claims that his sharia 'system' (political, legal, social and religious) was an Abrahamic based ideology would be akinned to claiming to be a donkey for simply standing in a stable (or in modern terms, claiming oneself to be a motor vehicle or of the similar structure for simply standing in a garage or under a carport and making "broom" "broom" noises).

    No other religious founder performed the actions of the Islamic warlord who in 627AD personally beheaded the last remaining major tribe of Jews in Medina, some 800-900 men and boys. Reports of this indicate it took him most of the day.

    The Islamic founder of Political Islam was often called "The Ear" by his then critics and detractors for his constantly loving to hear stories, founded in truth or not, and then seemingly has woven these stories and fables into his belief system. His name and references to himself occupy Islamic teaching by about 85%, only the remaining 15% actually refer to his god. This leads to many people referring to Islamic followers as 'Mohammedans' for this very reason - political Islam is far more about 'the man' rather the 'the god'.


  • Back to Index

    11. But Islamic followers are the real victims of....

    We constantly hear that Islamic followers are the real victims of terrorist actions the world over as if to garner sympathy for the mainly minority Islamic communities within democratic countries.

    By all accounts in Australia, more non-Islamic followers have died by terrorist actions than Islamic followers and if they do really in fact kill each other in the same numbers (Sunni vs Shiite), one begs to ask "Why would we want more of them here?", as this only seeks to make our country less safe for everyone.

    There are constant stories in the media about Islamic followers being abused by non-Islamic followers in falsely claimed 'racist' rants, but given Political Islam is not a specific 'race' then it cannot be classed as 'racism' (refer Trotsky reference on this page) - that being said, the Islamic followers are not killed by the ranting non-Islamic person and while this conduct only lowers our standards as a people, harsh words and the actual killing of someone with a knife or gun cannot be compared. The key to defeat Political Islam is not through rants and abuse but by countering its spread (mosques and schools) and educating every non-Islamic one by one as to the 'real' plight of Political Islam.

    An doctor in Australia who was titled by a major newspaper as being their "Australian of the year", following an Islamic attack on our citizens on our own soil at the time, stated that Australians must see the peaceful non-jihadist Islamic followers living in our democracy as the true victims who will now suffer scorn and will live in fear of reprisals by the Australian people. At the time of writing this article (some years later) there have been no violent reprisals against Islamic followers following a 'latest' attack. Again despite the innocent blood being spilled, the Islamic teaching is to make it all about them and not the true victims of Islamic terror, the actual people who have died and the families and friends who have had people they love murdered by yet another follower of Political Islam.

    A recent public spokeswoman of Political Islam sought to tell the Australian people to not so much remember our fallen soldiers and those who have given their lives for our freedoms, but to remember the various Islamic based 'conditions' close to Australia and overseas - this was cited on our ANZAC day. The perpetual victim 'card' was played yet again when a huge backlash was unleashed by an incensed public who saw this as an insult to our culture and essentially spat on the graves of our fallen.

    One can also look at who the real victims of the plight of Political Islam actually are by looking inside the current Islamic nations around the world and see who is actually being persecuted, subdued and often killed..... these will be mainly Christians and secular people - note there are no Jews in any Islamic countries, but the perpetual onslaught daily against Israel is sickening.

    If Islamic followers die during an Islamic terrorist attack the comfort they give themselves is that at least the Islamic followers died knowing they will have a place in the Islamic heaven.


  • Back to Index

    12. So why the 'love-fest' with Political Islam?

    So with all of the community concern with the presence of Political Islam on our soil, where we see mosques popping up in suburbs throughout Australia like mushrooms, a very pro-Islam media that refuses to report the truth on most terror attack stories, politicians and local council representatives promoting the Islamic presence in our society (Check YouTube for the prime minister's 'gush' on Q&A about the benefits of Islam as an example); why with all of the valid and proven concerns the Australian people have about Political Islam's presence in Australia, does the majority go ignored? Why are the more vocal members in the community attacked for speaking up and are then slandered with names and labels such as bigots, racists, islamaphobes, Nazis and fascists, in an attempt to silence them?

    Why when we see repeated times the world over where Islamic followers attack, abuse, rape and murder the innocent non-Islamic members in our society, do we still see such a pro-Islamic agenda to import more of this system and its followers into our democracies?

    The only answer, based on all the evidence to date, is MONEY. The world has been pouring trillions of dollars each year into the Islamic oil suppliers. It has bought into taxing the local majority non-Islamic civilians with a food tax on domestic non-export products to help fund the massively wealthy politically Islamic war machine.

    In Australia alone there are literally hundreds of Islamic 'entities' that exist as charities and trusts that channel funds to aid the spread of Political Islam in our very own majority non-Islamic nation.

    For this continued condoning and misrepresentation of facts by our 'democratic' politicians and 'free speech' media entities there must be a huge injection of funds from Political Islam somewhere, all enacted in the name of tolerance and 'multiculturalism'. To the average Australian this is just purely the betrayal of our nation's future and those who actually understand what is going on know we are in a cultural war with Political Islam - some anti-Islamic groups have even gone as far as to label the politicians, authorities and media outlets that continue to promote 'Islam' as committing treason. One literally fears for the future for our children, and our childrens' children.

    Turning a blind eye to what is going on and hiding your "30 pieces of silver" will one day come to light on those who participate in the selling out of our democracies to Political Islam. As we have already seen in our nation's past, the history books do not lie.


  • Back to Index

    13. You are the cause of continued Islamic terror....

    We have heard pro-Islamic supporters in our nation claim that the people who speak out against Islamic terrorist actions or demand for more clarity into the workings of Political Islam in our nation, as being responsible for the continued terror attacks (or the foiled attempts thereof). They make farcical claims that the person who is actually brave enough to say something has "blood on their hands" or "the victims death is on their heads" - attempting to hold the person who won't be silent as being responsible for Islamic terror attacks.

    This is the same as claiming someone who saw a crime being committed and reported it, or testified with evidence in court about it, is just as responsible as the perpetrator of the crime itself, or being responsible for the next a crime of the same nature being committed in the future somewhere. The only people who are responsible for the murderous Islamic terrorist actions - are the terrorists themselves and the Islamic communities they 'hide' in that do nothing to oust the killers before they kill.

    So remember the next time you witness a bank robbery, for example, make sure you don't say anything otherwise you are actually responsible for the current crime, or if not, the next bank robbery that happens somewhere. What flawed logic.

    The politically Islamic activists can be likened to naughty kids with crayons who threaten to scribble on your nicely painted walls in your house if you don't let them do what they want - which is what they are going to do anyway. While this may be a comical metaphor, the reality is real people die. One key Islamic spokesperson in the media once said that Australians should be nicer to Islamic followers..... and how has that worked out for stopping the continued plight of Political Islam against our people thus far? Our actions do not count - our inaction does.


  • Back to Index

    14. Mohammedan vs Muslim

    Mohammedan is a term used to distinguish the followers of the warlord founder of Political Islam as the word Allah is used by Arabic speaking peoples such as Christians to also refer to God/god, so it is more accurate to distinguish which teachings by a specific man they follow as we see with actual religions:

    Christ - Christian
    Buddha - Buddhist
    Lao Tzu - Taoist

    And let us in this not make the mistake that the Islamic god is the same God/G-d as the Jews and Christians (covered in another section on this page). Bill Warner, an expert on Political Islam, cites that by reference the warlord founder's name is found in about 86% of the Islamic texts whereas the name of god (Allah) is only found around 14% of the texts. So with every due respect to those Arabic-speaking people who are not Islamic, we can distinguish between their identify based on by the teachings of the founder they follow.

    On this page you will see the word Islamic or Islamic followers which you can easily substitute as Mohammedan.


  • Back to Index

    15. Funding Political Islam through our domestic food market

    For many years now a deceptively hidden Islamic tax has been applied to our domestic non-export meat industry and domestic consumer goods market. This tax is known to most as halal certification but it would be more correct to call this the Islamic Goods Tax. Close to 85% of products the average Australian purchases in our local supermarkets carries this hidden tax system. Most Australians are oblivious that they are funding Political Islam every day through their shopping dollar.

    It is important to note that this tax is applied under the guise of needing to certify for the overseas export trade, but it is deceptively hidden on most products (no logos or markings on product labels) and the products we purchase are not export products and therefore unfairly and criminally tax the majority non-Mohammedan population under a system that does not apply to them.

    With the rise of groups on social media in particular, the exposure of this rort to steal from our people and put money into the hands of political Islam, our Australian people are waking up to what is happening and are now joining in with all diligence to refuse to buy products that carry the IGT (Islamic Goods Tax).

    As usual many politicians and the media in general down-play this whole hidden tax system or again attempt to distort the facts of its benefits to the Australian market - those who oppose this tax are made out to be fools and even end up with the usual Trotsky-styled insults of racist, bigot, islamaphobe.

    There is also much comparison to Kosher and other food standards criteria to try to 'sell' the IGT (Islamic Goods Tax) to the average Australian, but none of the other product certifications fund a political entity does not at least give back to Australia or the Australian people. The money goes to local 'certifiers' who in turn fund mosques, Islamic charities and Islamic schools. One famous ABC 7:30 report found the local funds were actually helping build a mosque and complex overseas.

    A full page on this tax system can be found on this website at http://fairdinkum.name/iht.php

    When people get angry at you for not wanting to pay the IGT (Islamic Goods Tax) simply ask them if they are happy to keep funding Political Islam.


  • Back to Index

    16. To the shores of Tripoli

    Have you ever wondered why the US Marines anthem has the lines "To the shores of Tripoli" in their song? A blame game has been used by the followers of political Islam that the USA for decades has attacked 'innocent' Islamic followers citing drone strikes and other military actions against this 'peaceful' and 'non-combatant' people, but this is pure Islamic deception and the whole 'war' between the USA and Islamic followers goes back hundreds of years.

    Presidents John Adams and Thomas Jefferson noted that their peaceful traders in the Middle East were constantly being attacked by Islamic elements there. Those who were not killed could only escape persecution and death by accepting being forced to 'submit' and embrace Islam.

    With their pleas to the British Empire at the time going unanswered, the US took matters into their own hands and sent the best armed force they could assemble which gave the USA a core fighting machine we today know as the US Marines. And it was then at this time that Political Islam started to see their Barbary Pirates under the Islamic Ottoman Empire suffer defeat at the hands of the angered USA. So who was it that started all the attacks and call for attacks by the followers of Political Islam on the great 'satan' America? As always history stands to judge the actions of those who have gone before us on this earth.

    This did not all start with incidents like the murderous 9/11.


  • Back to Index

    17. Islam Supports Feminism

    Women under the rule of the male dominating sharia system:

    A woman can be stoned to death for adultery (but not the man)
    A woman is forced to wear restrictive coverings to prevent Mohammedan men from being unable to control their sexual urges and will rape the woman. (hijab,burqa etc)
    In marriage a woman swears loyalty and submission to the man. There is no oath or responsibility for the man towards his wife.
    A woman remains the 'possession' of her father, grandfather, husband.
    In a politically Islamic country a man can have up to four wives. The woman can only have one husband.
    A woman cannot divorce her husband. A man can divorce his wife and in some parts of the politically Islamic world, they invoke the talaq where they simply need to say "I divorce you" three times in front of witnesses to be divorced of his wife.
    If a woman is deemed to be rebellious she can be beaten, but men are advised not to beat her around the face.
    Sexual relations with a girl is allowable, even if pre-pubescent.
    A woman's prayers are not valid unless the husband says so.
    Women are looked upon as having less intelligence and are therefore ruled by the male members in society.
    The barbaric practice of female genital mutilation - Islamic circumcision.
    Raping female captives is permissible.
    A woman can be killed by a male family member (honour killing) if it is deemed she is bringing shame on the family or demonstrates any form of heresy.

    Time and time again we see the feminist movements in democracies seldom take any kind of stance towards the barbaric sharia system despite the continued atrocities throughout the Mohammedan world against women.

    Just more evidence that no part of sharia should be allowed to operate in a democracy - it is counter-culture, often illegal and reduces women to second, third class citizens. Under sharia a woman is never deemed equal to a man.


  • Back to Index

    18. Fakeugees

    In recent years Europe, the USA and Australia has witnessed the masses of young fighting-aged men storming into Europe and petitioning under the guise of 'human rights' to be allowed to enter the UK and Australia, claiming to be the 'victims', and therefore refugees, fleeing persecution or war in their former country. By first appearances one asks, "Where are all the women and children?" Woman, children and the elderly are normally the first refugees we we see fleeing war-torn nations while their younger men (fathers and sons) stay back 'home' to defend their homeland. Perhaps these men are cowards fleeing the responsibility of protecting their families?

    Then we find the Islamic word hijra (or hijrah or hegira). Historically this was the 'migration' by the warlord founder of Political Islam and his followers who were said to be fleeing the city of Mecca based on claims of being persecuted and were in extreme poverty. The Islamic warlord and his followers mass migrated to Yathrib, later called Medina. Once Political Islam was in the majority in Medina, it fell to Islamic rule.

    This mass migration, under whatever guise, has been used historically into Africa, Asia and now into Europe. The key is to establish numbers, build mosques and then spread. Men are encouraged to have large families to help add to the eventual numbers of Islamic followers who can rise up and one day take control of where they are. The recent fate of Lebanon in the 1960s to 1970s is a perfect example of how a majority non-Islamic country, after importing a huge number of Islamic 'refugees', was eventually overthrown by Islamic rule. Islamic followers are peaceful (at the start), tolerant (at the start) and friendly (at the start). Once they gain any form of majority and 'voice' in their new host country, the dialogue changes to one of criticising the exiting country's leadership, cite that Islamic followers are being marginalised and are being 'persecuted' as a minority (all the while never looking at the examples of how 'minorities' fare in Islamic nations around the world) and seek to gain control in public office to champion their political 'ethos' as the better option for the people in the country (sharia law, Islam's religious aspects as the better 'religion' etc).

    How the actions of historical figures like John III Sobieski, king of Poland, must look with sadness on our world where his efforts on September 11 1683 (NB: 9/11) forever drove out the Islamic forces trying to fight their way into Europe. To now see it taken over through Islamic hijra invasion.

    Based on the now very sad fate of countries like Germany, France, Sweden and the UK, where the good natured democratic nations took pity on the 'refugees' and gave them a place to live, are now faced with the rise of Political Islam in their nations. Islamic followers attain a large presence around the areas where their mosques are built. They eventually make it 'uncomfortable' for non-Islamic followers to remain in their local areas, forcing the original citizens to move out. Islamic followers then seek to gain places of power in local councils, in government/parliament, police, military and security companies. The people in these positions look and act nicely to the non-Islamic people with the 'generationally' minded goal to one day installing Political Islam, its sharia, as the ruling ethos where they live. Those who allow this by betraying their countrymen and women tend to wake up way too late and often themselves become the 'real' refugees fleeing persecution at the hands of Islamic followers in their former homelands. Again Lebanon stands as a living current profile of where this has happened and is text book Islamic hijra application.

    So the so called refugees are in fact fakeugees.


  • Back to Index

    19. Bible scripture in the Islamic texts

    To help validate his claims, the warlord founder of Political Islam needed to make sure that some kind of 'connection' or 'lineage' existed between the ancient Judeo-Christian beliefs and his new thought-up system, and so we see plagiarised texts from the Judeo-Christian texts in an attempt to try and substantiate the Mohammedan's system as being from the same root or source. Judaism and Christianity were the two primary belief systems at the time that adhered to the monotheistic belief (only one god), and suited the mould of his newly create god.

    Throughout history we have seen this same kind of conduct repeated throughout the ages and this tactic with regards to Political Islam is simply to try to present some validity to texts that existed hundreds of years before the Islamic warlord's life. In comparison between the two, the stories told have been modified to agree with the warlord founder's beliefs (examples are regarding G-d/God, Mary, Jesus and so much more).

    We ourselves could draft a book and include ancient manuscripts in it in an attempt to validate 'our own' collective belief system book - this does not give our new book any more credence or hold an authorative position over the older original books nor does a new slant on the views and stories give our new book validation based on the old. This is simply historical texts fraud.

    Sadly there are even Jews and Christians who believe that because the original ancients texts are in the Koran (somewhat re-worded), that this somehow establishes Political Islam, or at least the religious aspect of Political Islam, as having the same roots. For the Christian, in the Koran, Christ was not the Son of God - He was simply a prophet given the Gospel. The one and only true prophet and perfect man was the Islamic warlord founder himself.

    A final note on the Koran itself: it was not written by the warlord founder himself and scholars believe he himself was illiterate. The Koran is a collection of his teachings later formulated by his followers. Unlike say the Christian Bible where the authors on Christ Himself were those who knew him personally and spent three years in His presence to later go on and record the Gospels in the the Christian New Testament part of the Bible we have today.


  • Back to Index

    20. You need to educate yourself....

    Encountering people who are not Islamic followers but supporters of Political Islam, and some Islamic followers themselves, you will often be told that you should "Educate yourself", "You are not an authority", "It is just like you are claiming to be an engineer", "Not even the imams understand the Koran", "Most Islamic followers don't read their books", "Have you asked a Mohammedan" ......

    The sad truth of it all is that when one starts a journey into self-education about Political Islam, you wish in some ways you did not discover what the all encompassing belief system says about the Mohammedan, their rights and what they are commanded to do (and stand in support of those commanded to do), to the kafir. The more one becomes self-educated through personal research and comparing what you have found with those who actually are scholars and authorities, you realise more and more that the mosques, Islamic schools and Islamic charities (trusts and financial entities) do not belong in our democratic nations. The entire Islamic belief system (political, military, social, legal, religious) is at complete polar opposites to our democratic way of life and to allow it to in any way take a foothold in our nation is suicide for our nation, culture and our future generations. One is ever mindful of nations like Lebanon as a stark reminder and we seen the peril that now has befallen the Germans, Swedish and French in the own nations - love and tolerance is not returned in kind.

    One does not need to be a brilliant Koranic scholar to understand verses like:

    Koran 2:191 And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah (trial, affliction, or distress) is worse than killing.
    Koran 2:216 Jihad (holy fighting in Allah's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allah knows but you do not know.
    Koran 5:33 The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned
    Koran 8:12 I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
    Koran 9:5 So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush
    Koran 47:4 So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them

    From these few simple to read and be comprehensively understood texts that are translated correctly into English and many other languages, there is no mistake or need to read more or educate yourself. These plain verses that refer to the fate of the kafir are to be followed by all Islamic followers and anyone who is not a follower of Political Islam is the enemy of Political Islam no matter how much you defend, promote, appease.... your fate, unless you embrace the Islamic life as your own and become a believer, is to be subdued into a life of dhimmitude (non-Islamic followers submission to Islamic rule) or be murdered - the choice is yours. Your choice in failing to educate yourself about what is written is yours to make..... and do you really think an imam is going to be truthful about what is written claiming it is 'out of context' or some other such deception (taqiyya) while yet another innocent person or people are murdered by Islamic followers somewhere in the name of Political Islam?

    .... and if most Islamic followers don't read their belief system texts then there are a lot who are going around threatening, subduing and killing the kafir based on what is written there.


  • Back to Index

    21. All migrants had this, it is just our turn now

    In an attempt to explain away why there is such resistance to Political Islam in our democratic nation, we see some Islamic followers and their supporters start the banter that "all migrants have had this (resistance), it is just our turn now" (dare we use Trotsky's word racism as the defining word).

    The good families who fled to Australia, who scraped together all they had often in one small suitcase, and came to this great nation in a hope of a better future for their families and themselves, came here to be part of our history. Some came just wanting a better start in life in our 'new' and flourishing nation. To work hard to give their children a better future. To be part of the Aussie life. While they came here with some fond reflection and pining for the lives they had back in their former homelands, they did not come here and tell us how much we offend them, how much our food choices offend them and how much our crosses on churches or presence of synagogues and temples offends them. They did not come here and try to distort our 'real' recorded history. They did not come here and tell their fellow migrants to have large families to one day out-breed the existing people here so they became a majority. They did not make offensive statements about our women being like "uncovered meat" or try to focus our attention on Islamic issues rather than honour our fallen soldiers in past wars on our commemorative days. They would never have allowed members in their own communities to go about killing innocent Australians without alerting authorities and ousting the killers among them. These 'real' refugees and migrants became 'Australian' -first and foremost.

    None of the other migrants to Australia, be they refugees or just people seeking a brighter future, tried to change anything. They tried with all diligence just to live a good life and be woven into our nations fabric. None of these groups needed a specific security task force funded by our tax-paying dollars to be permanently in place to protect our innocent civilians from being murdered in our streets, cafes or just going home after a good day's work.

    Aussies are actually quite a tolerant people so long as you 'have a fair go', don't be a 'bludger' on our welfare systems and tell us how wrong we are about everything.

    It is hoped that in this section the good and descent people who came to our country with good and clean and encompassing motives, have been honoured. Political Islam has a very different goal for our nation.


  • Back to Index

    22. The Crusades were just as bad....

    Anti-religious thinkers and supporters often cite the Crusades by the 'Christian' world as being a tool to demonstrate how all religions are the problem and that Christians kill just as many people.... and the list of inaccurate statements go on.

    While one cannot rule out the Vatican's motive to re-establish itself as the central source of 'power' in Europe through this united war on Political Islam, one needs to be mindful that the Crusades were in fact direct responses to Islamic aggression towards the non-Islamic parts of the Middle-East and its continued onslaught to try to conquer Europe. For centuries, at least 400 years, the Islamic followers were attacking, killing or subduing non-Islamic people, in particular the key places in Israel which were valued by both the Jew and Christian, making it unsafe to go to (pilgrimage), owing to the risks of being killed by Islamic followers.

    While the conduct of 'some' participants in the Crusades do not represent the core focus of the plight in particular to "free the Holy Land", after many souls being lost under the Islamic blade for centuries, Christians were historically criticised for taking so long to do something about the continued bloodshed at the hands of Islamic followers.

    It actually wasn't until such events as the final defeat of the Political Islamic onslaught at Vienna on the 11th and 12th of September 1683 (note the date) by a liberating army led by the king of Poland, John III Sobieski, that saw the final grip of Political Islam on Europe itself removed. The more modern crushing of the Islamic Ottoman Empire in WWI finally saw some stability and peace for non-Islamic followers living or travelling to/through the Middle-East finally being restored. Needless to say, even in our modern age, and particularly with the recent resurgence of perpetual terror attacks by Islamic followers, the Middle-East still remains a hotbed of danger.

    For those who still maintain the view that the Crusades and religions are the cause of wars and widespread genocide against the innocent, perhaps the example of Nazism and Communism, which are more comparable with Political Islam in their all-encompassing rule by force, as dispelling these incorrect statements.


  • Back to Index

    23. Authorities do not know what motivated the attack....

    After an Islamic attack we constantly hear statements from the police and other officials similar to "We do not know what motivated the attack..." or "It is still unclear as to what motivated the attack..." and yet the regular screaming in Arabic of the taqbir during most of these attacks would tend to suggest the motivation is all too clear and the answers can be found throughout the Koran.

    The media continue to suppress any mention of the word Islam or Muslim and make all attempts to suppress the name of the attacker or attackers - general terms are initially employed of the person's origin being 'Asian', 'African', 'Middle East' or 'White'. At best they state this is some kind of radicalised (a term that does not exist in the sharia system texts) individual or group that perpetrated the latest crime. This word radicalised is a new term which to the Islamic follower is just a foolish self-deception by the non-Islamic followers (kafir), in their vain attempt to understand why more innocent people have died yet again at the hands of the followers of Political Islam - again the answers are there in black and white, beautifully translated into so many different languages, in the pages of the Koran, Hadith, Sunnah and the Reliance of the Traveller.

    The media and authorities are also observed going into almost fever pitch to take the spotlight off the warlord founder's political system and in some cases will faintly suggest that the victims somehow either created the situation or are of a social standing that makes them possibly 'deserving' of their fate. People who continue to try to keep the spotlight on the warlord founder's system are then accused of being the cause of Islamic attacks and are somehow perpetrators of hate speech and should be silenced.

    An often employed tactic following an Islamic attack suggests not blaming the killers for their actions or at least an attempt is made to lessen accountability of the attacker(s). The focus is to somehow garner sympathy and support for the actual perpetrators as being 'victims' included in the whole situation.

    We then go on to have it officially confirmed that the individual or individuals were in fact categorised by some or all of these:

  • radicalised - a mindset that actually doesn't exist anywhere in Islam

  • mentally ill - this the belief system tends to cause a lot of this

  • addicted - drugs or other forms of behavioural altering causes (drugs/alcohol are not allowed in Islam)

  • emotionally unstable - this is obvious

  • lone wolf - the Islamic system produces a lot of these

  • ...something inspired - ISIS or revenge or following

  • nothing to do with Islam - but the attackers almost always are

  • potential backlash - the true victims are the peaceful Islamic followers who now face a possible backlash (that never happens)

    Those who observe the constant repetition of activity by officials and media after an attack have long since stopped listening and on social media the deluge of disbelieving comments in being lied to is evident.


    NB: The true victims of an Islamic attack remain those who have lost their lives, those who have been injured and those who now mourn the loss of people they love. The perpetrators are never the victims.


    The Political Islamic Attack Flow Chart
    ItemDescription
    1 An attack on innocent civilians or police/armed forces is perpetrated by a follower of Political Islam.
    2 Authorities not clear on the motive - the media suppress anything that points to Political Islam.
    Attempts are made by Islamic followers and their non-Islamic supporters to silence anyone who raises the issue that this is yet another Islamic attack and the clues to why this has happened can be found in the Islamic texts.
    3 It is later confirmed this was an attack by an Islamic follower or followers but they have been radicalised.
    Radicalised: The invented term that under Islam has no meaning. There are no mentions of the Islamic texts that teach Islamic followers to actually do this.
    4 Political Islamic authorities claim the individual(s) responsible are not following the 'true' Islam which is apparently a peaceful belief system [...religion of peace...]
    But they never mention the repeated verses in their Koran to slay and kill the non-believer [kafir].
    5 Political Islamic authorities and police/authorities warn the non-Islamic population not to retaliate on the 'peaceful' followers of Political Islam.
    Some go as far as to state these 'peaceful' followers are the true victims. There is no mention of the texts found in the Koran that state 'to be in the fight' and/or support the fighters (terrorists) - a duty imposed on all followers of Political Islam [Koran 2:216].
    6 Where the attackers have been killed the Islamic authorities state they will not say funeral prayers for attackers. This sounds noble and somehow a kind gesture.
    But they fail to mention that in their belief system they are not to say funeral prayers for someone who has died in the cause of Islam (a terror attack for example) as these individuals have already attained paradise (jannah), so the funeral prayers are null and void. Prayers can also be offered later in time if at all deemed necessary.
    7 Some Islamic followers go out and hold hands across bridges along with some non-Islamic people or stand in a crowd asking for hugs from passers by, we see all kinds of hashtags and memes on social media - all in support of the latest victims, supposedly. We see the likes of "Not in my name" postings - all as a gesture of 'peace' from the 'religion of peace'.
    Sadly if one surveys the teachings of Political Islam these actions of outwardly peaceful gestures are simply taqiyya. The smiles and hand-holdings one sees are out of delight that yet again Political Islam has triumphed against the kafir.
    8 People continue to mourn the loss of loved ones whom they will not see again in this life time.
    9 Another Islamic attack happens somewhere in the world and we return to the same cycling through the items shown in this chart starting with Item 1.

  • Back to Index

    24. Islamaphobia - a manufactured word

    From a learned colleague:
    Islamaphobia, n. A term of abuse invented in the early 1980s by the International Institute of Islamic Thought who are a subgroup of the Muslim Brotherhood.

    Islamaphobia and islamaphobe (applied to a person) are used as an intended insult to suggest an irrational fear or hatred of Political Islam by anyone making any kind of critical obserservation or questioning of the teachings within 'Islam', or the resulting conduct of the followers of Political Islam implementing the said teachings. As mentioned throughout this web page, it is a tactic that follows the exact same racist 'demonizing' strategy by the Communist, Trotsky, and just like the racist terminology islamaphobia/islamaphobic/islamaphobe are labelling words intended to shutdown those who would hold to critical debate based on the perpetual crimes committed by Islamic followers throughout the world against humanity.

    By all assessment one could invent the term kafiraphobe and engender it as a 'real' word describing Islamic followers and their supporters who have a fear and hatred of the kafir.

    If someone is anti-Communism, anti-Socialism, anti-religion, anti-Vatican, anti-politics, it does not make someone a racist as political and religious groups are not a race. This also applies with Political Islam which is made up of many 'races' and origins across the globe. Racism is the specific prejudice towards a particular group of people based on their skin colour and/or their country or region of origin.

    The Koran quite clearly details commands to subdue and kill the 'Jews', an actual race, and holds that all non-followers of Political Islam are placed in a sub-human category of being the kafir. By assessing the overall sharia belief system, we can clearly see who the real racists are.


  • Back to Index

    25. Self-righteous, arrogant intolerance and perpetual victimhood

    Firstly, a core teaching: Al Walaa' Wal Baraa' - love the Islamic god and all Islamic followers; and hate all kafir.

    Link to short video teaching [a walaa, wal baraa]

    Anyone who has a criticism of Political Islam or opinion on the conduct of its followers are often met with immediate disdain and anger. On social media attempts are often made to silence you with nasty tirades or the usual put-downs like islamaphobe, racist, bigot. Face to face you are met with hostility and sometimes abuse albeit verbal and/or physical. There is never a "Hey mate, you got it wrong, it says this in the Koran, let me explain this....." - you are met with immediate hostility and hateful intolerance.

    Under Political Islam there are only two categories or 'classes' of people, the Mohammedan; blessed, sinless, devout, superior in every way - and the kafir; sub-human, inferior, godless and worthy of mistreatment by Islamic followers as part of your punishment for your eventual fate of hell-fire in the afterlife.

    While the kafir exist and fail to submit to Political Islam, the Islamic remains in a permanent state of offence and perpetual victimhood as the kafir are preventing the Islamic from living a peaceful Islamic life where they are. Offence at your lifestyle, diet (consumption of pig products and alcohol), religious/non-religious belief (Christian,Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist) and existing in a non-sharia based system. Islamic followers are often seen not to stand in court for judges as the Mohammedan does not recognise the law of the land, only that of sharia, which again they will openly cite as being far superior to any other legal and social system.

    One asks that with such unhappiness, why would they want to live in democratic nations and with people they hold in such disdain?


  • Back to Index

    26. Sunni vs Shiite

    As posted already on this page, people have stated that more Islamic followers are killed by other Islamic followers than anyone else. While the statistics may never really prove or disprove this, the argument is Why would you want to import the two sects of Political Islam that are at war with each other into peaceful nations?

    The main difference is the Sunnis believe that the warlord founder of Political Islam's successor was Abu Bakr, the warlord founder's main advisor.

    The Shiites believe all successors of the warlord founder of Political Islam's system must be direct descendants of his family. Specifically following Hussein ibn Ali who was the grandson of the warlord founder and the eldest son of the warlord founder's daughter, Fatimah.

    There was a great deal of bloodshed and in-fighting after the warlord founder died and its legacy of internal division, despite trying to show a unified 'Islam' to the rest of the world, has plagued Political Islam since the warlord founder's death. So today we have two primary warring political faculties over the laws of succession with each accusing the other of not being of the 'true Islam'. It must be remembered that both hold to the Koran and all of the warlord founder of Political Islam's teachings, so the kafir remain those who are to be subdued and killed regardless of Islamic followers grievances with each other.


  • Back to Index


    26. Manus and Nauru - The Truth

    We often see media stories promoting the plight of supposed 'refugees' who have been 'incarcerated' on Manus or Nauru and the UN condemns Australia for not allowing these people to come to Australia. But there is far more behind these refugees than is made public.

    These primarily fighting-aged men are not 'incarcerated' as they are free to leave at any time, they are just not permitted to enter Australia.

    The fact that those remaining have been there so long is due to the fact that they cannot be ruled out as a risk to the Australian population. For the most part they can't substantiate who they are and what alleged persecution they are fleeing. As cited many times, the only people persecuted in Islamic countries are the non-Islamic followers (eg., Coptics and Christians in general, Zoroastrians and other secular groups).

    Pursuant to interviews with some of the 'border' guard staff some further truth is revealed in that some of these 'refugees' have actually travelled back to the lands they fled to visit with family and spent holidays there, which begs the question how are they actually refugees if their former homelands are too unsafe to travel to?

    Needless to say, if these individuals were actually able to be assessed by Australian authorities as genuine and harmless, they would have made it to Australian shores years prior.

    (In one interview a 'refugee' fled the Islamic Republic of Iran as he had killed a person and his father would not help him stay out of jail, so he jumped on a boat to Australia to escape prison. Now who wants someone like that living in their street in Australia?)


  • Back to Index


    28. ISIS fighters/supporters wanting to return

    With the demise of the supposed "Islamic State" (ISIS) the media has been promoting stories of Islamic followers who are pleading to return back to the country they abandoned citing they 'made a mistake' or 'didn't really support the cause' with one family claiming they accidentally joined ISIS by thinking they were just going on a holiday. A plethora of excuses ensue with wives and children thrown into the mix to help garner support in their appeal to the hearts of politicians and citizens.

    What husband would want his wife to come to a war zone and even worse, what parents would bring children into such danger or parents themselves actually get pregnant in a war zone? Some of their family back in their hosting nation blame the government/society/the mythical 'radicalization' or [whatever] as the reason their family member(s) went to fight for the enemies of the said hosting nation in the first place - no mention of the warlord founder of Political Islam's commands of course to all Islamic followers such as Koran 2:216:

    Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not.

    In wars past, anyone who went to fight for an enemy of 'their' nation was cited as a war criminal and were duly prosecuted and ultimately executed in some cases. As for the children dragged into this mess, based on the Islamic indoctrination process drummed into them from the cradle (citing: al walaa wal baraa) they will still see their Islamic State fighters as heroes and maintain the characteristic disdain for the kafir in the nation they seek to return to.

    But one always wonders what these 'returnees' would be saying if their beloved ISIS was actually victorious? There would be no need to 'return' as their Political Islamic Caliphate would reign supreme in the region they found themselves in. We will never truly know what hand they had in the actual butchery of so many innocent people trying to defend themselves against the ISIS fighters?

    Political Islam remains as a complete polar opposite to the democratic way of life so to have actually partaken in fighting against a country or its allies renders one without a country to return to, and rightfully so. Who would want a 'returning' ISIS 'war hero' living in their area, their suburb, their street? And how long before they want to kill again?


  • Back to Index


    29. infidel or kafir

    When referring to non-Islamic followers one often hears the term infidel used but the correct word or translation is kafir, not infidel. The word infidel is a Latin word, not Arabic, and essentially means non (in) believer (fidel). The word kafir is a derogatory term that identifies all non-Islamic people when viewed from the Islamic perspective. The kafir are to be subdued and killed as they are worthy of the Islamic god's hell-fire.


  • Back to Index


    30. UN Hypocrisy

    For those old enough to remember some of the ideals set forward by the United Nations post WWII, including its continued hunt for Nazi war criminals and the defence of the establishment of Israel as a sovereign self-governed 'state', will conclude that the United Nations is now a far cry from what it was founded to be and seems, by all present characteristics, to represent the very antisemitic and genocide condoning evil practices it was formed to protect the future 'world' against.

    We now hear almost daily at the UN the continued call for the destruction of Israel from 'Islamic' nations citing any self-defence by Israel against the Hamas Islamic State (aka Palestine) aggressions as contravening human rights, that being the human rights of non-Israelis/non-Jews. To date Israel remains the only 'open' country where anyone from around the world can journey to free of personal restrictions such as the clothing restriction for women travelling to Islamic countries as an example.

    An even greater concern is the hypocritical decision to let a nation like Saudi Arabia be a member of the UN's Human Rights Commission when this particular 'Islamic' nation continues to murder women for adultery. It prosecutes any woman who calls for equalities laws to be overturned so that women are not perpetually reduced to being second-class citizens. A recent milestone is the now allowing women in Saudi Arabia be allowed to drive - of course this is at the approval of their superior male family member (father, husband, uncle, brother...). Any additional plight by women seeking to be set free of the cupulsory 'covering' clothing is met with legal prosecution along with jail and other severe forms of physical abuse. By all evidence, it remains an abuser of human rights and has no right to represent the rights of innocent civilians around the world based on its own barbaric conduct.


  • Back to Index


    31. Know Thine Enemy

    As recommended by people like Aynaz Anni Cyrus, it is vital that the non-Islamic person takes time to learn a bit about the 'Islamic' system which is littered with commands to kill and subdue non-believers (kafir) - commands that all Islamic followers are commanded to obey.

    The Koran itself is not like other political/religious texts, so unlike the Christian Bible for example, the Koran is not laid out in chronological order.... which can be quite confusing. But a good place to start is for you to read chapters 4, 5 and 9. These chapters will cover the underpinning view of the Islamic mindset regarding women, food and the Islamic belief in supremacy above all other 'belief' systems in its commands, such as Koran 9:29 for example:

    Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden

    ...being a call to fight the kafir. The link below this section titled Clear Koran (the same link is listed in the Recommended Sites table called "Study what they believe") at the heading of this website page is very good as it also will read the text back to you if you are busy but are still able to listen to what is written being spoken.

    Clear Koran - written and spoken


  • Back to Index


    32. Why do Islamic followers migrate to non-Islamic nations?

    A prominant English journalist persistently raises the question, "Why do Islamic followers migrate to non-Islamic nations?", which is a very valid question. We see constant anger at the non-Islamic system they have migrated to coming from them with a list of common grievances that offends them:

  • Food (mainly pig products and alcohol consumption)
  • Our customs and observances (ANZAC Day, Christmas, Easter)
  • Our legal system as being inferior to their sharia law
  • Womens clothing being too revealing
  • People owning dogs as pets
  • Crosses on churches

    With the exceeding wealth of an Islamic country like The Islamic State of Saudi Arabia or the well established financially stable Islamic States of Turkey, Egypt, Jordan or Iran, why do they constantly seek to go to a nation filled with the 'evil' and hated kafir to live in an 'inferior' society run by an 'inferior' system of government upholding an 'inferior' legal system?

    People are often asking why Islamic followers would leave a potentially 'bad' environmnet but when they arrive in the nation of choice, seek to reduce it to the same 'bad' enviorment they claim to be wanting to get themselves out of.

    In Islamic teaching we see the recounts of their warlord founder's hijrah (migration) which details his 'move' from Mecca to Yathrib (which he later renamed Medina) where his system grew and they eventually took control in the characteristic way we see non-Islamic nations toppled by the Islamic system once they have a foothold. There are references to migration to or between the lands of shirk (non-Islamic, cited as evil countries), but the desire of anyone who follows Political Islam will be to work and 'struggle' to see the Islamic system prevail as the ruling system where they find themselves. By all accounts the mass hijrah by predominantly fighting aged men into Europe in the recent decade claiming to be fleeing some unsubstantiated 'conflict', having marched straight past existing Islamic nations, would suggest a very different motive than the presented 'refugee' status. And as we have seen with Syria, as an example, now being freed of its aggressors the current 'refugees' have not returned to rebuild their former homeland but remain in the kafir nations.

    By all accounts a very good question that seems to open up more questions along with some suggested answers.


  • Back to Index


    33. Islamic Covering for Women

    We constantly see issues concerning women wearing the Islamic covering, the hijab and burka being the most prominent, in our wider society and all seems to lead to debate on whether women living in a free and open democratic society should be compelled by Islamic men and their seemingly imposed regulations, to wear the Islamic 'covering' clothing.

    We have even heard excuses that women are only observing 'cultural' practices but the Koran itself (24:31) does insist that women are to cover themselves as a sign of modesty and purity from sin. Koran 33:59 does cite 'wives and daughters' (so all women) are to draw their 'cloaks/veils' over themselves so as not to find themselves being accosted by men. And Koran 33:55 does suggest that a women does not commit a crime if those in her household see her without the Islamic covering (family members, slaves). So by all assessment is an Islamic 'thing' more than just some custom from a specific country.

    When you dig deeper you discover the person, Umar, a man who lived at the time of the walord founder of the Islamic ideology, and whom at one time wanted to kill the warlord founder, but later converted to following him and eventually Umar became the second Caliph

    Umar quite clearly influenced the warlord founder of Political Islam and constantly asked him what the Islamic god thought about certain things. One example is how he approached the warlord founder on three separate occasions regarding consuming alcohol, resulting in three separate 'rulings' until the final 'revelation' was declared that all alcohol is to be forbidden (haram) [yet in the afterlife there will be an endless goblet of white wine to drink from].

    Umar harrased the warlord founder of Political Islam stating that he should ensure his wives were 'covered'. Only after Umar had spied on one of the wives who was going to the toilet one night, did it become compulsory for women to be covered, with only the eyes visible. (Sahih-al-Bukhari 1:4:148).

    We have also heard the comments by a well known 'sheik' in Australia who said that an uncovered woman is like uncovered meat and went on to say that a woman who does not cover herself is at fault if she is attacked. This was his response to a well publicised rape attack on a woman by a group of Islamic men at the time.

    Further reading of some sources seem to suggest that this 'covering' is only required by women who have not yet married, have not completed bearing children and still have a menstrual cycle.

    The insistence of clear visual identification by security entities remains at opposites ends to Islamic insistence of being justified in keeping their women covered and often follows a plethora of 'victimisation' or 'prejudice' claims by Islamic followers. And the security debate wages on yet a person wearing a motor bike helmet walking into a bank would risk being shot by comparison.

    By all surveying covering Islamic women is more required as Islamic men are most likely to lose control of their sexual urges in seeing too much of a woman's body. In our democratic nations where summer coastlines exhibit a large number of beach-goers who are at the extreme opposite ends to being 'covered', one wonders how the Islamic men 'control' themselves at the sight of such exposure? Simple self-control would certainly remove this burden from the need to cover 85-90% of a woman's body but still granting a woman the freedom to dress modestly, as she chooses.

    In a more serious sense, Islamic women who do not cover themselves in most parts of Islamic society around the world face persecution with beatings, whippings, being jailed or even killed. And it is this practice and conduct that exposes the real enslavement of women under this system.

    By all accounts, when one sees women in the Islamic covering, one sees women in chains.


  • Back to Index


    34. Tolerance and Inclusion

    We often hear politicians and some media representatives gushing about showing Islamic followers and their belief ethos the much desired tolerance and inclusion in our modern societies as championing some form of Utopian 'multiculturalism', but we never see this same good sentiment reciprocated, by all accounts, from the followers of Political Islam. One just has to observe how minorities are treated in Islamic nations around the world for proof of this sentiment. In non-Islamic nations Islamic followers very much 'stick the themselves' and over time form regions in cities and towns where the non-Islamic person (the kafir) are not welcome and can even face hostility if you breach their 'sharia' zone (albeit imaginary zone in a non-Islamic nation). Any form of integration into non-Islamic society and adopting the customs and traditions of the hosting country are characteristically ignored and shunned.

    We have seen now repeatedly in countries that have absorbed large numbers of Islamic followers that the original people perish from a lack of knowledge of what the country's leaders are actually doing in allowing this intolerant, incompatible ideology to take root in a country. It doesn't take long when the numbers of Islamic followers increase that hostilities start in local neighbourhoods towards the original people living in these areas. There is also much criticism of the customs and religious practices by the non-Islamic population and attacks, such as actual terror attacks, are played down as not representing 'Islam', but virtually all attacks are carried out by Islamic followers; not Communists, not Socialists, not Christians, not Buddhists, not Hindus, not Atheists. By all surveying the later mentioned all have lived alongside each other for centuries in spite of their differences - a live and let live mentality. The same attitude of goodwill cannot be said for wherever Political Islam begins to establish itself.

    In the case of Australia, a taxpayer funded security task force has been established to help guard our nation's people against Islamic terror attacks on our own soil. No other group that has migrated to Australia has required the establishment of such a task force in centuries past. As asked by one journalist in recent years, "Why do we tolerate the intolerant?", and this question is the starting point of realising what is really going on in our non-Islamic nation from the goals of Political Islam's perspective.


  • Back to Index

    35. Allahu Akbar is not a terrorist slogan

    The term "Allahu Akbar" which is the takbir (Islamic term for the phrase), which literally translates as the warlord founder of Political Islam's 'god is greater', and is used daily in the adhan (the Islamic call to prayer), it is also screamed out by Islamic attackers committing their jihad and the intention is to cause fear in those around them.

    The warlord founder of Political Islam was heard screaming this out on the battlefields duing his military attacks and herein lies the origin of where this practice is mimicked by Islamic followers. In modern times it is mainly heard preceding and during an Islamic attack on city streets and from hijackers on planes.

    There are imams who continually try to down-play the takbir as not being associated with 'terrorism' but by all accounts the average person who would hear this being screamed out anywhere will be anticipating some form of danger.


  • Back to Index

    36. My Reflection on 9/11

    September the 11th each year now is set as a reminder for most people of the tragedy inflicted on the USA, moreover the world (as the deaths included people from other parts of the globe, including 10 Australians). It serves as a constant reminder of the followers of the warlord founder's system and their desire to conquer the non-Islamic world. Islam being a militant political system has only ever flourished historically through conquest and then using the established setup of the places they conquered.

    By the time United Airlines Flight 175 had ploughed into the South Tower of the World Trade Centre, after American Airlines Flight 11 first ploughing into the North Tower, it was at this moment my family and I came to that sickening realisation that this was an attack, not some accident. We then saw the subsequent crashing of American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon and the downing of United Airlines Flight 93 by the struggle between the passengers and the Islamic hijackers. United Airlines Flight 93 came down in Pennsylvania never reaching the Islamic hijacker's intended target being the White House in Washington.

    The media then showed people in Islamic nations dancing in the street and celebrating at the deaths of what would eventually be cited as around 3000 people who perished in this deliberate attack on innocent civilians by 19 Islamic hijackers. Recordings from the aircrafts all had the characteristic screaming of the takbir by Islamic followers as they committed these acts of murder.

    A member of my family said that the world he and the rest of us grew up in was forever gone. It astounded me that men who were intelligent enough to pilot airliners could do such unspeakable things to other innocent people. This was the start of my undertaking of self-education into Islam that later resulted in my seeing the sources of such motivations to murder innocent people by Islamic followers.

    Why the date? As cited elsewhere in this web document, on September 11th 1683, King John III Sobieski of Poland, came to the aid of Vienna on the 11th and 12th of September which was under siege by the Islamic empire. King Sobieski dealt the Islamic armies a crushing blow, including routing the Islamic army camps, and saw the plight of Political Islam to conquer Europe forever repelled. How he must now be sad to see Europe with its 'open borders' mentality allowing Islamic fighting-aged men to flood into countries like Germany, France and Sweden, where crimes of rape, assault and murder are commonplace by the now 'refugee' population enacted on the original citizens of the said countries. Many places in these countries have now become "no-go zones" for non-Islamic people.

    Dar al-harb (a state of war) - a permanent state of war exists between Political Islam and the rest of the non-Islamic world and the sooner people realise this and work to counter its spread in our nations (through peaceful means being we are 'live and let live' democracies), the safer our nations will be from repeated attacks around the world by those desiring the spread of the warlord founder's system.


  • Back to Index

    37. Radicalised/Moderates

    We constantly hear the terminology being use to describe the nature of Islamic attackers as being somehow radicalised by some group or extremist sect, but these terms do not exist anywhere in the Sharia texts. And Koran 2:216 is just one example of how all sharia followers are expected to work towards the success of Political Islam in the nation they find themselves in. The desire to see the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate is the secret desire and hope installed in all sharia followers.

    Another term constantly being presented, which again does not exist in the Sharia texts is moderate. Under the sharia system there are no moderates and anyone who does not follow or uphold the Islamic belief system as superior in every aspect to any other political or religious system, is deemed a heretic and faces persecution and possibly death.

    The constant failure of the moderate sharia followers to oust the killers among them before they strike should serve as a clear example of their 'real' motives and intentions for the kafir. By all historical accounts in countries now overtaken by the sharia ideology, the peaceful and tolerant moderates where of no consequence once Political Islam was installed as the ruling system.


  • Back to Index