Fitzgerald: A Starter Kit to deprogram a dhimmi

Robert, the correct address for apostates of islam is www.apostatesofislam.com. Right now the site is down for maintenance.

I am not sure who the "mother in law" is, but just in case Hugh was refering to my comment about the adaptable Muslim father of two Catholic girls, allow me to say the following: all I objected to was to something that is common in this message board - generalization.

One can't say that "all Muslims are terrorists", nor that "all Muslims must be expelled". That is dangerous (for several reasons too obvious to mention) and counter-productive.

Let me give you one clear example: Oskar Schindler was a member of the Nazi party. Was Schindler the same as Hitler? Obviously not.

Any one that is not willing to adapt to the Western way of life should not be welcomed by western countries. What I object to is that some of you also believe that we should make feel unwelcome those that DO want to adapt to our way of life.

Islam my be the problem, but at least some Muslims aren't. This is going to be a long and bloody war, but radicalization is definitely not the solution. I may be naive, unpractical, maybe even ignorant but I am not the "physician" diagnosing an "illness" to someone with even bothering to read the symptoms.

"All I objected to was to something that is common in this message board - generalization. One can't say that "all Muslims are terrorists", nor that "all Muslims must be expelled". That is dangerous (for several reasons too obvious to mention) and counter-productive."
-- posted by Cruzado

Generalization is the very basis of human language. A word is a symbol that generalizes an entity in order to describe it.

By revering and endorsing Mohammed's Sunnah, all Moslems are terrorists, for they actively particpate in an organized system with the express purpose of subjugation of others, whether by persuasion or by the blood-soaked violence that is endorsed every Friday in Mosques worldwide (i.e., by revering the Sunnah).

The day of en masse expulsion of Moslems from infidel nations inexorably approaches.

With every Moslem we foolishly let into this country, and with every conversion to Islam within our borders, we become a little less free.

After the Big Event, the willful incompatibility of Moslems with civilized behavior will force us to violate the U.S. Constitution and throw them out (or slaughter them).

A blood bath cometh. It's inevitable. Moslems, dangerous and dumb children all, are inherently incompatible with mass communications and WMD.

cruzado

I readily admit that what you wrote makes admirable sense if the crisis we are facing is a law and order problem. In that case, most certainly generalisations are unacceptable. However many will argue, and Pres Bush himself agrees that we are in some sort of war. In a war, generalisations are necessary. Afterall not all Germans were Nazis but all of Germany was bombed. Neither did the Allies allow unrestricted immigration of Germans to Britain and the US. Both Britain and the US interned aliens from Germany and Japan without due process.

As it is proving impossible to get any useful information from the muslim community as to the wherabouts of the Jihadi element within them, it becomes increasingly necessary to take more austere measures. We can hardly be expected to simply carry on accepting thousands of deaths due to terrorism and continue living in a climate of fear. Pres Bush to his credit, has barely been able to restrain the wrath of the US after 9/11 - an attack that was more devastating then Pearl Harbour. Another couple more of such attacks, and it will become politically impossible not to move to the "generalisation" feature that is consistent with the conduct of war.

>95% of Muslims are Muslims for the same reason that >95% of Presbyterians, Catholics, etc. believe what they believe: it's what their parents believed.

From time to time comments on this site talk about "deporting all the Muslims". Has any one stopped to think what this would mean in practice?

"Excuse me sir are you a Muslim? We are deporting them... No, you're not? How do I know that's not just more of your taqqiya?"

What about people who say they're ex-Muslims? How do they know they are telling the truth? Do we deport Ibn Warriq? Are we going to deport any one from an "Arab country"? Do you want to send the Assyrians and Copts back too?

Do we want the federal government to have that kind of power?

If someone believes in jihad but keeps it a secret in their heart until the day they die (non-explosively) why should I care?

Advocating jihad is a speech act. We need better monitoring of what is said in mosques. Deport those who advocate violence! Citizens who advocate war against the U.S. should be tried for treason.

" If someone believes in jihad but keeps it a secret in their heart untill the day they die(non-explosively) why should I care ?".... Malta_1565 you should care if that someone believes in jihad but keeps it a secret in their heart because the day they have sufficient numbers it will become explosive.It's a numbers game.By depoting you lessen their voting power to run interference with our terror laws,our defence against jihad and the push for sharia.It also lessen the numbers of recuits for jihad in the west.

sp correction = deporting .

From time to time comments on this site talk about "deporting all the Muslims". Has any one stopped to think what this would mean in practice?

Here's the typical terrorist profile I've gleaned from news accounts: "devout, peaceful, studious, liked by everyone in his mosque, couldn't have done such a thing" (after doing such a thing). That makes the piecemeal approach very difficult. When CAIR, MESA, MSA, and the mainstream media won't touch actual Muslim theology with an infinite vector, dhimmitude and taqiyya are already in effect.

How am I supposed to tell the peaceful Muslim from the potential jihadi with the above profile?

Islam my be the problem, but at least some Muslims aren't. This is going to be a long and bloody war, but radicalization is definitely not the solution. I may be naive, unpractical, maybe even ignorant but I am not the "physician" diagnosing an "illness" to someone with even bothering to read the symptoms.

Posted by: cruzado at October 14, 2005 04:42 PM

First of all, it was pure insanity to allow muslims to come here in the first place. The First Amendment was never intended to include enemies of the state who by their own admission intend to abolish the very Constitution that
protects their right to practice Islam.

I don't understand what you mean by "radicalization." Islam is a radical cult; our condemnation of it on the grounds that it threatens our government and national security could hardly exacerbate an already irrational dogma.

Muslims are masters of deceit. There are a few overtly hostile types milling about but for the most part, they appear to be reserved, humble, docile creatures. That is the persona they reserve for infidels but they morph into macho muslims once inside the doors of their segregated sanctuaries, where they can just be themselves. They have two faces, one for us and one for each other.

I'm sure there are plenty of nominal muslims who ignore the intolerant, bellicose, confrontational aspects of Islam. They may happily live Westernized lives for years and suddenly, something happens that ignites the smoldering fire of Islam and presto--- an instant muslim fanatic is born. His friends may notice a subtle change, but nothing drastic. One day the cops drive up, bring him out in handcuffs, and another terror plot is exposed, to the horror and disbelief of all who knew him. You just can't tell with these people until they are caught in the act.

There are some muslims who claim to be "moderate", but what does that mean? I guess it means that they won't grab their guns and begin attacking us----yet. But it doesn't mean that they won't plot our destruction, or that they like us, or that they want to be patriotic Americans. It does not mean that they have abandoned their desire to establish Sharia in the U.S., or decided that it's ok for them to live happily ever after in a democratic nation. The fact is, there is just no way to know who is a loyal American citizen and who isn't, but I would wager that the vast majority of them are not.

Even if it were possible to personally evaluate each and every one, short of lie detector tests, we wouldn't know any more than we know now about their true intentions.

Hugh, I disagree with your deprogramming approach with respect to this particular person.

All of your suggestions are good, but only if the target person is literate, and interested in reading to gain information. Not all people are like that, however. I don't think this man's mother-in-law is one of those people. She is not a reader, or she would be reading already.

This woman is more impressed by face-to-face contact and conversation. She needs to learn by video tapes and in-person contacts.

I think the best way to open her eyes is for her son-in-law to take her to the mosque. This has to be unannounced. No advance warning. Just dress up and show up, like going to church. Very easy. Go up to the front door.

Son-in-law must be extremely polite as he and his mother-in-law are denied entry together. He must then urge her to ask to enter by the front door. He should make a protracted, but extremely polite, issue of her entry "as a lady" through the front door "just like at our church".

Let her see for herself how they treat the infidel. And he can ask for the explanations if she is not willing to do so. This will have great educational value, which she can share with her entire congregation.

But I must emphasize that only great restraint and politeness be shown. If one of them ends up in jail (which is really not very likely), then the forced polite demeanor will have been worth it. Her lawyer will love it.

More than likely, they will simply leave with mother-in-law feeling very rejected. She will have this memory of feeling bad at the mosque, which will last her the rest of her life, and she will tell everyone she knows and then some.

"She is not a reader, or she would be reading already."

She probably is a reader -- of Oprah Book Club type books. That's the problem.

One must adapt materials and strategies to fit the target, in this instance, a woman who may not be able to read or be interested in the materials mentioned in Hugh's starter kit.

Our enemy has been able to inculcate jihadist values into the young, impressionable and ignorant through other means -- videos which are often staged events to show "badly the 'crusaders' and Jews" treat Muslims, or to expound upon the glory and justice of the Islamic civilization and culture that is being denied to them, or how to construct bombs and other jihadist activiities. Audio cassettes to explain many subjects, always with a twist. Still photographs, sometimes incriminating that show Westerners in a bad light, such as those that were released depicting Abu Grahib, etc. are usedl. The target is chatted up and the "handler" will use tecniques that are aimed at the targets personality: flattery, envy, fear, etc. They use the down and dirty to get to and into their minds. For some people we will have to put in more effort than sending around intenet messages, buying them books, or printing out Hugh's kit.

The jihad masters and handlers do such a good job because they really work at it. They study the subject get down on the subject's level and "work him" to get the desired result.

how is it possible to live peacefully with a religion whose principle is "I will not tolerate you? How are you going to have unity with these people?...The Hindu is ready to tolerate; he is open to new ideas and his culture and has got a wonderful capacity for assimilation, but always provided India's central truth is recognised.. (Sri Aurobindo India's Rebirth 161,173) Or behold this, written on September 1909: "Every action for instance which may be objectionable to a number of Mahomedans, is now liable to be forbidden because it is likely to lead to a breach of peace. And one is dimly beginning to wonder whether worship in Hindu temples may be forbidden on that valid ground (India's Rebirth p. 55). How prophetic! Sri Aurobindo could not have foreseen that so many Muslim countries would ban Rushdie's book and that Hindu processions would often be forbidden in cities, for fear of offending the Muslims. Sri Aurobindo felt that sooner or later Hindus would have to assert again the greatness of Hinduism.

- from Negationism and the Muslim Conquests by Francois Gautier

http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/india.html

"First of all, it was pure insanity to allow muslims to come here in the first place."

Allow me to rephrase that: it was insane to allow people that are clearly hostile to OUR way of life in our countries. Many Muslims may fall under this tag, but at least some do not.

"I don't understand what you mean by "radicalization." "

You don't? How about people speaking about genocide or forced mass expulsions of people just because they belong to a given group?
As another poster said, some "Muslims" say they are Muslim because of family tradition and nothing else.

"Muslims are masters of deceit. There are a few overtly hostile types milling about but for the most part, they appear to be reserved, humble, docile creatures. (...) once inside the doors of their segregated sanctuaries, where they can just be themselves. They have two faces, one for us and one for each other."

Replace the word "Muslim" by "Juden", and change your name from Susanp to Miss Goebbels. Get the picture? YOU CAN'T BLAME THE WHOLE POPULATION, YOU CAN ONLY BLAME THOSE PROVEN GUILTY! In my country Gypsies are disproportionally engaged in criminal activities. Was it wrong to let them in in the first place? Probably. Can we ship them out back to India? Nope. Need I say why?

The rest of your post is bullshit unworthy of answering to.

Kind of interesting when your beer buddy is a mossie and you think he`s one of those moderates and one day hello hooray he turns up with the Protocols of Zion and tells you that jews are all evil and Hitler should have eliminated them all.

Happened to me, and they come on all sweet, but deep within.....

Replace the word "Muslim" by "Juden", and change your name from Susanp to Miss Goebbels

Cruzado - the two are not comparable. Though there is a great deal of debate about this, for all practical purposes, Jews are a race, an ethnicity, a 'people'. Jewishness is not freely chosen. You can be Jewish and Christian, even Jewish and Muslim. Islam is a freely chosen (at least in the West) or freely retained belief system. I would not actually call it a religion, as there is so little spirituality. It is more akin to a political ideology. A mixture of the worst aspects of Communism and Fascism.

To act against any set of people on grounds of race is despicable, and the comparison with Hitler is not hyperbolic. But on grounds of belief, when that belief is in an ideology of conquest, either by military means or by demographics? It just isn't the same.

Both race and religion are red herrings in the case of Islam. The best approach in my view - I'm thinking of the UK here - would be first of all to declare it a political movement, and not a religion. By its own tenets, it is a complete way of life, not a religion, so this would be easy to prove. It would then lose charitable status for tax purpuses, there would be no funding for Mosques, Muslim schools and so on. More importantly, it would lose some of the mystique that surrounds a religion and could be criticised, examined and shown up for what it is.

It may then be suppressed more easily, its followers isolated from those who simply have a Muslim background, and dealt with as any other followers of a subversive political movement might be dealt with, up to and including expulsions. Those Muslims who just want to pray and fast should be allowed to do so, but on the understanding that they do not cross the line. I believe Singapore deals with its Muslims in this way.

Link in #4 returns a 404 error, as the link is "http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/www.dhimmitude.org/" where it should simply be "http://www.dhimmitude.org/"

same link problem in #7 as in #4.

Susanp, Good post.

Hugh: People taken in by the limpid-eyed and mystical sincerity of the local Sufi imam are a dime a dozen, and can include brothers, sons, teachers, and others--not just mothers-in-law.

My suspicion about Christian groups, at least here in the USA and in the Far East, is that they're less interested in "dialogue" with Muslims (in contrast to the "Mainstream" that existed thirty years ago--perhaps the reason you pick on mothers-in-law?) than in evangelism. The problem is that we have a MSM which hates Christian certainties (even if they include _Love thy Neighbor_ rather than _Kill Them!_) and wishes to make every earnest Bible-thumper the moral equivalent of Muhammad Atta.

As for deportation, Malta raised salient points. Most Copts, Maronites, Assyrians, and Mizrahis are physically indistinguishable from their former Muslim neighbors (think of Dutch Calvinist Indonesians as well!)-- and we have plenty of crazies of the John Walker Lindh and John Muhammad variety. People like Ibn Warraq, Nonie Darwish, Walid Shoebat, and Mehmet Caner are as far from orthodox Islam as one can get and on the record as firmly against the jihadis, yet probably follow a lot of patterns inherited their ancestral cultures and doubtlessly look like Middle Easterners. The Muslim father of Christian daughters (with all one big happy family) is most likely someone who is simply "Muslim" by heritage and the convenience of getting along with his original family; and not likely to think well of the 9/11 hijackers or OBL. My guess is that the particular example raised is probably a highly secularized person who finds a country like the USA a comfortable fit. In the USA, we are beginning to see Muslim names on rolls of church members representing recent South Asian, Middle Eastern, and SE European forebears rather the heritage of Malcolm X. These are reasons why I am very suspicious and wary of any movement based heavily on physical profiling or deportation programs based on national origins.

HMMM...has Cruzado ever heard the expression'birds of a feather stick together? While not all muslims engage in terroristic , criminal behavior, they are 'all', 'OBLIGATED' to support and participate in jihad.From Bukhari's 'Book of Jihad': "Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape this duty dies as a hypocrite.”
Bukhari did not make this up. The Quran and hadiths repeat this theme over and over. Once you agree to be a Nazi, you 'are' a Nazi. You may have joined the Nazi movement because they have a school lunch program, but in joining , you give support to the rest of its activities as well. Ordinarily 'guilt by association' should not apply, but in the case of Islam, it applys perfectly. There is only one God, Allah, and there is only one Islam. And behind the illusion of appearances, there is only one muslim, and that muslim is obligated to support and participate in jihad.
If you think muslims celebrate jihad now, wait till Mahdi shows up...

From post by Interested above:

"...
Both race and religion are red herrings in the case of Islam. The best approach in my view - I'm thinking of the UK here - would be first of all to declare it a political movement, and not a religion. By its own tenets, it is a complete way of life, not a religion, so this would be easy to prove. It would then lose charitable status for tax purpuses, there would be no funding for Mosques, Muslim schools and so on. More importantly, it would lose some of the mystique that surrounds a religion and could be criticised, examined and shown up for what it is..."

This approach would appear to have strategic merit for educating dhimmified infidels. Islam is a dictatorship of an "imanotariat" and like communism, as "Interested" points our, is a complete way of life that requires uprooting of western law and society, be it UK. Europe, or USA. When the US government was infiltrated by the commies back in the 50s they were coralled as subversives plotting to overthrow the government.

This same logic should be applicable to removal of tax exemptions for mosques, madressas, and outfits like CAIR, and deportation of iman hate preachers and other jihadists. Totally remove Islam from the legal category and protection accorded to religions in the Western or should I say the Civilized world.

Great idea, "Interested".

"HMMM...has Cruzado ever heard the expression'birds of a feather stick together?"

Have you ever heard the expression "Santa Ignorância"? It suits your post like a glove.

This is pointless. Some of you guys like to live in the ilusion that there will be a time where you will put on your armour and ride against the Islamic hordes. To me that sounds like something out of Lord of the Rings.

I would like to stick to reality, and reality is what can actually be done to prevent or at least minimize something that is actually endangering our civilization. And there are things that can be done: educate non-Muslims and Muslims alike about the true (evil) nature if the Islamic faith, integrate those willing to be integrated and expel those unwilling to do so, stop illegal immigration and begin selecting immigrants from certain "adaptable" cultures, and there is much more that can actually be done.

Now, if any of you seriously believes that an ordinary citizen will be willing to participate in a future ethnic cleansing, you are nuts. Many people can't even deal with the site of blood, let alone... Stick to reality and for God's sake, stick to what is RIGHT. I may be an idealist, but I do believe that what Ali Sina and Robert Spencer are on the side of GOODNESS, a side that some of you are tarnishing with your Stalinistic aproach to some issues.

This forum desperately needs moderation.

Cruzado - it isn't 'ethnic cleansing'.Islam is not an ethnicity, it is a political ideology.

Jimmy Bones - thanks. Not sure how it would work in detail, but surely the political angle is the one to go for. Mohammed was his own Constantine.

Cruzado~

Walker is White.
The seargent who blew up 22 of his own in Iraq, is Black.
Some muslims look an awful lot like they came from India.
Others look an awful lot like 'aryans'.

Ethnic?

To Gary and Interested:

What I meant by "ethnic cleansing" was mass murder of people irrespective of their guilt or innocence. As far as I know that is something clearly ILLEGAL in EVERY single country that adopted either the Roman or the Germanic Law. But by all means, keep on dreaming. Dreams (or nightmares) are of no consequence whatsoever.

Susanp, Good post.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at October 15, 2005 11:33 AM

Thanks Carolyn; Cruzado doesn't agree. I wish he would share his magic trick for separating the wheat from the chaff because I'll be damned if I can figure out how to do it.

"Thanks Carolyn; Cruzado doesn't agree. I wish he would share his magic trick for separating the wheat from the chaff because I'll be damned if I can figure out how to do it."

You are right. I was wrong all along. Let's just kill every single Muslim we can find. That's what you want, isn't it?

No, I was wrong: people like you want SOMEONE ELSE to do the dirty work for you. You see (and I know that from personal experience) the people that do most of the talking are usually the last ones to put their money where their mouth is.

Do you want to know the magic solution? Guess what - I am not a magician. But I do have some ideas that despite not being quite as "brilliant" as mass murder, might change some things:

a) end all immigration from Muslim countries (with the exception of Christian minorities)
b) declare war to all Muslims countries know to support terrorism (starting with Saudi Arabia)
c) turn the West less dependable from Middle Eastern oil (invest more money in renewable energy sources and on Russian pipelines)
d) build up patriotism in all western countries (people proud of their heritage will fight for it)
e) no citizenship to foreign people unwilling to adapt
f) remove citizenship of anyone suspected of engaging in terrorist activities
g) educate students about the true nature of Islam (particularly in what concerns non-Muslims)
h) close all Muslim schools in western countries
i) destroy all Islamic buildings where terrorist activities were once held
j) monitor anti-western propaganda and end trade with all (Muslim) countries proven guilty of supporting extremism against western countries or non-Muslim minorities

Ten good measures. Some are more practical than others, but guess what? They beat the shit out of your fucked up ideas.

You did not list One Single Thing that hasn't been proposed by any number of people here, cruzado.

Where you get that this site and these people are all about ethnic cleansing...

Kepha's points are really not relevant to the issue of deportation and profiling:

"Most Copts, Maronites, Assyrians, and Mizrahis are physically indistinguishable from their former Muslim neighbors (think of Dutch Calvinist Indonesians as well!)... People like Ibn Warraq, Nonie Darwish, Walid Shoebat, and Mehmet Caner are as far from orthodox Islam as one can get and on the record as firmly against the jihadis, yet probably follow a lot of patterns inherited their ancestral cultures and doubtlessly look like Middle Easterners."

In any rational procedure performed for the sake of security that involves lots of people, there will always be a certain number of innocents impinged. If a terrorist gang composed of red-haired old ladies had mass-murdered 100 times using deadly explosives over the span of a year in 100 different places across North America, it would be idiotic NOT to implement profiling procedures that would UNAVOIDABLY affect hundreds, even thousands of INNOCENT red-haired old ladies.

"-- and we have plenty of crazies of the John Walker Lindh and John Muhammad variety."

We do not have "plenty". The ratio of these types to the Middle Eastern Muslim terrorists is still astronomically disparate. Law enforcement, of course, should remain flexible; and if we started to see a much higher incidence of Johnny Walkers, it would be rational and practical to reconfigure our tactics proportionately. But not before.

As Gary above pointed out: All the points that Cruzado listed have been made here many times.

We don't have to re-invent the wheel, mate: It can be done!

First we have to build the internment centers, then we round them up, city by city, block by block, illegals along with those who are already known to engage in terror and sedition. Do you really think everybody is clueless?

We have their number, many of them have openly declared that they don't respect our laws and that they want to destroy our economy and introduce the caliphate.

We can strip those who have dual- citizenship and deport them. The local troublemakers will simply be held in detention until some Islamic countries are willing to accept them. They are all Muslim-brothers, should be no problem then, no?

The mosques and the madrassahs have to go and if there are still some who want to follow the filthy prophet they have to go too, to any Mohammedan hole that wants them, but we will not release them among us unless they publicly denounce Islam, the hatred, the Jihad, the conquest and booty-ideology.

Look Cruzado, I don't like Islam; in fact, I LOATHE IT, but I am not a killer and I have never suggested that we should round up all the muslims in the U.S. and execute them. That is patently absurd!

In fact, I don't know what the solution to our dilemma is but we sure need to work on one. I have suggested that we must consider all muslims potential threats because it is impossible to distinguish the "moderates" from the lunatics and quite frankly, I believe they're all lunatics at heart. Anyone whose mind has been warped by Islam and is oblivious to the affliction is a lunatic and a threat.

Hugh has pointed out on many occasions, and he is absolutely right about this, that even muslims who have lived in the West for decades and appear to be entirely Westernized are susceptible to the choke-hold of Islam, either from years of accumulated guilt, association with radicals, or some trauma that pushes them back into the all-encompassing fold of Islamic mind control.

Some of us concur that if muslims attack us again, which they will, we should respond with a vengeance against the epicenter of Islam--Mecca. The threat of destroying the holiest site of Islam may be the only deterrent to prevent the nuclear attacks that some experts insist are imminent and I do mean imminent, like within the next few weeks. The terrorists who will launch these attacks are already here and they are being sheltered in mosques somewhere in the U.S. by muslims. Maybe those who are sheltering them don't know exactly what they plan to do, but they know it involves death and destruction. ARe they not as guilty as the terrorists themselves?

As long as muslims live among us we will be at risk. All it takes is one willing jihadist out of thousands of silent supporters to wreak havoc. Until Islam is radically reformed, which I don't think will ever happen, muslims are a threat to the civilized world. If the only way we can guarantee our safety is to remove them from our midst, we have the right to do that. And why should they complain about being returned to their beautiful Islamic utopias when they make no secret of their contempt for us and our country?
Muslims multiply like rats. The day will arrive when we cannot possibly spy on every mosque or plant informants in every muslim community. Why should we have to spy on our own citizens anyway? Since all muslims are potential enemies, they shouldn't be granted American citizenship.

If certain experts are correct, before Ramadan is over we will experience unimaginable horror at the hands of muslims. I pray they are wrong but I fear they are right and if they are, in less than a month millions of Americans will be dead and several of our largest cities will be smoldering piles of contaminated debris. After that, I never want to see another muslim, assuming I survive.

It is absurd for anyone to suggest that JW/DW posters promote genocide when the mossies are capable of doing the job themselves very well. Iraq and Pakistan are good examples.

Their prophet has said that there will 73 sects in islam of which only 1 would survive. Which is why the 2 biggest ones (shiites/sunnis) always go after each other.
Which is also why sunni saudi arabia is afraid of shiite iran, and soon shiite iraq. The saudis are main suppliers of sunnis to the sunni insurgency in Iraq.

So it is only a fulfillment of the Prophecy of their revered prophet.
Me? I only want to know which is the true islam.