I updated my article, Calling Islam Islam, for my new book, My Mohammad Cartoons Vol. 2. I’m sick and tired of hearing people, and not only lying leftists, refer to the Islamic enemy’s ideology by Endless terms, ALL in the name of Not saying the actual name of the Islamic enemy’s ideology, Islam.
We are nearly 18 years removed from the atrocity of 9/11, and we have Yet, outside of a small minority of us, dealt with the fact that “one of the world’s great religions” is motivating a war against civilization. Also, there are far too many religionists who refuse to acknowledge that Islam is a religion, which is another issue I take on in my new book.
This needs to end. If we can’t name the enemy and his ideology, and accept that it is, indeed, a religon, we cannot defeat it. This is about telling the truth, no matter how many sacred cows it kills. This is about defending civilization, not about defending religion’s reputation. This is war. We need to be completely honest, and if we act on the truth, this enemy will be defeated not long after.
We’ve gone from naming enemy ideology -Nazism and Communism- to Renaming it-“Islamic Totalitarianism”, “Radical Islam”, “Islamism”, etc., all to the enemy’s benefit, since these misnomers imply that Islam as such is innocent of jihad. If you’re afraid to name the problem -Islam- then you can’t fight it effectively, and the enemy wants this to continue forever. The only difference between “Islamism” and Islam is three letters, but it’s those three letters that some people use in order to obfuscate the fact that the actual ideology of the Islamic enemy is Islam, and not some alleged deviant form of it. Western intellectuals and commentators refer to the enemy’s ideology as: “Islamic Fundamentalism,” “Islamic Totalitarianism,” “Islamic Extremism,” “Islamofascism,” “Political Islam,” “Militant Islam,” “Bin Ladenism,” “Islamonazism,” “Radical Islam,” “Islamism”, etc.
The enemy calls it “Islam.”
Imagine, if during past wars, we used terms such as “Radical Nazism”, “Extremist Shinto” and “Militant Communism.” The implication would be that there are “good” versions of those ideologies, which would then lead some to seek out “moderate” Nazis. Those who use terms other than Islam create the impression that it’s some variant of Islam that’s behind the enemy that we’re facing. A term such as “Militant Islam” is redundant, but our politicians continue praising Islam as if it were their own religion.
Bush told us “Islam is peace” after 2,996 Americans were murdered in its name. He maintained that illusion throughout his two terms, and never allowed our soldiers to defeat the enemy. And then came Obama, who told us, from Egypt: “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.” If only he felt that way about America. Washington’s defense of Islam has trumped the defense of America and this dereliction of duty could well be called Islamgate.
Islam is a political religion; the idea of a separation of Mosque and State is unheard of in the Muslim world. Islam has a doctrine of warfare, Jihad, which is fought to establish Sharia Law, which is, by nature, totalitarian. Sharia Law calls for, among other things: the dehumanization of women; the flogging/stoning/killing of adulterers; and the killing of homosexuals, apostates and critics of Islam. All of this is part of orthodox Islam, not some “extremist” form of it. If jihadists were actually “perverting a great religion,” Muslims would have been able to discredit them on Islamic grounds and they would have done so by now. The reason they can’t is because jihadists are acting according to the words of Allah, the Muslim God.
From the Koran: “Slay the idolators wherever you find them.” Chapter 9, verse 5
“When you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads until you have made a great slaughter among them.” Chapter 47, verse 4
Beyond the doctrine, there is the historical figure of Mohammad, who, more than anyone, defines Islam. How would you judge a man who lies, cheats, steals, rapes and murders as a way of life? This evil man is Islam’s ideal man, Mohammad.Whatever Mohammad said and did is deemed moral by virtue of the fact that he said it and did it. It’s no accident that the only morality that could sanction his behavior was the one he concocted. Nor is it an accident that Muslims who model themselves after him are the most violent.
For the thirteen years that Mohammad failed to spread Islam by non-violent means, he was not so much peaceful as he was powerless. It was only through criminal activity and with the help of a large gang of followers that he managed to gain power. But he wanted his moral pretense too, so he changed Islam to reflect the fact that the only way it could survive was through force. And so, acting on Allah’s conveniently timed “revelation” that Islam can and should be spread by the sword, Mohammad led an army of Muslims across Arabia in the first jihad. From then on, violence became Islam’s way in the world. And today, acting on Mohammad’s words, “War is deceit”, Muslims use earlier “peaceful” verses from the Koran as a weapon against the ignorance and good will of their victims. Those “peaceful” passages in the Koran were abrogated by later passages calling for eternal war against those who do not submit to Islam.
How Mohammad spread Islam influenced the content of its doctrine and therefore tells us exactly what Islam means.
Note also that the only reason we’re talking about Islam is because we’ve been forced to by its jihad. And where are Islam’s “conscientious objectors”? Nowhere to be found, for even lax Muslims have been silent against jihad. But that doesn’t stop desperate Westerners from pointing to them as representives of “Moderate Islam.” Far from being a personal faith, Islam is a belligerent collectivist ideology that rejects a live-and-let-live attitude towards non-Muslims. And while the jihadists may not represent all Muslims, they do represent Islam.
In the end, most Muslims have proven themselves to be mere sheep to their jihadist wolves, and irrelevant as allies in this war. Former Muslims call the enemy’s ideology Islam, and they dismiss the idea of “Moderate Islam” as they would the idea of “Moderate Evil.” When, based on his actions, Mohammad would be described today as a “Muslim Extremist,” then non-violent Muslims should condemn their prophet and their religion, not those who point it out.
Islam is the enemy’s ideology and evading that fact only helps its agents get away with more murder than they would otherwise. Western politicians and most of our intellectuals have sold us out, so it’s up to the rest of us to defend our way of life by understanding Islam and telling the truth about it in whatever way we can. If we can’t even call Islam by its name, how the hell are we going to defend ourselves against its true believers? I call the enemy what they are, jihadists and stealth jihadists, and the “War on Terror” should be called The War on Jihad.
But behind it all, it’s Islam that makes the enemy tick.
We need to acknowledge Islam’s place in the threat we face and say so without equivocation. Not saying “Islam” helps Islam and hurts us. So we should always call the enemy’s ideology by its actual name.
We need to call Islam Islam.
© Bosch Fawstin
Bosch Fawstin is an Eisner Award-nominated cartoonist currently adapting a novel into a graphic novel, to be announced soon He’s the winner of the Mohammad Cartoon Contest, which ended with a jihadist attack where only the would-be murderers died. He’s the creator of the anti-jihad superhero, Pigman, featured in The Infidel series. Bosch’s first graphic novel is Table for One. He is also the author of ProPiganda: Drawing the Line Against Jihad, a print companion to The Infidel.
Steven RSA says
This should be required reading for anyone who can read as soon as they can read.
mortimer says
Agree. The conclusion that Islam is a ‘religion’ comes from the mistranslation of the Arabic word ‘DEEN’ in the Koran.
‘DEEN’ means a ‘system of government’, rather than ‘religion’.
The town ‘Me-DEEN-a’ was the seat of the GOVERNMENT of the new Islamic empire of Mohammed.
Islam is a POLITICAL SYSTEM of GOVERNMENT that denies human rights and civil liberties to women and ‘others’.
abad says
دين means religion in Arabic, and the word is the same in Persian, both in spelling, pronunciation and meaning.
Michael Copeland says
“We cannot in Islam separate politics on the one side and religion on the other. ….
Religion and politics go hand in hand in Islam.”
Mullah Krekar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuI57GeVXyI at 8.02
Michael Copeland says
The Ayatollah Khomeini once said, “Islam is politics or it is nothing.”
Bill Hewitt
https://people.com/archive/when-middle-east-meets-west-says-an-expert-on-islam-conflict-often-just-comes-naturally-vol-34-no-19/
mortimer says
Where are your references, abad? I refer to the word ‘din’ appearing in 79 verses in the Koran. The author of the Koran used DEEN in the way Jesus referred to ‘THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN’ … it is an ideal society. However, the DEEN OF ALLAH is not it heaven; it is the GOVERNANCE OF ISLAM on earth … a system of governance of all aspects of life … the Islamic State … religion is one part of the Islamic State. You refer to a ‘DEVELOPED’ CUSTOMARY USAGE of ‘din’ after centuries of Islam. This ‘DEVELOPED’ usage IS NOT in the Koran. (I agree that the DEVELOPED usage of deen is what you say. I refer to the original sense in the Koran.)
IN THE KORAN …the origin meaning of ‘deen’ or ‘din’ at the time of Mohammed was not ‘religion’, but closer to modern English ‘GOVERNANCE’ or ‘RULE’ or ‘REIGN’. You refer to a ‘DEVELOPED’ CUSTOMARY USAGE of ‘din’ after centuries of Islam. This ‘DEVELOPED’ usage IS NOT in the Koran.
Wiki:
The Arabic dīn has Semitic cognates, including the Hebrew “dīn” (דין), Aramaic dīnā (דִּינָא), Amharic dañä (ዳኘ) and Ugaritic dyn ().
The Arabic sense of JUDGEMENT is commonly derived from the Hebraeo-Aramaic root.[1] The Hebrew term “דין”, transliterated as “dīn”, means either “LAW” or “judgement”. In the Kabbalah of Judaism, the term can, alongside “Gevurah” (cognate to the Arabic “Jabaarah”), refer to “POWER” and “judgement”.[4] In ancient Israel, the term featured heavily in administrative and legal proceedings i.e. Bet Din, literally “the house of judgement,” the ancient building block of the Jewish legal system.[5][6]
Some scholars such as Nöldeke and Vollers have DERIVED the Arabic sense of religion from the Middle Persian den (revelation, religion) connected with the Zoroastrian notion daena. Others, like Gaudefroy-Demombynes and Gardet, have found this derivation UNCONVINCING.[1]
The Arabic sense “custom, usage” has been DERIVED by classical and modern lexicologists from the Arabic verbal forms dāna (be INDEBTED) and dāna li- (submit to).[1] Louis Gardet sees the Hebraic and Arabic senses as related through the notions of retribution, debt, obligation, custom, and direction, prompting him to translate yawn al-din as “the day when God gives a direction to each human being”.
Koran 1.4 … transliterated as “Maliki yawmi ad-Dīni,” and (usually) translated as “Master of the Day of JUDGEMENT”.
Some Qur’anic scholars have translated Dīn in places as “faith”[9] Others suggest that the term “has been used in various forms and meanings, e.g., system, power, supremacy, ascendancy, sovereignty or lordship, dominion, law, constitution, mastery, government, realm, decision, definite outcome, reward and punishment. On the other hand, this word is also used in the sense of obedience, submission and allegiance”.
……………………………
To conclude:
DIN or DEEN is closest in meaning to the English equivalent ‘GOVERNANCE’. Islam is a GOVERNMENTAL SYSTEM that regulates every aspect of life. Din or deen is an Arabic word often mistranslated as “creed” or “religion”. “Din” is a word that features heavily in Islam. Both mainstream and reformist Muslim writers take the word ‘deen’ to mean an all-encompassing WAY OF LIFE carried out under the auspices of Allah’s purpose as expressed in the Qur’an and hadiths. As one ‘progressive’ Muslim writer puts it, far from being a private aspect of life discretely carried out in the mosque, “Islam is Dīn, a complete way of life”.
The term Dīn gained popularity in Arabia and the Greater Middle East after the advent of Islam. The term has Semitic cognates including the Hebrew “dīn” (דין), Aramaic dīnā (דִּינָא), Amharic dañä (ዳኘ) and Ugaritic dyn. It may be the root of the common Semitic word Madīnah (city), and of Midian, a geographical place and a people mentioned in the Bible and in the Qur’an. ME-DIN-A is literally ‘the place of governance’ as the capital of the empire of Arabia.
t. says
mortimer,
You’re an encylopedia on Islam and I personally learned many things from you.
Meanwhile I know some Arabic and abad is right! “Deen” in day to day life, in the Arab world, means religion.
Yokel says
From Google translate (with a bit of editing because format lost on cut + paste):
Translations of دين (noun)
debt دين, إثم, دين واجب الدفع
religion دين, ديانة, ترهب, عبادة, طائفة, يمان
faith إيمان, ثقة, دين, معتقد, اعتقاد, مذهب
debit مدين, دين, مأخذ نقطة ضعف, المطلوب منه
loan قرض, إعارة, دين, العارية شئ معار, كلمة دخيلة
credit ائتمان, تسليف, مفخرة, ثقة, سمعة, دين
due مستحق, دين
cult عبادة, طائفة دينية, دين
leash مقود, دين, سلسلة
persuasion إقناع, رأي, دين, معتقد, القدرة على الاقناع, قناعة
score نتيجة, مجموع النقاط, علامة, مجموع, خدش, دين
judgement حكم, قرار, رأي, قضاء, إصدار حكم, دين
gravenimage says
I don’t think any of you are wrong. In Islam, “religion”, “way of life”, and “government” are all pretty much one and the same.
Shalom says
Deen is similar to Hebrew ‘Din’ In London we have the Beth Din which is the our religious court. Beth or Beit means house in Hebrew.
t. says
A stellar of an article and right on the spot, Bosch Fawstin!
This should be the obvious but something is going awfully wrong in the west, these days.
smoris says
Here’s what to do: copy this link and send it to your Congressmen, Senators, state legislators, Governors, Mayors and city councilmen. These are the people who need to read this. But be warned: if they know who sent it they will persecute you for it.
Jack Cade says
Aw Bosch! You got Islam perfectly correct. It is the Doctrine of Evil!
James Lincoln says
Bosch Fawstin mentions, in his excellent feature article:
“… the only reason we’re talking about Islam is because we’ve been forced to by its jihad.”
100% true. If it were not for the clear and present danger from Islamic Jihad, I personally would not have wasted even five minutes of my time learning about Islam.
I mean think about it. How much this the average well-informed Jihad Watch reader know about Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.?
The fact is, we all need to know about Islam – because our lives depend upon it.
gravenimage says
This is *very* true, James. Were it not for Islam’s savagery, it would get no more attention than any other minority faith here. Less, likely–there is more genuine interest overall in, say, Buddhism in the West than in Islam–save for the threat it presents.
If only we were getting the truth, though–because a great deal of what is bandied about about Islam is omission, whitewash, and outright Taqiyya.
Savvy Kafir says
It really is ironic, isn’t it? We only care about Islam because of the threat its adherents pose to infidel lives & infidel societies — because of its incredibly savage, warlike, barbaric nature — and it’s the ONE religion the PC Police constantly depict as peaceful & tolerant & altogether awesome. The ONE religion that can get you fired from your job (in non-Muslim countries!) if you dare to speak about it honestly. The ONE religion that must not be criticized, in Britain for instance, unless you want to have the police come knocking on your door.
It’s total insanity! As Anne Marie Waters says, we are living in Orwell’s “1984”.
James Lincoln says
Savvy Kafir says:
“…we are living in Orwell’s “1984””.
Interestingly, I just finished watching the original movie “1984” that was released in 1956. It is available for free on Dailymotion. Absolutely frightening.
I remember reading the book after seeing the play in 1971. At the time, I found it to be interesting science fiction.
I NEVER thought that much of it would become true…
gravenimage says
James, 1984 was of course based on Fascism–and applies to all authoritarian regimes. That it should apply to our own is what is truly shocking.
mlxike9a says
Can it be clearer than this?! Thank you Bosch! Thank you for your art as well!
gravenimage says
+1
Victoria says
Islam is a cancer that rots the soul.
dlbrand says
Indeed, well stated, Bosch.
It is not “Islamic Totalitarianism”, “Radical Islam”, “Islamism”, etc. that “changed hearts,” it is that, “Islam changed hearts.”
(http://www.debibrand.org/a-special-ruh-from-allah-so-too-a-special-blessing-for-a-special-expressed-rage/)
Kilfincelt says
Mandatory reading.
Anjuli Pandavar says
How long we have waited! Yes! Am I misreading the signs, or is the tide turning, at long last?
Here is another ex-Muslim, one of my favourites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0L_lAx7IHr4
“there are far too many religionists who refuse to acknowledge that Islam is a religion… This needs to end. If we can’t name the enemy and his ideology, and accept that it is, indeed, a religon (sic), we cannot defeat it. This is about telling the truth.”
I could not agree more. It has been a long frustration of mine that so many seem to think acknowledging that Islam is a religion equals opposing that it is an ideology. This is simplistic nonsense. Of course it is an ideology, as all religions are. Islam is sustained by fear, that is true, but it is not sustained by fear alone. It is also sustained by faith. Faith anaesthetises against Islam’s barbaric horrors. To say this does not in any away detract from its nature as an ideology, but it also avoids disastrous cognitive shortcuts.
Islam is also a political economy, one predicated on plunder, slavery and tribute, such as was the order of the world on the eve of the great slave-based political economies of antiquity. It is a social system of extreme authoritarian hierarchy. It is an identity of tribal insularity and xenophobia, and so on. None of this detracts from its being an ideology. Relax already.
But what I really want to get to is that the candyfloss bs seems to be coming to an end. Yes, there is a species of Western soppy liberal that cannot bear the thought of all these terrorists being Muslim. That’s just such an awful, nasty idea that it couldn’t possibly be true. Islam wants to kill us all? That’s just so off-the-wall that any evidence of it must be mistaken. The endless desperate exertions to equate Islam with nice, gentle Christianity, as proven by those nasty verses in Deuteronomy and Leviticus. There is nothing that can be done about illusions that underpin identity.
But if you are not a soppy liberal desperate for candyfloss bs about Islam, then peddling “political Islam”, “Islamism”, “extremist Islam”, etc., can only mean that *you are not serious about fighting Islam*. The effect of your obfuscation is to *protect* Islam. Some ex-Muslim complained on Youtube that not all ex-Muslim’s are the same. True. Fair cop. If you’re an ex-Muslim for the quiet, nice garden-party life, that is your right and your entitlement. But most ex-Muslims feel they owe it to their fellow human being to go back and fight this thing. We are privileged in that we have no illusions about Islam and no patience with having to be nice to or about Muslims. We know them too well. I say to my fellow ex-Muslims that it is not enough just to be an ex-Muslim. In whatever way best suits us, we’ve got to go after Islam and kill it.
To those living under Islam who are still struggling with themselves, listen to me. History is swinging in behind you. Leave Islam and join that historic wave. Even if you adopt another religion, just leave Islam. Even if you have to pretend that you’re still Muslim, just leave Islam. Do this, at least. This nightmare, this horror that kills, kills, kills and lies, lies, lies, that your community, your family, your parents, and you have been locked in for so long must end. Do something for yourself and for the world. Leave Islam. And if you’re not ready to turn around and fight it, that’s fine. Others can do that. Just leave.
gravenimage says
Agreed, Anjuli. Good post.
CRUSADER says
What does “fighting Islam” look like?
Savvy Kafir says
Awesome post, Anjuli!
t. says
You can tell when words are coming from the heart!
You’re absolutely right, Anjuli.
Demsci says
Awesome post, Anjuli! From now on I shall pay special attention to your posts.
I never was Muslim of course, but at work, in neighborhood and public space constantly surrounded and in contact with them. In Rotterdam, Holland.
I very much see a dichotomy Islam-Muslims. In “hate the sin, love the sinner”. My biggest wish is indeed that all those nice Muslims LEAVE Islam. I know it to be very bad and dangerous. I know talking reasonably with Muslims is well nigh impossible. The many times I tried it often ended in word-fighting. But what I indeed found much worse is the ignorant attitude of the Westerners around me, determined to be deaf for all complaints about Islam.
Praise and glory to the ex-Muslims, my favorite now is Apostate Prophet. But I know many more on intermet, like Mimzy and her partner. The one you showed is also very good.
I am on board with fighting Islam, albeit with peaceful methods. I have learned a lot about Islam since 9/11. And how Muslims interpret it or lack thereof. I know of cherry picking Muslims, lukewarm Muslims, Muslims in name only. About lying Muslims too. I know how aggressive and deceitful Islam is and muslims can be, but all these Muslims who know and practice a different form of Islam exist too.
My point is that the outside world in vast majority clings to the distinction moderate-radical, up to president Trump, FOX news, the vast majority of voters.
My idea was to point to the big faults in Quran Sira Hadiths, to the lack of central authority in Islam, to the command to stay in Islam on pain of death.
That means that we can accuse Muslims of believing with great variance, and that Quran Sira Hadiths indeed must a vague soup, because it is multi interpreted according to the vast majority of mankind and therefore multi interpreTABLE! And that is a weakness, it shows Islam is UNCLEAR, manmade, not divine.
So I want us to fight all of Islam, but at the same time ridicule the idea that Islam is clear. But I still want to emphasize that, precisely BECAUSE it is UNclear, that Muslims are PRONE to literal interpretation and that we can’t discern which Muslims are and which are not violent and that thus no Muslim can be trusted. And that that is why we are against Islam. And that we consider Islam a choice of sane adult humans and that therefore it is justified to hold Muslims accountable for their religion.
Since 1648 there is freedom of religion in the Western world. BUT I do think it should not be absolute.
Anjuli Pandavar says
Demsci,
Thank you for your kind words. I appreciate the compliment.
I would like to comment on something that, perhaps, you might wish to come back on:
“we can accuse Muslims of believing with great variance, and that Quran Sira Hadiths indeed must a vague soup, because it is multi interpreted according to the vast majority of mankind and therefore multi interpreTABLE! And that is a weakness, it shows Islam is UNCLEAR, manmade, not divine. …I still want to emphasize that, precisely BECAUSE it is UNclear, that Muslims are PRONE to literal interpretation.”
Just as a scene-setter, it would help if you could quote passages from the Qur’an, etc., that are unclear and show how such passages are prone to literal interpretation amongst a “great variance” of interpretations. If you are looking for coherence in the Qur’an or the Hadith, you will certainly find a “vague soup”. I would also agree that there are passages that are so factually wrong or so nonsensical that any Muslim with half a brain should be unable to bear the sheer embarrassment of these being the words of Allah himself.
Strictly-speaking, one might say that there is no central authority in Islam. But there is a diverse matrix of Islamic authorities that together can be as effective as a central authority. It is true that there’s no caliphate and so no caliph, but there is the Qur’an, there is the life of Muhammad, there is the Hadith, there are the ulama (so-called scholars) who are constantly consulted on the most ridiculous things that Muslims anguish over, there are the authorities of Supreme Leader of Shi’a Islam (the main Ayatollah of Iran) and the head of Al-Azhar University (he who pronounces for Sunni Islam) and finally but not least, there is Muslim social pressure, including killing. Admittedly, these are decentralised and diffused authorities, but in combination they are quite effective in achieving significant uniformity and compliance, sometimes globally, as in universal love for Muhammad, or worldwide agreement that Salman Rushdie should be murdered. By this I am not trying to detract from the differences, strifes and mutual animosities between different sections of Muslims, only to point out that the lack of a Pope doesn’t make Islam a free-for-all. It is true that Muslims believe with great variance, but there is only one Islam.
Also, the command to stay in Islam on pain of death only affects those who would be of a mind to leave Islam, which most Muslims do not (at least, not yet). They do not wish to leave for any number of reasons, ranging from a desire for a quiet life to actually believing that Islam is right and being Muslim is a good thing. There are people like that. Finally, I’m not sure whether you hold any scripture to be divine. To me, describing anything as divine in the sense that it emanates from a supernatural being has no meaning. So describing the Qur’an as man-made *as opposed to* divine doesn’t strengthen any argument. I’ve heard one Islamic propagandist who masquerades as a “reformer” claim that the Qur’an is not divine, but “divinely inspired”. That is dire.
So to return to the quoted part of your post, keeping all of the above in mind, the passages of the Qur’an that are subject to multiple interpretation (more accurately, *attempted* interpretation) are passages that are very clear. The problem with such passages is that they clash with the ethics of contemporary Muslims, who have been desperately “interpreting” those passages precisely so as to make them *unclear* and thereby create wiggle-room within which to “interpret” them in less uncomfortable ways, ways more consistent with civilised conduct. One of the most notorious is Qur’an 4:34. “…if you fear disobedience from your wives …beat them.” The verse is crystal clear and because it is crystal clear, Muslim men, through the ages, have done exactly that: they beat their wives, and they do so in a way that will *ensure obedience*, which presumably is Allah’s intention, else why bother?
*Today, in the West*, so-called Muslim reformers are acutely embarrassed by this verse, and by countless others. We are now asked to understand 4:34 to mean “beat them [with a twig]”, “beat them [with a toothbrush]”, “beat them [so as not to leave any marks],” etc. Some contemporary translations of the Qur’an are so carpeted with square-bracketed micro-exegeses to construct more palatable “interpretations”, that it looks like they farmed the thing out to a PR company. Muslim apologists and propagandists go through these crazy contortions because the one thing they can *not* do is remove the verse. You cannot mess with the words of Allah. The Muslims you charge with literal interpretation are simply Muslims who don’t mess with what are and have always been crystal clear text.
I’d be happy to hear your further thoughts.
DHazard says
The problem of Islam may never completely go away. But it can whither away to an insignificant appendage if all the closeted apostates realize how many other people there are out there who stopped being Muslim a long time ago. But then they have to overcome the hurdles presented from other Muslims, the mainstream Western press and all the Western liberals who in their smug, evil, passive-aggressive way, justify mass murder and jump to the defense of those who share the religion of bloodshed and wasted lives.
Living in coastal California the conflict between liberal ideologues and normal people is glaring. If there is even an inkling you don’t go along with the whole liberal plan for the World, and you make it known in a place where strangers are within earshot, you risk witnessing an intelligent person make a complete asshole out of themselves. It would be amusing if they hadn’t been responsible for stalling, hindering, blocking, slandering, sermonizing, trivializing and lying as ways of preventing anyone (including themselves and even some Muslims) from ever learning what Muhammad really meant when he started Islam and how Islam changed as he did, and how Islam changed as Muslim rulers passed the crown. In this World the biggest enemy is not the cruelest Muslim Jihadi but the person who best understands and expresses the real threats coming from Islam. The life altering ones. If they are silenced then Muhammad’s sick mind will continue to rape and murder by proxy, unhindered by things like dignity, honesty, and compassion.
gravenimage says
As another coastal Californian, I know just how you feel, DHazard.
CRUSADER says
So, what is there to do?
gravenimage says
Exposing the threat of Islam–as here–is a good first step, CRUSADER.
Demsci says
In this respect Holland is rather like coastal California, DHazard.
Demsci says
As I gather what Wellington also says, it is the Western Useful idiots, who are enablers of Islam, that form the biggest contemporary problem in Western democratic countries.
What to do about it? Well, can we sunder apart that damned RED-GREEN alliance! I am convinced that subconsciously the leftists have their bias pro Islam based in big part on power politics. Much more than on some genuine admiration for Islam or on some genuine concern voor “poor Muslims”.
Leftists themselves also believe Islam is fairytales, a vague multi-interpretable religion, not of much use, except for assistance against their capitalist enemies.
What are the biggest fears and goals of leftists? We conservatives and anti-jihadists should consider to thwart them on that as they thwart us with Islam. So thwart them on environmental issues, however that goes against our own instincts.
I mean the situation with Islam is so dire that we need the leftists to ditch the red-Green alliance and start helping us with making Islam look bad and ridiculous. So that large numbers of Muslims get out of Islam.
If they do not help us, but keep hindering us, what is the point of saving the environment and mankind? Only to let Islam take over? Of course I exaggerate, but really not by much.
And anyway I am not under the impression that Muslims are nearly as aware of the environment as leftists and greens and many millennials are. Muslims are bad allies for leftists it seems to me.
Muslims can also be very rigid and inclined to be only takers.
But Conservatives know how to deal and give and take.
abad says
Without a doubt one of the best articles I have read about Islam in a long time.
Yes Sir.
It is time to call a spade a spade, er, Islam is Islam.
gravenimage says
Bosch Fawstin: No More Misnomers: We Need to Stop Playing Name Games with Islam
………………..
I’ve seen this cartoon by Bosch Fawstin before–it is spot on.
Muslim2019 says
The Islamophobic rants of misguidance, misinformation and falsehood continues. David and Robert and the other Islamophobic team are laughing their way to the bank based off your fears and you do not even know it.
gravenimage says
Note that “Islam2019”–formerly “Muslim2018” and before that “Muslim2017”, as though Islam ever changes–does not say *what* it is that David Greenfield and Robert Spencer (and Bosch Fawstin, who, as a former Muslim, understands Islam all too well) have supposedly gotten wrong here.
And he will not say, because he doesn’t have anything.
Then there is the implication that no one here would have any concerns about Islam were it not for Spencer or Greenfield–as though 9/11 and the almost 35,000 Jihad terror attacks never happened, and are not continuing to happen at a mushrooming rate.
Finally, of course, is the implication that Spencer and Greenfield and other Anti-Jihadists do not actually care about Muslims slaughtering innocent people, but are just doing it for the money–as if there were not easier ways to make a living, without “Muslim2019’s” pious coreligonists threatening to murder them all them all the time.
In fact, Bosch Fawstin just came out with a book, “Peaceful Death Threats”, about Muslims threatening to murder him for daring to speak the truth about Islam. There are over 400 death threats in the book, many of them also threatening to rape and butcher his loved ones.
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/04/bosch-fawstin-peaceful-death-threats
Does “Muslim2019” have a problem with this, either? Not so you’d notice…
CRUSADER says
Well reasoned.
t. says
A good post, gravenimage! Your response to muslim2019 was adequate and right on the spot.
That’s the only thing they do when trying to defend this killing machine of a religion- character assasination, calling names, threatening with violence or all of the previous. It’s never “let me check closer the teachings of the Koran, hadiths, sira and the 1400 years of Islam’s bloody history on this planet”.
gravenimage says
Thank you, t. and CRUSADER.
D J says
Tell that to my dead friend in Mumbai and my dead waiter in Borough Market London.
gravenimage says
Terrible but spot on comment, D J.
So sorry about your losses to Jihad. I have also lost friends to Jihad.
Westman says
It must be enjoyable for critics to need bodyguards to protect themselves from your barbaric (Islamomafia) religion of peace, ehh, Muslim2019.
And the “misreresentation” of a blood-letting Islam, amazingly, right off the pages of the Quran and Hadith that presciptively call for the continuation of mayhem – represents it precisely. Frankly, if you’re not at least supportive of the violent jihadis, then you are leaning toward apostasy in Islam. Muhammad allowed some to to avoid warring while also telling them not expect a big reward in Jannah; something reserved for real warriors.
It’s grimly amusing to hear all the protestations and denials about the violent nature and human rights suppression by Islam when it’s daily observable (in video) and documented in Islam’s own “holy books”.
By the way, Muslim2019, does your wife have all her original parts, and will she get an equal inheritance? Is she covered or “modern”? Are you “superior” to her?
In a modern world, Islam is the religion of incompetence. There isn’t a Muslim nation that leads in anything because of bida suppression – ancient books do the thinking. Training a child to get the answers to his questions from books representing 7-8th century thinking is a sure way to make him intellectually unable to compete in a modern world. Yes, he still can be a violent jihadi in a world where a woman can push a button on a console and he is, no more.
Islam is a bad solution looking for a problem that doesn’t exist. It’s a horse and sword in a world of jet airplanes.
Demsci says
And nobody pays you Muslim2019? If you say no, I can believe you, then YOU are that gullible sheep that follows unquestionably your preachers, your illusions about Divine messengers and “Jannah” or what is Heaven called again?
Because about financial motives, don’t you think that the Imams, ayatollahs etc. Are not only fighting for their faith, but much more for their own livelihood?!
And do you really think that people that face countless death threats and are under guard every day of their life are motivated solely by greed?
mortimer says
We are deeply grateful to Bosch Fawstin for his remarkable and courageous contributions to DEPROGRAMMING MUSLIMS out of this medieval death cult.
gravenimage says
Mortimer, Bosch Fawstin is a brave and principled man–he left Islam on his own.
He was *not* forcibly “deprogrammed” by non-Muslims as you appear to believe.
And his cartoon, above, is not intended to “deprogram” pious Muslims, either–it is not even aimed at them. Note that the “they” of the cartoon is Muslims, and the “we” is infidels. This cartoon is aimed at educating clueless Kuffar.
I’m sure he would be glad if Muslims read his work and then leave Islam–but so far, they have been more inclined to to send him death threats. He noted that not a *single* Muslim defended his right to draw Muhammed cartoons.
Savvy Kafir says
Agreed! Bosch Fawstin is focused on educating the non-Muslim population, and on sounding the alarm, motivating infidels to take action.
He states clearly “This is war”; and wars are not won by “deprogramming” the enemy. They are won by defeating the enemy — and Mr. Fawstin himself makes reference to “defeating” the enemy.
While Mortimer indulges in his fantasy of “deprogramming” Muslims, others are focused on thwarting & defeating the enemy — i.e., Muslims, the carriers & active agents of this virus — by any means necessary.
CRUSADER says
Indeed.
vlparker says
Hear, hear!!
ploome says
regarding:
“War on Terror” should be called The War on Jihad.
“War on Terror” should be called The RESPONSE to Jihad.
Savvy Kafir says
This is an excellent article that makes many KEY points all counter-jihadis need to take on board.
I share Mr. Fawstin’s frustration with the word games many anti-Islam activists still use, in the interest of lingering political correctness, or fear of being labelled bigots or haters or whatever. Notable exceptions include Brigitte Gabriel, Anne Marie Waters, & Pat Condell, who — among others — insist upon calling the enemy ideology “Islam”, plain & simple.
We are (or should be) engaged in a fight against ALL aspects of Islam — the political, military, legal/judicial, cultural, & religious aspects of this all-encompassing worldview & system for living. It’s all evil & barbaric. It’s all undeserving of any respect or pretense of respect. And it all needs to be expelled from the West.
Like Mr. Fawstin, I have no qualms about calling Islam a religion — which it surely is, among other things. Muslims consider it to be first & foremost a religion. It’s got all the scriptural & ritualistic trappings of a hocus-pocus religion based upon a magic book. It’s loaded with superstition & “miracles”, and a belief in eternal bliss for its followers, and eternal damnation for those who reject Allah & Muhammad. It’s clearly a religion, primarily, as far as its believers are concerned. Their belief in paradise & hell provide much of the motivation driving the political, military, legal, & cultural aspects of Islam. And their deep-seated contempt for those of us who have “rejected God” and who are “warring against God” predispose them to acts of savagery against infidels, and to invading infidel lands and destroying infidel societies. Islam without the superstition & the religious faith of its followers would be far less powerful & far less dangerous.
CRUSADER says
What of Bill Warner, who warns of Islam the political ideology as the enemy to defeat as an ideology,
rather than as a religion, as such, since religions are protected?
Savvy Kafir says
Bill Warner is extremely knowledgeable about Islam & its history, its agendas, etc. And he does a great service with his videos, books & lectures, providing a wealth of important information.
But I disagree with his focus on “political Islam”. Islam is inherently political. But it wouldn’t be nearly as powerful & dangerous without its religious underpinnings — i.e., if its followers didn’t believe that living as a “good Muslim”, fighting for Islam, and winning the world for Allah would gain them admission to Paradise and prevent them from burning in Hell for eternity. That’s powerful stuff, if you’re the gullible, logic-impaired type who is willing to accept such incredible claims without proof or evidence of any kind.
As a non-believer and a fairly militant religious skeptic, I have no qualms about bashing Islam-the-religion. It’s not “protected”, as far as I’m concerned. I think that’s one advantage atheist & agnostic counter-jihadis have; there are no sacred cows for us. (As Bosch Fawstin says, many Christians & religious Jews get around this issue by simply refusing to acknowledge that Islam is a “legitimate” religion, or by claiming that it was created by Satan.)
No ideology should be off-limits for honest public discussion & debate — even if that offends the tender religious sensibilities of 1.8 billion slow-witted dupes who are still being conned by a savage, misogynistic, pedophilic warlord-prophet who has been dead for nearly 1400 years.
sidney penny says
“We need to be completely honest, and if we act on the truth, this enemy will be defeated not long after.”
Koenraad Elst the historian was very direct.
“The problem is not Muslims but Islam.”
Savvy Kafir says
The problem is Muslims, motivated by Islam and determined to impose their ideology on the rest of us. If Islam were just a collection of books, it would not pose much of a danger. It’s the believers in Islam that must be defeated and kicked out of the West.
Demsci says
I hope savvy Kafir would agree that getting big numbers of Muslims apostasize is a good goal. And eventually worldwide mind you. That could be our moonshot. And I want no lesser goal.
Muslims are humans, wonderful creations of either God or Evolution, with many facets, many qualities. Also with faults and wrong choices, with clinging to Islam the worst of all.
I am indeed against freedom of religion, Savvy Kafir and in favor of discriminating on basis of religion, and only one religion, Islam. I concede that no Muslim can be trusted. And that we must be vigilant.
But I still say; target Islam first and foremost. Show that it is ridiculous, like apostate prophet and David Wood are doing,
Very unhistorical. This is what Jay Smith is doing. He says that Christianity’s enormous losses were due to Bible criticism. And he hopes to replicate the mass losses, but from Islam, through criticism on Quran and Muhammad.
Do we have enough time to try this peaceful way?
Westman says
I doubt Islam will have a real crisis until the world gets off oil as its portable energy source. The oil money promotes Islam and builds mosques in the West and, in a general way, subsidizes Islam. We are providing the equivalent of jizya with a willing hand.
If Islamic nations operated without subsidy, the Islam-induced incompetence would create an economic crisis in Islam; making the difference between Islamic nations and the West more stark. The Islamic invasion into Europe is due to the economic failures of Islam without jizya or booty. It still hasn’t occured to West-living Muslims that Islam is still holding them back. Their first thought and excuse might be it’s “racism” then eventually the truth sets in about how Islam stunted their education and steals their productive time.
Islam is like a lion pride that eats its prey, lays about until again hungry, then gradually realizes the prey are becoming scarce or becoming lion hunters. Time to play the victim?
Savvy Kafir says
Excellent post, Westman! You made some important points that rarely get made here.
Getting the world off of oil is one of THE most important strategies we should be pursuing in the war with Islam. Developing alternative energy technology & infrastructure — such as hydrogen fuel cell vehicles — would be a death blow to oil-rich Islamists. They would have no money to spend on mosques in the West, no means of buying influence in the West, etc., etc.
Causing the economies of Muslim-majority countries to collapse would make the non-Muslim world a safer place, and, as you say, might create a crisis in Islam, leading many Muslims to question the benefits of their faith.
Savvy Kafir says
No, Demsci – we really don’t have enough time to try that approach. Our approach needs to be far more robust, and far more focused on simple self-preservation, if we are to turn back the tide of Islam.
We can encourage Muslims to apostatize AFTER we expel them from the West. If we try to “deprogram” them while they’re still here, living & breeding among us, we will lose this conflict, and the West will become Islamized. At this point, preventing Western societies from becoming Islamic societies is all that really matters. Deporting every last Muslim from the West – and/or motivating them to self-deport — should be our “moonshot”.
As you said, Demsci, Muslims are humans. So what? The Nazis were humans too. So were the super-savage racists of Imperial Japan. But during WWII, we had to remain focused on kicking their asses, via any means available to us, so they did not succeed in kicking ours. We are now engaged in World War III. It’s a far more complex war than any others – fought largely by “peaceful” invaders employing various methods against us; but we cannot allow that to confuse us. This IS a global war; and the stakes are higher than in ANY war of the past.
I do not think of Muslims as multi-faceted, “wonderful creations”. I see them as the enemy, period. The enemy that must be defeated and expelled from the West. If we do not take that simplistic attitude towards this extremely aggressive & dangerous enemy, the West will be lost.
AFTER they are sent back to Muslim-majority countries, we can afford to think of them as humans, take pity on them, and do what we can to help them, by trying to undermine their belief in Islam — which we may be able to do, eventually, after we wean ourselves off of oil and Muslim countries become dirt-poor failed states — a situation that will make some Muslims more open to the idea that Islam is a curse rather than a blessing.
But if we take pity on them prematurely — while they are still living among us in the West — the civilized world will be lost. The True Believers will simply take advantage of our kindness (as they have been doing all along). They will view our kindness as a sign of weakness, and get on with the business of bullying us, terrorizing us, having lots of babies, and turning our societies into Islamic ones.
gravenimage says
Good post. When Muslims were largely isolated in Dar-al-Islam, there was almost no threat from Islam here. And that time was very recent–just a couple of decades ago.
Demsci says
Read it, -onderling it, Savvy Kafir
Demsci says
Pondering.
Demsci says
Agree with Westman about energy-question. And am enthousiastic about the Shale revolution and mr Trumps support too, as long as we still use oil and gas.
Savvy Kafir, you know what? We may well lose substantial parts of the West. And it will be the fault of the Political Correct people.
We can/t defend those that refuse to defend themselves. What we maybe able to do is form pockets (like Hungary) of stern democratic anti-Islam entities, who fight back and in the long run will be welcomed back by the oppressed under the Islamic countries. But this time, when we are limited in number and power, we will be able to defend ourselves as you want us to do.
But right now the political correct leftists and their dupes and copycats drag us down and it does seem hopeless to fight Islam head on. Hence my second strategy-plan.
Dries says
Question: Is or is not the Quran the only book in the higher echelons of freemasonry? Question 2: Is or is not the Islam subservient to the Pope of Rome? Question 3: If the truth needs to be spoken about islam, does the exact same not apply to the RCC?
CRUSADER says
1) Nope.
2) Nope.
3) Maybe. But Islam is what is most threatening to civilization, given it’s plain tactics of its doctrine from the Koran scriptures and the hadith, which Muslims follow.
gravenimage says
Spot on reply to Dries, CRUSADER.
Robin Williams says
Islam is a political ideology:- like Nazism, Communism et al. Muslem is the religion that expresses Islam.
This is how I understand it. Correct me if I am wrong.
gravenimage says
Islam is both a religion *and* a political ideology. The two are pretty much inseparable.
george says
islam is islam
jihad is jihad
murderers are murderers
???????????????
Giaour (meaning "infidel") says
10 years ago I became the first ACT chapter leader in Maine. 2 years ago, I resigned. In the process of failing 3 or 4 times to pass an anti-FGM bill to criminalize the vile mangling of young girls (still not passed in Maine), I was attacked by the SPLC for consistently publishing “Islam is evil” in my newletters. ACT threw myself and a second chapter leader under the bus and failed to rebut the SPLC. We resigned. This article is the clearest, most succinct and truthful statement of the world’s greatest problem today. Islam. Period.
gravenimage says
Sorry to hear that.
Edward Cline says
Amen, Bosch! In all my Rule of Reason columns, I never once referred to Islam as “Radical” or used any other qualifier (except in jest) to disguise Islam and its fundamental nature. Suppose we referred to “Radical” FGM? What would that mean? As opposed to “Moderate” FGM”? “Painless” FGM?
gravenimage says
+1
Islam_Is Islam says
This is precisely why I chose the commenting name that I have. Thank you, Mr. Fawstin. I look forward to having your book in my hands.
vera says
Mr. Fawstin makes good points. I wonder if it would be most accurate to refer to Islam as a theocracy.
Wellington says
Quite simply a great essay. It is succinct, accurate and should be read by millions (billions?).
No more word games. Islam is Islam and it is a menace to mankind. It surely is a mortal enemy of liberty.
As I have written before at JW, just dealing in probabilities, it was probable, not a given but probable, that humanity would get a major religion that sucks. Humanity did. Humanity got Islam.
Walter Sieruk says
The above main top article of this site goes over some not so good terms as “radical Islam’ and “Islamism” Therefore, in should be known that the word “Islamism” is a fake word that used that was made up after September 11, 2001 in order offend or upset non-violent Muslims. The real, actual, word is just “Islam.” Likewise, the world “Islamist” is also a bogus word that was made up after 9/11 in order not to offend or upset peaceful Muslims. To keep with reality, terms should better be used as “Islamic terrorist” or “Muslim terrorist” . Let’s call people and thing as the really are.
Furthermore, the terms “Radical Muslim” and “Islamic extremist” is actually a misuse of terms. “Moderate Muslim” are actually Western term and not that well known in the Islamic Middle East. This is because what In the Islamic mindset in the Muslim Middle East as well as in Indonesia and other Muslim controlled countries what the non-Muslims of the Western nations view as “radical and “extremist” the Muslims of those places in the world see as “Normal” and even Devout and committed to the Cause of Islam”. Likewise they view those who Westerns see as “Moderate Muslims” those of the Islamic worldview and non-devout and non –committed Muslims. The violent jihadists even see them as “hypocrites.” Therefore, this explains the jihadist chant of those jihad-minded Muslims in different Islamic terror organizations. When they chant out loud “Death to infidels and hypocrites.” Meaning Death to people who and not Muslims and people who are non- jihadist Muslims.
Concerning the last part of this above essay, the violent sprit of that vicious jihadist chant “Death to infidels and hypocrites.” The later word of the chant “hypocrites” in the jihad –minded Muslim worldview is further explain in the book titled JIHADIST PSYCHOPATH by Jamie Glazov , for on page 42 the reader is informed that “Islam mandates that devout and real Muslims must punish , and in some circumstances kill, those Muslims whom they regard as neither legitimate nor properly devout.”
thebigW says
“We Need to Stop Playing Name Games with Islam”
I hope by “We” Bosch also means the damn Counter-Jihad Every damn day I see someone here on Jihad Watch (including Robert, Hugh, etc) using some of these soft terms like “political Islam” and “Islamist”. Even “jihadist” is a soft term, unless you put yourself on the line sayin’ that ALL DAMN MUZZIES are jihadists, ’cause ALL DAMN MUZZIES are practicing jihad (sword, tongue, pen, et freaking cetera)
Giaour (meaning "infidel") says
As a former ACT chapter leader for 10 years, I included in the emails the statement that “Islam is evil”. During our fight in Maine to criminalize FGM, the SPLC got wind of that and “outed” me and ACT as haters. ACT did not really stand up to them at that time and another leader and I both resigned. Anyone who does not see the vileness of the Islamic system is simply blind. It’s all Islam and this article is as clear as it can get. Very well done.
gravenimage says
I’m sorry to hear this.
tim gallagher says
Bravo, Bosch. A very well written summary of the situation with Islam. It’s a good point Bosch makes about “desperate Westerners” who just can’t face up to the unpalatable truth.
UNCLE VLADDI says
Huh?! What’s wrong with still calling them “Radicalist Fundamentalist Islamist Militantists!”?
patriotliz says
I agree with what you say Mr. Fawstin so much so that it has gotten me banned on Twitter. You can’t criticize Islam on social media and expect to get away with it. Leftists enforce Sharia Blasphemy Law. Even well-known anti-Jihadists self-censor and dare not call out the enemy which is clearly the “religion” of Islam…since as you know….”BUT, NOT ALL MUSLIMS”….blah, blah, blah. (Just ask Sebastian Gorka, Zuhdi Jasser, Qanta Ahmed to delineate “good” Muslims from “bad” Muslims.) And that Mr. Fawstin is our Achilles Heel and why Islam will conquer the West.
I don’t know what you mean when you say “there are far too many religionists who refuse to acknowledge that Islam is a religion…”??? What? The problem is that Islam IS acknowledged and PROTECTED BECAUSE it is given the misnomer of “religion.” We’ve got this thing called “freedom of religion” and “freedom to practice one’s faith” and even when Islamic practices constitute human rights abuses…people are rather sheepish to confront Muslims about it…such as the Islamic culture of rape of infidel women, FGM, acid attacks, child marriages, animal cruelty of halal slaughter, and so on, and so forth. We can sort of prosecute murder like honor killing and terror…but it just keeps happening because their “religion” dictates it. So the reason why we can’t identify the enemy as ISLAM per se is because we can’t go to war with 1.6 billion Muslims. Nor can we ban Muslims migrating into the West. Maybe Viktor Orban can get away with it…but we are NOT supposed to DISCRIMINATE against anyone based on their “R-E-L-I-G-I-O-N.”
We would be farther ahead in combating Islamic jihad against the West if we would call Muslims IslamoFascists or IslamoNazis. It’s true that Islam by any other name still stinks but nobody wants to admit that Islam stinks in the first place. We need to reprogram the narrative so that Islam is not thought of as a benign “religion” equal to Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism.
Leftists have always loved to hate religions…esp. Christianity and they have been very successful at demonizing Christians and Christianity to the point that Christians are called “Easter Worshipers” in public discourse…but the “RELIGION” of Islam—-well, that “religion” has a very special place in the hearts of the Globalist Leftists…it’s that “Unholy Alliance”…that Leftist-Islamic axis of evil which has the common goal of the destruction of Judeo-Christian Western Civilization. We are doomed due to the simple usage of the word “religion.”
gravenimage says
+1
gravenimage says
This was supposed to post under Edward Cline’s comments, above.
terry says
Hello to Pigman from a friend back in the day when we commented on CBC years ago.
Learned a lot until they cut you off at the knees for posting the truth.
We still have the problem from the extreme P.C. media outlet.
Dare to go there they now suspend your accounts.
Keep up your great work, all the best going forward.
Terry
p.s., the good news, Canadians have woken up and are seeing the light. 🙂
gravenimage says
I hope you are right about Canadians.
simpleton1 says
What happened to the Russian Roulette post? that was put in by Daniel Greenfield and was an article written by Bosch Fawstin?
Has Jihadwatch pulled it?
Has it been hacked?
Are some countries blocking it?
gravenimage says
It’s been removed or lost, simpleton1. I have no idea why–it was a really good article:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/05/muslim-roulette-by-bosch-fawstin
gravenimage says
I just saw a post from Marc on another thread–he says it is a technical glitch, and the story will be restored.