Pacifying the Religion of Peace™

bombhead4What is to be done about Islam?

Before any attempt to answer that question, it is essential that those taking up the challenge determine what is Islam, so let us, first of all, toss out the two most audaciously false claims: that it is the Religion of Peace™ and “one of the Great Abrahamic Faiths”. The first will only be true, according to Muslim authorities, when all of mankind is under the rule of the only “true” version of Islam, whatever that means. The second assertion stems, ironically, from the easily demonstrated fact that Muhammad plagiarised and distorted fragments of Christian and Jewish scriptures widely known in his 7th century Arabia. The late Christopher Hitchens, a scathing critic of all religions, reserved a particular contempt for the Koran, its borrowings, contradictions and arrogant presumptions. His appraisal of the Koran and its origins,good as any and better than most, can be heard here.

In fact, Islam is more than a mere religion. Rather, it is a totalitarian socio-political philosophy, adroitly contrived by Muhammad to secure for himself and successors total control over its followers by invoking the sacred authority of Allah.

It is no coincidence that the Nazis and Islam were staunch allies and actively cooperated to serve their shared interests, the murdering of Jews high on their lists. The Nazis must have envied Islam’s efficient functioning, how it had no need for a Gestapo to enforce absolute control of its adherents.

The second requirement is to ascertain the disposition of Islam towards us — the West and our traditions, in other words.

Islamic scriptures leave no room for doubt about the attitude of Islam regarding the non-Islamic part of the world in general and the “people of the Book”, Jews and Christians, in particular. It asserts vehemently that Islam is the only true religion and, further, that it is divinely destined to subdue all the world under its authority. Furthermore, it is prescribed as the sacred duty of every Muslim to endeavour in all possible ways to bring about that destiny. The Koran also specifically instructs the faithful to fight and kill the unbelievers (kaffirs), the enemies of Allah, true lord of the universe. They are also told that unbelievers, inferior beings, must either submit to Islam or die, with a third option of living as tolerated inferiors (dhimmis) and paying a special tax (jizya) for the privilege of being indulged by their Muslim masters.

All of the above is furiously contested by Muslims and their apologists, who regularly refer to certain verses of the Koran as proof that all accusations are unfounded. There certainly are Koranic verses urging love and compassion, but they need to be considered in context. First, bear in mind that the Koran speaks specifically to the faithful and refers to unbelievers only indirectly, which means the enjoinment of benevolent attitude applies only between Muslims.

Another is the rule of abrogation, which states that chronologically later verses supersede and negate earlier and contradictory messages, rendering them invalid. It is undisputed even by Muslims that the verses directing the faithful to be hostile and violent towards the unbelievers are of later origin than the ones with the kinder messages. Trotting out the more favourable but superseded verses to defend Islam while simultaneously presenting it as a pacific creed is taqiyya in action– the slippery business of telling sanctified lies in order to further the cause.

Readers doubting the above assessment of Islam and its attitude towards the non-Islamic world are urged to read the foundational books, the Koran and the Hadith, in order to ascertain the veracity of these conclusions. They are difficult reads for the uninitiated, regardless the authorised translation consulted, due to the strange syntax, many contradictions and repetitions. Several very good guides are available, in both print and online, to assist with the task.

In the light of the discomforting truth detailed above, the question arises: are all Muslims everywhere our mortal enemies?

No, mercifully, that is not the case. It need hardly be said that most Muslims most of the time simply want to get on with their lives, just like everyone else, although very often in ways alien to those of us imbued with the values of the Enlightenment. It must be noted, however, that according to credible surveys, a sizable proportion of Muslims are at least sympathetic to Islamic terrorism or actually support it. The absence of Muslim protests objecting to such violence indicates that there is no significant disapproval of it in Muslim communities, while aggressive anti-Western demonstrations conclusively prove the opposite.

Nevertheless, the world-conquering ambitions of Islam are largely the business of the most dedicated members of the faith, mostly religious and civic Muslim leaders and other committed Muslim activists, who engage in jihad (“struggle”), for the advancement of Islam. Significant militant organisations, such as ISIS, al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra, Boko Haram, Taliban, as well as smaller groups and individuals engage in violent jihad, while others apply more subtle means, or cultural jihad, to promote Islam. The blood-soaked, gruesome activities of violent jihad are obvious and all too familiar, most recently witnessed in Manchester, London and suburban Melbourne.

Cultural jihad is just as real but far less obvious, yet it poses a far greater danger to Islam’s host communities than violent manifestations. Operating almost exclusively in non-Muslim countries, often with the vigorous support of Islamic governments, cultural jihad has two main components: migration and propaganda. The former is to Islamise countries by means of migration of Muslims to non-muslim countries, the latter to  present Islam in a falsely favourable light.

Migration (hijra), is specified in the Koran as a principal means of spreading Islam. Muslims have been steadily migrating to non-Muslim countries at varying rates for many decades, with an extraordinary surge over recent years. These migrants are instructed by their holy books to be amiable toward their hosts while their numbers are few but gradually exert themselves as their numbers grow. This is exactly what has been occurring, most noticeably in Europe, although the same process is underway on our own shores. According to a 2016 Sydney Morning Herald report summarising the then-most recent birth statistics the ten most fecund locations in New South Wales were Auburn (740 births), Bankstown (682), Merrylands (587), Orange (550), Parramatta (534), Dubbo (522), Liverpool (476), Guildford (473), Randwick (467).

Islam’s numbers are boosted not only by the arrival of further immigrants, but also the very high rate of reproduction, often enhanced by polygamy, compared to Western host societies. All Muslims living in non-Muslim countries are incidental foot soldiers in the process of the Islamisation of those countries, whether they know it or not. If the current trend continues unchecked, one host country after another will have a Muslim majority within two or three generations, which will inevitably result in democratically electing Islamic governments. That, of course, will be the end of genuine representative democracy. As Mark Steyn has noted, that is the most immediate existential threat facing the West.

To bolster the Islamisation of host countries, Islamic propagandists use every available means of spreading their message, and they are very good at it. In addition to utilising all forms of conventional and social media, they organise Islamic institutions and schools, publish books and magazines, operate bookstores, cultivate friendship with politicians and other prominent people, recruit high-profile non-Muslim allies to reinforce their credentials, often by bribing them with the political support of Muslim electors. Raising imagined and real Muslim grievances of past and present is another favourite technique, as is the claiming of specific concessions and privileges exclusively for Muslims, supposedly essential for the practice of their faith, and crying religious discrimination when such claims are challenged.

Now that we have determined precisely​ what Islam is, its attitude is towards the West and the danger we face as a result, we should be able to contemplate what policies could and should be put into place to protect ourselves. This is a far more difficult task than it might first appear. Some radical options tend to spring to mind: banning the practice of Islam altogether, preventing further Muslim immigration and deporting thos unwilling to abandon their faith. Such measures are not only​ impractical and impossible to implement but also uncivilised, unbecoming of a country claiming both a Judeo-Christian heritage and honouring the liberty, free speech and the state’s non-intervention in matters of peronal belief. It must be kept in mind that the purpose of the policies we contemplate is to prevent the Islamisation, never to promote the persecution of Muslims.

The first step must be to openly call out Islam, loud and clear and as often and as persistently as necessary, by publicly proclaiming that we are keenly aware of Islam’s cultural jihad, its agenda and methods and its ultimate purpose. In this regard the Left has attained the heights of vaulting hypocrisy. A religion that not merely spurns homosexuals while promoting the oppression of women draws barely a murmur of disquiet, if that. Perhaps it is too much fun hounding cardinal George Pell to notice the Royal Women’s Hospital’s  clinic every Friday morning for victims of female genital mutilation.

Simultaneously, all the special concessions and indulgences demanded and enjoyed by Muslims but not available to others are to be cancelled with immediate effect. That, of course, will cause howls of protest from Muslim leaders and the politically correct, with multiculturalism’s activists of whatever persuasion certain to hurl accusations of bigotry, intolerance and worse. It is essential that we remain steadfast in our willingness to do what we believe to be both necessary and fair, while relying strictly on the facts we know to be true about Islam and refraining from attacking Muslims ad hominem. All our arguments must be firmly based on what can be indisputably supported by the contents of Islamic texts and proclamations generally accepted by Muslims, minus the misleading and bogus interpretations.

The issue of the loyalty of Muslim citizens and residents to the country must also be addressed, and hear bar in mind that a far greater number of Australian Muslims went off to fight for ISIS than have served in the ADF. No other “religion” or belief system demands the exclusive fealty of its followers, surpassing all other obligations, except Islam. Following the cancellation of Muslim privileges, it must be demanded that Muslim leaders publicly affirm the equality of the sexes, acknowledge the personal and private nature of faith, and insist their followers to do likewise. A charter of signed understanding could well be an ideal means to those ends.

Preaching in mosques and elsewhere must be strictly monitored, also the teaching at Islamic schools. Those found to promulgate material deemed contrary to pledges publicly given or deemed threats to the security of our country or residents need to be promptly and permanently deported where and when this is possible. Second offences will incur lengthy jail sentences.

It must be emphasised, and emphasised relentlessly​, that we have no interest in, or objections to, what Muslims believe, what they think, what they wear, what they eat and/or how they pray, with a single caveat: When Islamic law and practice clash with Australian law and Australian values, Australian law and values take precedence and do so without exception. This would apply to other religion as well. There will be beneficial side effects to these policies. The country will be a less attractive​ destination for Muslim immigrants, particularly those with radical tendencies, and Muslims with similar mindset already in the country will be more likely to depart voluntarily.

Sadly and alarmingly, none of that is likely to happen in the foreseeable future, if ever.

The majority of our political, civic and even religious leaders are stubbornly unwilling to grasp and accept Islam’s  true nature, its ambitions and what those things mean in the context of Australia’s future. When a visiting author can proclaim on the ABC’s Q&A that refrigerators represent a greater peril than jihadis and utter that absurdity without fear of contraiction, denialism has become dogma. Sadly, most who know the truth now seldom dare raise their voices for fear of losing jobs, reputations, even their lives. A public burning is not a pleasant experience, especially for the hapless individual atop the pyre.

That silence is the measure of how extraordinarily successful cultural jihad has been. Worse than that, it is a dire indication of the fate that awaits, not so much us, but our hapless descendants.

15 thoughts on “Pacifying the Religion of Peace™

  • Jim Campbell says:

    Bill Martin you say, ‘It must be kept in mind that the purpose of the policies we contemplate is to prevent the Islamisation, never to promote the persecution of Muslims.’ Unfortunately, with Islam we may need to take actions that could be taken by some as persecution. This is necessary as we are talking about the future of our country here. The Qur’an makes it clear that Allah’s objective is the subjugation of the world to himself. I don’t want that.

    The Qur’an is Allah’s playbook to achieve that outcome.

    Consequently I have submitted an application to the AG for the Qur’an to be classified as a banned book in Australia. The full text of the appication can be found at http://www.ttwsyf.net.
    The following is the Conclusion to the Application.
    I j
    This Application of necessity refers to Muslims, Islam, and the Qur’an, as they are the background to the subject book from which the themes and precepts that are considered emanate. However, the heart of the issue is not one of religion or theology and it is essential that the cloak of religion or the intricacies of theology do not obscure the primary thrust of the Application.

    That is, that no book of any genre that teaches and encourages the following behaviors should be freely available in Australia.
    * Antagonism between, separation of, and alienation by, a specific group and the rest of mankind.
    * Deception and dissimulation in dealings with people who are not of that group.
    * Physical harm and/or subjugation for those who are not of that group.
    * Coercive management as a tool to exact performance from members of that group.
    * No recognition by that group of the separation of church and State.

    The presence of a book encouraging these behaviours is an immediate and evolving challenge to the values, traditions, institutions, and regulations that define Australia’s secular democracy. There are no arguable circumstances under which it should play a role in shaping the character of any Australian citizen.

    This Application demonstrates that the Qur’an is such a book: it teaches and encourages such behavior. Its themes and precepts are taught in schools, mosques and homes throughout Australia. Over 600,000 Australian residents live by these themes and precepts every day.

    On the basis of the above, this Application requests that the Government classify the Qur’an as a banned book in Australia.

  • Stephen Due says:

    Bill, When you write that most Muslims live in ways “alien to those of us imbued with the values of the Enlightenment” I assume you are excluding from “us” Christians and people of other religions. I’m not convinced, personally, that there ever was an Enlightenment. However if you are referring to a supposed period in Europe when Christianity was derided and secularism, in many cases atheism, was promoted by intellectuals, then I think you are on the wrong track.
    History shows, in my view, that so-called Enlightenment values are useful only to esoteric, protected, elites. They are grossly inadequate in the real world. They are weak values, which fail to strike at the heart of powerful ideologies like Islam. Which is why I response to terrorism, leaders are now resorting in desperation to terms like ‘evil’, which have no place in Enlightenment thinking.
    History shows that there is no defence against Islam except Christianity. Why else does Islam reserve its greatest vitriol for Christians? The reason is that Christianity provides a secure intellectual and moral fortress that has strong defences against Islam. The struggle against Islam is spiritual, not philosophical.

    • bemartin39@bigpond.com says:

      Stephen, if you mean the rallying of “Christian soldiers”, marching with Bible held high confronting either a murderous mob of “Muslim soldiers” of singing hymns to drown out Islamist propaganda, best of British luck with that, particularly while the Pope pays homage to Islam at Al-Azhar University, the archbishop of Canterbury counting activist Muslim leaders amongst his close friends and priests inviting Muslims to pray in their Christian churches.

      • Warty says:

        Bill, you are parodying StephenD’s response, rather than taking the time and objectivity to reply sensibly. This is not the way to conduct any sort of intelligent debate. The hyperbolic image you’ve created of ‘Christian soldiers’, with Bibles ‘held high’, ‘singing hymns’ is at odds with StephenD’s intent. I will not tell you what to do, but just a modicum of respect might have been better.
        Both the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury are not the sort of Christian ‘leaders’ any conservative Christian would look to for guidance: they are a significant part of the problem. If you want to hear a serious point of view from a serious Christian leader, listen to this outstanding lecture: you won’t find many better from anyone. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPiZS1v47b4

        • bemartin39@bigpond.com says:

          Warty, your point concerning respect is taken and I apologise to Steven for the sharpness of my response. The point I was making is that when it comes to Islam, you can not apply the principle that you defeat a bad idea with a good one, i.e. Islam vs. Christianity. Islamists have no doubt that their argument is unassailable, therefore it is pointless to take any notice of any counterargument and they will cut our throats to “prove” it.

          • Warty says:

            Unfortunately, StephenD hasn’t replied, but he made a number of good points a number of Quadrant readers might find difficult to digest: The Enlightenment was and is in many ways a misnomer. But arguing against this inevitably creates intrinsic contradictions for those who attempt to point it out, because one has to use the very ‘reasoning’ of the likes of Descarte, Kant, Rousseau, Voltaire, Locke, Hume and Nietzsche, to name a few, in order to reveal the pickle we’re in at the moment.
            These same philosophers used the various strengths of Western Civilisation, and the developing freedoms arising out of the beginnings of democratisation, to promote the idea of the individual over and above the greater value of the community, to the point that the will of the majority, which enabled Trump to become President, and to allow Turnbull’s party, albeit by a one seat majority, to become the elected government, only to be undermined by vocal, powerful minority groups. In other words there are now anarchic groups in society that operate on distorted notions of freedom to demand ‘a voice’ despite not having the mandate for such demands. You might argue that the individual freedoms sought by a Loche and a Hume are very different to those demanded by members of GetUp, but the origins are the same, and many of their bedfellows, like Marx and Engels were creatures of the Enlightenment too, believe it or not.
            So all those gender fluid creatures demanding the use of the ‘correct pronoun’ in relation to their particular identity, is an extreme projection of individual freedom, and not necessarily a distortion of the ideas of some of the Enlightenment philosophers. These are some of the ideas that are beginning to unravel the values we once associated with Western Civilisation. These are the evils that StephenD pointed to ‘which have no place in Enlightenment thinking’, though I would argue find their origins.
            It does not matter the denomination, but Christianity developed a system of morality based on clear principles regarding what constitutes good and evil, partly contained in the Ten Commandments. But now, modern sociology would turn the perpetrator of crime into a victim, and the Islamic terrorist into a lone wolf and one suffering from mental illness to boot. If one denies the existence of good and evil one paves the way for the sort of society we are beginning to see unravelling today.
            I may be putting words in Stephen D’s mouth, but I understand this to be the thrust of his argument you appeared to savage.
            If you take the time to watch Robert Sirirco’s Acton Institute lecture, you’ll see one of the finest exercises in the use of reason you’ll see anywhere.
            The Acton Institute would be an equivalent of our IPA, though it hasn’t been operating as long as ours.

  • Keith Kennelly says:


    Hitler is quoted as saying

    ‘it would have served us better to have aligned with Mohammadism rather than Christianity’.

  • Philby says:

    “The struggle against Islam is spiritual, not philosophical.”

    It is neither and as Bill Martin points out bible carrying “christians” will achieve nothing against this cult of murderers. It is the limp wristed actions of our so called leaders plus elements of the christian and jewish faiths that preach turn the other cheek that will be our downfall. One would hope there is an army of atheists and agnostics that are prepared to stand up to the invasion of our country and the west. The number of christians worldwide is diminished yearly through the actions and words of stupid people .

  • Peter OBrien says:

    Bill, this is an excellent, eminently readable essay which summarizes the current position very neatly and offers practical (and achievable – with the right political will) means to combat the threat. Your point about cultural jihad is well taken. It doesn’t even require the ‘good’ Muslim to take an active role – he just goes with the flow because that is what he feels comfortable with.

    Regarding dress. I agree with you except with regard to the burqa. Some years ago I was neutral about this but now having seen several women wearing the burqa at a Sydney shopping mall, even while recognizing that the women they concealed were probably harmless, the effect on me was quite sinister and seemed alien to our way of life. It looks to me like an middle finger upraised to the rest of us.

  • mburke@pcug.org.au says:

    It certainly looks to me as “a middle finger upraised to the rest of us”, and I share your views on the burqa. I’m ambivalent about the hijab, but believe that by officially tolerating extreme Islamic cultural differences in conflict with the Australian we are sentencing our children to an inevitably violent future. Islamists are only exploiting our own weaknesses. This article sums up perhaps the main reason why we’re doomed:


  • ian.macdougall says:

    A good piece. BUT….

    Perhaps it is too much fun hounding cardinal George Pell to notice the Royal Women’s Hospital’s clinic every Friday morning for victims of female genital mutilation.

    If His Eminence Pell has broken the law, instead of merely behaving like someone who has, then he is innocent until proven guilty of it.
    FGM is also illegal in Australia, multiculti or otherwise. Any medical staff with evidence of it are bound to report it to the police, who are in turn bound to start a prosecution if the evidence warrants it.
    Pell, like any Islamic preacher (or Islamic fanatic) is a member of an organisation which for years has proclaimed that it alone holds the key to personal salvation and eternal life in Heaven (= Paradise). In accordance with that Pell’s organisation is convinced that it has a responsibility to convert the whole world to its own worldview.
    Muslims likewise.


    • Jody says:

      Just like the ABC to be late to the party!! Again.

      I’m happy to leave the law to deal with Pell but I have real concerns about due process and procedural fairness in a society where hysteria has become the flavour of the month in the legal system. We have reached the lamentable situation in this country where any person can point the finger of ‘abuse’ at any other person, no matter how long the period of time (whatever happened to the ‘statute of limitations’?) and how flimsy the ‘evidence’. It’s the same for men. I’m thinking of the domestic violence army we have in this country and the devastating consequence their activism is having on the court processes stacked against men in favour of women. I’m enduring this as we speak on behalf of a son who has told me about the shambolic nature of the Family Court and how a woman has only got to say “he takes drugs”, or does this or that, and there’s no evidence needed. Voila!! Children denied their father.

      Much of this thanks to Rosie Batty and her high profile case. Nobody wants to discuss the details, or provide the evidence; it’s hysteria and name-calling. And all that women needed to do to protect her own son from death at the hands of his father was to exercise parental care, discretion and act responsibly to keep the boy away from his father. But she was naive and stupid and what we have now is shocking consequences for the male of the species. What a way to assuage Batty’s own guilt!!!!!

      • Warty says:

        Rosie Batty was and is a godsend to the feminazis. Don’t mention systemic Aboriginal abuse that consistently distorts the stats: we’ll just pretend it’s all coming from the sociopathic white Anglo Saxon males, and target them with a host of feminazi-generated TV ads. Lets make them as demonic as possible and we’ll kill two birds with one stone, by increasing divisions in the community too.
        Ah, Gramsci’s descendants are thoroughly enjoying the fruits of their long march.

      • ian.macdougall says:

        All that. But it now seems flavour of the month to dump on Rosie Batty.
        Nobody should ever have to through what she had to go through.
        For one parent to get at another by killing the child involved is the most despicable and cowardly self-centred crime imaginable.

Leave a Reply