The Mentally Damaged Men of Islam

Our Indian correspondent The Kafir sends this follow-up to his most recent post.

The Mentally Damaged Men of Islam
by The Kafir

The problem in Muslim societies is not just the failure of many men to have a mate all their lives — although that is certainly the case there for more men than in any other society, due to generally adverse male-to-female ratios, and the practice whereby wealthy men take multiple wives and concubines. There have been regular cases of wealthy sheikhs taking child brides from India. For these reasons many men will be deprived of mates for life.

But even more acute is the problem caused by gender segregation practiced by Muslims.

It may be readily observed that with girls around, boys seem to mellow down. Any teacher would testify that disciplining a mixed class of girls and boys is far easier than a class of boys only.

A Muslim boy is kept away from girls from a very early age. He also grows up watching females being cursed and even beaten. This scars him for life, and he becomes incapable of a healthy interaction with opposite sex. And that seems to make him full of rage. The problem of sodomy that is ever-present in such situations doesn’t help, either.

This is borne out by a common scene from Morocco to Indonesia. When Muslim mobs kill a man, in a large number of cases they cut the penis off the victim, and place it in his mouth. This cannot be simple chance: there has to be deeper psychological reason for this practice, which is common to all Muslim societies.

And of course, the stunting the growth of mental faculties by brutally beating the children to make them learn by rote in Quran schools must have consequences. And hearing the repeated curses aimed at kafirs has its own consequences.

In summary, the process of growing up in Muslim societies is such that leaders of Islam will never run out of feral human beings, unfit to live in modern societies, ready to be unleashed as a weapon against kafirs.

Kafirs must ask their own ruling elites: “Why are you asking us to live alongside these feral human beings who seem not to have any control over themselves?”

Maybe if Muslims were to be totally physically separated from kafirs, all over the world, that might force Islam to reform. But as long as they have an outlet in the form of kafir women and kafir wealth for their pent-up frustrations, the chances of any reformation, or outright rejection of Islam, are all but nil.

And of course it is the greatest betrayal by kafir ruling elites to force kafirs to share their cities, towns, and villages with these mentally damaged men.

Previous posts by The Kafir:

2013   Dec   29   The Longest-Running Crime Family
2014   Sep   7   God Save Us From Our Own Ruling Elite
    Oct   30   The Lone Wolf Lunacy
2015   Jan   18   The Power of Low-Level, Random, But Unceasing Muslim-on-Kafir Violence
    Apr   5   It’s Déjà Vu All Over Again

48 thoughts on “The Mentally Damaged Men of Islam

  1. Right on Kafir. Feral is such a good word to describe these men.

    As a woman who once lived in a society where women are treasured, treated well, but also has fairly strict separation of the sexes I’d say that the separation isn’t such a problem and doesn’t cripple the boys, it is all the rest of the reasons you give.

    Also I totally agree that the Kafir ruling elites have done us an injustice by expecting us to live with these animals.

    • I’m interested if you don’t mind saying, what was the society in which you lived?

      • “As a woman who once lived in a society where women are treasured, treated well, but also has fairly strict separation of the sexes”

        Yes, I would also like to know in which society you lived where this was true.

  2. – Kafirs must ask their own ruling elites: “Why are you asking us to live alongside these feral human beings who seem not to have any control over themselves?”

    Well, they’re not even bothering to ask us, because they know our answer. They’re unloading them before our noses and tell us, if we don’t like the smell then we are the problem. Begs only two questions: Who pays them to do this, and when do we start putting their name tags on street lanterns?

  3. When Muslim mobs kill a man, in a large number of cases they cut the penis off the victim, and place it in his mouth. This cannot be simple chance: there has to be deeper psychological reason for this practice, which is common to all Muslim societies.

    The Japs also used to do this to captured Marines in WWII. (See “With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa,” by E. B. Sledge, a veteran of that campaign.) The Marines’ solution to this was draconian but effective: annihilation of the enemy.

    • Read “Flyboys” for a harrowing account of what the Japanese did to their enemies in WWII. It will keep you awake for weeks.

      One American flier was kept alive for days and the Japanese soldiers would come back and take a limb every day and eat it. Hideous.

      • And we still continue to have millions of PC MCs in the West who perpetuate the myth that the war was one of two more or less equal sides, and that our measures of fire-bombing and a-bombing Japan were immoral, as though we were not a relatively decent society driven by desperation to take the only possible measures of extreme attack precisely because the enemy (Hirohito and Hitler) was just that evil and horrific.

        PC MC rot is so prevalent in our society, it even infects non-Leftists in various ways (including many even within the Counter-Jihad), such that, for example, they think Japanese-American internment was a “shameful chapter” in our history, rather than the rational policy to defend our society from a subculture we could not sufficient trust in a deadly context at the time.

        And, as an astute reader of Lawrence Auster once pointed out a few years ago, this PC MC rot showed up in a rather unlikely place: in that staunchly supposedly true-blue conservative film-maker, Dirty Harry himself, Clint Eastwood, in his movie about the Pacific War, Letters from Iwo Jima.

        That contributor to Auster’s blog, someone named Mr. Warren, wrote:

        “I saw Letters from Iwo Jima last night. Perhaps the most morally obtuse, despicable film I’ve ever seen (competing with Easy Rider and a few others of the late sixties, early seventies, when the counter-culture virus was taking hold). It is the nadir of moral equivalence. Its theme: the Japanese who staged the sneak attack at Pearl Harbor, who fought with fanatical savagery, and who murdered millions of Asian civilians and tens of thousands of Allied POWs, were no worse, and no better, than us. (The film ignores events outside of the immediate personal experience of its two Japanese protagonist-”heroes.”)

        “Even on its own terms the film is mediocre, with such a trite script. Eastwood himself is a mediocrity and I have to stay a stupid man. This film is less critical of Japan than his Flags of Our Fathers is of the US. (The latter film fabricates a defamatory scene about President Roosevelt and trashes Pentagon officials; Hirohito, Tojo and company are absent from Letters from Iwo Jima.)

        “For such a film to be showered with best pictures awards and Oscar nominations, and with widespread acclaim by the New York Times and all the rest in the mainstream media, demonstrates as clearly as anything that we are in a cultural civil war. I do not consider those who have embraced this mediocre, anti-American movie citizens of the same country.

        “This film desecrates the memory of every American who fought in the Pacific theater during the Second World War, in particular the many thousands, like Private Ralph Ignatowski, who on Iwo Jima suffered unspeakable torture at the hands of an enemy that Eastwood now claims was “just like us.”

        “Finally, in a world with standards, a no-talent, empty suit like Eastwood would never have risen beyond his second banana role in the TV Western Rawhide. But in our world he sits atop the once noble movie profession.”

        And, as I wrote some four years ago in some comment here at Gates of Vienna:

        Anyone who has seen Gran Torino (in which an old curmudgeonly white bigot in the span of a few months dissolves into a white liberal who loves Hmong immigrants so much he’s willing to martyr himself like Christ to protect them) and his Letters from Iwo Jima (which basically equates the fanatically mass-murderous Japanese of the 30s and 40s with the Americans — see this analysis) would realize Eastwood’s brain has been infected by PC MC as much as anyone else in, or out, of Hollywood.

        • I’ve often believed, after what Japan did in China before WWII, had China gotten the Bomb before us, Japan would have ceased to exist.

          • Actually, it’s pretty likely that, if America hadn’t used nuclear weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the preparatory bombing campaign necessary to make conventional invasion a realistic possibility would have cut nearly all the vital rail links keeping the urban Japanese population fed, resulting in the vast majority of the Japanese starving to death. The disruptions in communications would have meant that their government wouldn’t have figured out it was necessary to surrender in time to save more than a fraction of the population.

            China in the wake of the war was in no position to do anything militarily significant, despite what Beijing claims these days. But if even conventional invasion from mainland China had been a significant military possibility during the war, the Japanese would not have waited to be nuked before surrendering to pretty much anyone else first. Not because Japan would have ceased to exist or anything…Japanese women are pretty hot even by Asian standards. And yeah, that’s part of why they would have surrendered to anyone else first.

    • I have always loved the Marines’ direct, effective, and “won’t take…ah…stuff from anybody” attitude. Good to know.

  4. Muslim women living in those cultures are not great to deal with either. They are the most manipulative people I have ever met. I suppose they have to be in order to navigate those societies. And, of course, most are brainwashed.

  5. There is a high incidence of mental health disorder among muslim people because of consanguineous marriage, that is, marriage between first cousins which is forbidden as incest in civilised societies.

    This mentally unbalanced state is demonstrated by volatile behaviour as in “arab rage,” the frequent occurrence of rioting and the inability of muslim males to keep their hands off non-muslim women, teenagers and little girls.

    True, they should be deported – along with their lefty enablers.

    • Jews are permitted to marry first cousins, but don’t because of the known genetic implications. This additional restriction is simply another responsibility taken on by the individual to help society move along. Indeed, because the very orthodox community is small, in those communities potential matches are encouraged by both families to undergo genetic screening to rule out recessive disease genes common in each of the pair. The couple complies because they will be held partially responsible for the negative consequences in finding matches for their siblings if their own children manifest anomalies. Self-imposed eugenics is far different than being nudged or shoved by imposed laws.

    • Under traditional English law, first cousins could also marry. If done every now and then, it had the effect of maintaining property among a genealogically affiliated group.

      Some American states permit it and some do not.

      • I remember reading about that. I think it’s about half of the states in the U.S. where first cousin marriage is legal.

        The real issue is how often does it actually happen in different places? In the U.S. it’s some fraction of a percent like 0.1% of marriages whereas in Saudi Arabia it’s some insane number like 10-20%. Second cousin marriages are even more common.

        This doesn’t happen just because something is permitted, it only happens if it is almost de facto required by social factors of some sort.

    • OK. I let this one go for a few days b/c I just couldn’t muster the brain cells (I was pretty sick).

      Does traditional (i.e., pre-1950) Britain seem to you like a “civilised” society? I think it probably does, given your British-influenced spelling. 🙂

      First-cousin marriage was quite acceptable in Britain, so long as the families involved didn’t make it a habit. Read Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice”: Mr. Darcy is expected, by his aunt, to marry her daughter, his first cousin, so the estates would be united. Absolutely nothing about this ruffles anyone’s morals; it’s a quite accepted outcome. (Except, of course, that Darcy has never shown any intention of marrying Miss de Bourgh and ends up somewhere quite else!)

      The Glorious Revolution in 1688 was led by Prince Wm. of Orange-Nassau, who was married to his first cousin, Mary II of England. See genealogical table at . Charles I of England was their common grandparent.

      The marriage of first cousins is also quite legal in states in this country whose laws were based on British law.

  6. Polygamy is poison to civilization.

    There’s nothing worse to have in your society than unmarried men in their twenties. They are, as a group, flat-out dangerous.

    • I have two sons that are “unmarried men in their twenties.” They both are educated and one even owns a house! Are they dangerous? No…
      So please be careful with your wide brush because being an unmarried male is not a problem for western society, it is Islam that is the problem…

      • If marriage is expected (not the case in American society today), they might exhibit some of the behaviors seen in the Muslim community – male clubs or gangs, desire to find a woman outside of the community, or anger at those who have been better blessed. Moreover, American males can always find attachment-free sex in the form of clubbing, hookups, or prostitution. It is hard to draw any reasonable conclusions across cultures, don’t you think!

      • “As a group.”

        Demographically speaking, it is true. Unmarried men in their twenties commit almost all the crime. Even in low-income and under-educated groups, men who marry and produce families are far more likely to go down a responsible path.

        While you’re knocking my “broad brush,” be careful with your anecdotal evidence.

        • When young men reach the age of 25, their car insurance premiums drop. That’s because the folks who draw up those actuarial tables noticed a long time ago what the medical community is now discovering: impulsive behavior stops around age 25. Docs say it’s because the brain has finished maturing.

          I’ll develop that concept into a post eventually.

          • I know a number of young men who would like to marry but can’t find marriageable women who are interested. We are becoming like Japan, where the women are largely asexual and not interested in reproducing. Not even interested in “hook-ups”.

            Japan is swirling down the drain and we’re not far behind.

          • Regarding Japan – Was under the impression that it that Japan’s asexual women or dried fish women was a reaction to Japan’s herbivore men / grass-eaters?

            In the West’s case a somewhat similar movement or philosophy has appeared in the past few years called MGTOW or Men Going Their Own Way, which has been partially touched upon by Helen Smith’s Men on Strike book and Milo Yiannopoulos’s Sexodus articles though despite initial impressions men who subscribe to MGTOW largely do not see Islam as a savior of men.

            Especially since sex-based abortion, honor-murders, polygamy, mistresses and sex slavery / etc effectively create a gender-gap relative to leftover unmarried men who are expected to be disposable tools for jihad in order for the chance to gain the booty of non-muslims or heretical muslims.

            Such societies which allow polygamy and deliberately create a gender-gap are inherently unstable unless the rulers dispose of men by either killing them themselves or sending the unmarried men off to war, otherwise the rulers would likely be overthrown with the strongest among the horde of unmarried men being the new top dogs of those societies, at least how it appears to me from my limited point of view.

          • I doubt that Japan’s diet (your description of it being rather strained) is the culprit in a culture-wide decision to forego child-bearing. Japan’s culture is too sophisticated and too ancient to lay its current problems to a diet they’ve had for thousands of years…one which turns out to be a saving grace given all the radiation they’ve been exposed to.

            Europe is in the same cultural condition though it has yet to reach the logical end game of gender conflict, i.e., asexuality. Notice I said “yet”. Right now it is in matriarchy mode but without the children in force enough to maintain it. There is a preference for girl children, when the idea of children is at all to be borne. Mostly they’re considered “too much work, too expensive”. At least this is the mindset among the ambitious. One reason they’re expensive is due to the fact they must be kept apart from the hoi polloi and such a sequestered existence costs dearly.

            Here in the US, where every nook and cranny of life is politicized, many of the tortured souls inhabiting the cells of our own LGBT prisons would choose asexuality if it occurred to them. They “choose” same sex orientation only because they intuit heterosexuality as too emotionally robust for their frail characterological make-up. I am waiting to see this tertium quid -asexuality- ‘catch on’ as the “real” alternative for many of the same sex identifiers. It is like giving them permission to retire (the meaning of “retire” here is best captured in the idea of going off for a long rest).

            As I have attempted to puzzle out individual ‘choices’ re gender orientation (trying to tease it out from the many political threads which have seized it), the asexuals seem somewhat like the neurasthenics of the 19th century, or those in earlier centuries who retired to the cloister or monastery. If the cenobitic way of life still existed as a choice, many of those disturbed young men who shoot up malls (or bring down planeloads of people) would have a valid alternative, one which brought some status and calm to their frantic disorder and hallucinationary periods.

          • Dried Fish Women and Herbivore Men doesn’t refer to Japan’s diet, they are Japanese terms for some of the phenomena men and women giving up on marriages / relationships.



            Agree about Europe and much of the West living under a Matriarchy albeit an Overt and increasingly Misandric one (especially the willing single mums / paternity fraud / etc), yet it can only maintained so long as men live for the benefit of society and live according to their traditional disposable utilitarian role as defined by society (one that an increasing number of men are rejecting as the life script they’re been given clashes with the degenerate reality where they may as well enjoy the decline).

    • I agree with you on Polygamy. However, not on the marriage thing. If you go back in the past (pre Victorian era – early USA) men didn’t get married to around 30. Early marriage came about later in our history.

      By my later ’20s I owned a small 2 family home and was in the process of buying even more properties (this was pre housing bubble when mortgage rates were closer to 9%). I wasn’t dangerous except to myself from being overworked (day job and doing renovation work when I got home).

      I wasn’t married because I wasn’t even dating. I had no money or time to do so. I couldn’t even imagine having a wife with my very limited income and my chaotic living arrangements.

      • Your choices are interesting in light of your previous comment. You had part of “the stake in the system” via your property holdings but neither wife nor child to round out that commitment. Where do you think you’d have fit in at that point in feeling some sense of ownership in the system?

        Your comment reminds me of some discussions previously on this site about universal suffrage and the unwitting damage it has done to the culture…i.e., if one is given the right to vote in a polity in which one has little to nothing invested, then one’s vote is likely to harm those who DO have an investment in the general welfare…

        • Couldn’t agree more, Dymphna. Years ago my wife and I lived in the Gulf Islands, (British Columbia) and one of the reasons we moved was because my wife, who was a property owner was not allowed to vote, while all the left over hippies who were renting, were; the reason we were given was that she was–and still is–a Norwegian citizen, so therefore not Canadian, while the useless hippies were.

          • I don’t know what the rules about who votes should be, but universal suffrage has proved to be something that politicians exploit for their own ends.

        • I filled in the wife part at age 34 much to the shock of my brother and my parents (I am VERY introverted). At that point I had finally found a community bank willing to underwrite me (I had major financial issues since I couldn’t secure financing), had sold the small 2 family, and moved into a bigger place that I am happy to live until I am old. The children part is proving to be a bit more difficult (wife and I are trying though). It seems those who are the often least deserving or able to raise children seem to have the most. My wife and I are like that couple at the opening scene of the movie ‘Idiocracy’.

          I had a ‘stake in the system’ because I am (and always have been) future time orientated. I was broke.. but I saw a way to be financially secure in the future. I was alone.. but I saw a means to not be so in the future**. If I had the life prospects of a Mohammadian I would be despondent if not suicidal. I am convinced it is the dark and hopeless future that motivated so many of them to blow themselves to bits. Could death be any worse than such a hellish life?

          ** Going off-topic here:

          When I was broke 20 something I was in training (for work) with a guy from Texas. I expressed my interest in traveling. At the time, I wanted to travel to Chile to go skiing and enjoy the wilds of Patagonia. He traveled extensively in his early ’30s through South America and gave me the following advice:

          “Find a woman before you go. You will have a tour guide and someone who keeps the ‘Gringo Inflation’ (prices triple when vendors and cab drivers see an American) to a minimum”.

          I took his advice.. though I didn’t head for South America. Because of the Asian currency collapse, my second choice location for travel became a whole lot cheaper. Plus I had enough frequent flier miles to get a business class ticket to anywhere in the world (paid for all that property renovation work on a frequent flier mile credit card) so my limited funds were free to have an awesome vacation.

          My plan was to have a woman lined up in every country I planned to visit. Problem was I liked this one woman in Thailand (originally met online) so much I just kept going back to visit her again and again. Been married to her for over a decade so far.

  7. Interesting idea that polygamy is part of the problem. It has been my impression that polygamy is actually an existential positive if and only if in a warlike society the mortality rates among men are sufficiently high enough to produce the opposite of your described effect. In other words, for polygamy to be a net positive the men have to die in such numbers that the women outnumber them all the time. This happens only in cultures where the primary occupation of men is warfare.

    Islam, as a cultural system designed for constant warfare, engenders deteriorating psychological stability among its adherents whenever a state of war cannot be maintained at a sufficiently intense level to kill off the men faster than the women die in childbirth. Wholesale oppression of women may be the first symptom that a warlike culture is about to implode, or more likely, to explode.

    • Excellent comment! Men die in combat at greater numbers than women. Hence polygamy. However this is not happening today in the western world.

      • Nor is it happening in the Mohammedan World. Women continue to die in greater numbers than the men in spite of the extended violence of that culture.

    • But which comes first? Warfare killing off lots of men, offering the necessity of polygamy? Or is polygamy in Muslim society implemented in order to deliberately produce lots of canon fodder; a huge number of males who have no expectation whatsoever of marriage, who have no outlet for their energy but fighting, looting and killing? This latter type of society benefits only those who have the wealth to support many wives and children.

      • For such societies to prosper the warfare must come first. It is a conundrum today only when we forget that Mohammedism has been this way since the 7th century, a time when the warlike men of the Middle East did indeed die from warfare in greater numbers than women died in child birth.

        What we have here is a socio-cultural system that has far outlived its own utility resulting in great cruelty and oppression for women.

      • Islam arose among Arab desert tribes. As such, it follows the rules for tribal living which aren’t immediately obvious to us outsiders.

        The chief male (however he is designated and leaving aside how he achieved that position) has his pick of the tribe’s females. Since the role of women is to reproduce strong males to ensure the survival of the tribe, women are chosen for the perceived qualities that would indicate fecundity.These would include wide hips(in a hip-to-waist ratio) and big breasts – just the things necessary for bearing children and feeding them. Facial symmetry – i.e., beauty – is important, too. Gazing on a beautiful face engages the pleasure centers of the brain. Even babies evidence a preference for symmetrical faces when given images to choose from.

        Without lots of men – a “deep bench” – warfare is more problematic. And for the most part the drone aspects of ‘extra’ males serve the needs of the tribe best. The death of a father with many children disturbs the equilibrium of the tribe as a whole, the deaths of single males are less troublesome to the whole.

        In ISIS, you see the more regressive aspects of the warrior mentality – regressive and carried to extremes to get your attention because they’re exhibitionists. They attempt to impregnate any woman they deem fit for survival among them. The rest – males, others’ children, old people, those outside the tribe of believers – aren’t fit to live. But with an all-warrior tribe, who will be the drones?

        The uber-aggressiveness means high die-off intramurally, too.

        Not all cultural practices are healthy for the culture. By slightly different paths, China and India have ended up with HUGE cohorts of single males who will never have the chance of marriage simply because there aren’t enough women to go around. This makes women’s situations existentially dangerous – they are always at risk of being stolen or even being rented out by husbands. The latter happens among the desperately poor in India particularly; it’s a way for the family to survive.

        It may make war between India and China more likely. The two countries are already at loggerheads over China’s helping Pakistan. That situation is fraught since both countries can afford to ‘waste’ a lot of men to achieve their goals.

        • Women in these cultures are treated horribly, and then exact their revenge on their sons. Sons with sisters are literally thrown out of the house when the sister reaches a certain age. These young men, teenagers, resort to homosexuality because absolutely no girls their age are available. How could a well adjusted adult emerge from that freak show? These people are barbarians and can only keep their general violence and sadism bottled up with a “strongman” in power. With cultural police patrolling the streets keeping them all under control. When the US deposed the strongman and foolishly introduces “democracy”, what has happened every single time? Pakistan. Iraq. Libya. Ukraine. Egypt. Next will be Syria.

      • There was certainly a survival component in the (modest!) polygamy of some Mormon settlers of Utah. (I do not include the over-the-top numbers of Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, or certain other Founders.)

        Think about it: these people had been harried from pillar to post across–often–multiple countries, *walked* from the East Coast to the intermediate towns of shelter in the mid-continent (e.g., Nauvoo), and then walked, except for a very few well-to-do individuals with horses, oxen, or other cattle, to what is now Utah. Along the way, they were harassed by Native Americans and white Americans as well.

        19th-century labor being non-mechanized, the vast majority of the work was performed by the men. If a man collapsed or died in the frontier and his wife was alone with young children, the survival chances of Wife & Kids plummeted.

        But if there was a *second* woman present, both women together could often do the work of one man and hold the household together until young sons grew into strong young men.

        In rare, unusual instances–like constant warfare or other sustained loss of capable adult men–polygamy *can* be pro-survival. (I’ve done directed personal reading on the early Utah settlements for years, even though absolutely none of my ancestors were involved; the guttiness of the settlers just called to me.)

        Unfortunately, the extent to which polygamy is practiced in Islam, together with absolute prohibitions on prostitution, alcohol, gambling, and other stress-relieving activities for young men results in these guys pretty much being boxed in with their fears/energies.

    • Ultimately, men who no prospects to having a wife and children, do not have a legacy to protect. Service to society / the state must be compelled; either spiritually (fear of God) or by plain old force. I believe this is why slavery and tyranny has endured longer in polygamous societies than in those that have shunned such a practice.

      Free men with property, family, and a stake in the system (the state) will likely fight like a honey badger on crack to protect it. Most importantly, he will fight with others in an organized fashion. Slaves and serfs? Not so much….

      • I have no children (not my choice). I do have nephews, nieces and friends with kids. Even if I didn’t I’d still care what happens to humanity, and my culture in particular.

        • Agreed. I was unable to have children (thank you, Dalkon Shield), and all of this surrogate / in vitro technology didn’t exist yet.

          However, on my husband’s side I have two nephews and a niece in their 20s. Two of these young people are now married (no children yet). On my siblings’ side, I have one niece and one nephew in elementary school.

          It matters DEEPLY to me how our country goes, and the other Western Civilization countries.

      • I’d just like to say that I LOVE the phrase “like a honey badger on crack.” And I can imagine how that fight might go. Thank you!

    • Islam is a productive and efficient system if what you want to effectively produce is concerted warfare based upon a hatred of the Other in a context of a fanatical, warped religious piety driven by an obsessive eschatology.

      What this effectively produces concretely (and endemically and massively and chronically), however, is precisely what in masterly Orwellian fashion Muslims believe with apodictic fervor they are perennially struggling against: Fitna and Fasad.

Comments are closed.