We do not vandalize. We do not engage in hate speech. We have respect for the law. We do not harm our fellow citizens. We are slow to anger, and when we finally get angry, we express that anger in a civilized way.
Under that banner, I will state the following. Promoter of Islam, I do not tolerate you. Your feigned or willful ignorance about Islam is no longer an excuse. I hold you personally accountable. I am offended by you. I cannot and will not tolerate a person who advances an ideology that teaches the inferiority of women, the killing and hatred of Jews, the execution of homosexuals, the silencing of free speech, forced amputations, the stoning of rape victims, genital mutilation, and the violent overthrow of all non-Islamic governments and civilizations.
Islam is Nazism with a God, and I cannot and will not coexist with Nazis. I will not patronize your place of business. I will not hire you. I will not buy your products. I will not support politicians who support you. I will not be your friend. And if I’m your neighbor, I will always be suspicious of you.
I want you to feel so uncomfortable in my free country and my civilized country that you renounce your allegiance to this savage and fascist ideology or leave.
Islam is the enemy of free speech, of human rights, and of liberty. If you follow Islam, you are my enemy.
I encourage you now to leave Islam and to take your place among the civilized people of this world. But if you insist on remaining loyal to the brutal savagery of Islam, your enemies will grow faster. than can be contained by any Islamic lobbyist group, the media, or a government agency.
This is a zero-sum game, and the civilized world will win. Islam has been at war for 1400 years with freedom and all that is good. But my head is no longer hidden in the sand. I am at war with you.
All people who value human rights, freedom, and liberty should be at war with you, and they will be soon enough. Because the enemy of Islam is information, and we are spreading information faster than you can keep up with. There is no way to put this genie back in the bottle now. The information age will be the death of Islam. Your 1400-year reign of terror is coming to an end. And you, promoter of Islam, are on the wrong side of history.
It is time for all civilized people to find the moral clarity and the courage to get angry and become intolerant. You have the ability to do this in a civilized way. We must not become like the savages whom we oppose; otherwise, they win.
Islam is Nazism with a God. Islam must be stopped. When you support those who advance Islam, you support an ideology that promotes genocide against the unbeliever, as clearly outlined in the Quran.
The time has come to boycott those who advance Islam. Promoter of Islam, I personally hold you accountable for supporting this fascist ideology. Tolerance is overrated. If you promote the Quran, you are the enemy of freedom, and you are my enemy.
Any infidel listening to this should know that Islam is your enemy, too. Anything less than intolerance is cowardice and treason. Intolerance for those who promote Islam is your moral and patriotic duty, and it is your right. The enemy of Islam is information. Spread this information, spread it far, spread it wide, and spread it like napalm. The Information Age will be the death of Islam. Those who love liberty must rise up in a spirit of intolerance and remove from our free society those who wish to promote Islam, because the future and Islam simply cannot coexist.
The Islamic “Call to Prayer” Noise Wars. Amplifying the Adhan to Dominate American Soundscapes and Enforce Cultural Supremacy By FightIslamization.com Published: March 28, 2026
One of the most effective and insidious tactics in the gradual Islamization of Western cities is the amplified call to prayer (Adhan or Azan). Broadcast five times daily from mosque loudspeakers—often at high volume—this Arabic chant pierces neighborhoods, waking residents before dawn and disrupting sleep, work, and daily routines.
Presented as a simple religious accommodation, equivalent to church bells, it is, in practice, a deliberate auditory assertion of Islamic presence and dominance.
Non-Muslims are forced to hear “Allahu Akbar” echoing through their streets, homes, and yards, signaling that the area is transitioning into an Islamic enclave where Sharia sensibilities take priority over community peace and noise ordinances.
This is not about private worship. Mosques already exist in abundance in affected areas, and Muslims can use phone apps or personal reminders for prayer times.
The push for public, amplified broadcasts—especially at 3:30–5:30 a.m. or late at night—serves to normalize Islamic supremacy, desensitize non-Muslims, and create psychological pressure.
In Europe, widespread Adhan broadcasts have accompanied the formation of parallel societies and no-go zones. America is now experiencing the same “noise war,” with cities bending noise laws to favor one faith, Islam, while ignoring complaints from long-time residents.
Below is a documented list of major incidents and policy changes from the last 10 years (2016–2026), focusing on amplified calls to prayer that sparked controversy, resident complaints, and de facto territorial marking. Each includes date/location, description, and links to videos, news reports, or audio evidence.
Documented Call to Prayer Noise Incidents and Policy Takeovers in America (2016–2026)
1. April 17, 2023 (Ongoing) – Minneapolis, Minnesota – Citywide (First Major U.S. City to Allow 24/7 Broadcasts) The Minneapolis City Council unanimously amended its noise ordinance to permit mosques to broadcast the Adhan five times daily at any hour, including pre-dawn (as early as 3:30 a.m. in summer) and late evening. This made Minneapolis the first large American city to eliminate time restrictions on amplified Islamic calls to prayer. The change was celebrated by Muslim leaders as “inclusion,” but residents and critics noted it imposes the sound on all, potentially drowning out church bells and disturbing sleep. Nearby Bloomington (Dar al-Farooq Mosque) saw related complaints about early broadcasts.
Significance: Set a national precedent for unrestricted Adhan, prioritizing one religion’s public expression over equal noise enforcement.
2. October 2025 (Ongoing Complaints Since ~2023) – Dearborn, Michigan – Multiple Mosques, Especially Dearborn Community Center (Schaefer Road) Residents, including Andrea and Mike Unger (long-time homeowners), filed complaints and petitions against nearly 20 mosques broadcasting loud Adhan via outdoor speakers, waking people at 5:30 a.m. and audible inside homes with windows closed. Police conducted decibel tests; some mosques initially exceeded limits, leading to one instance where officers removed a volume knob. Mayor Abdullah Hammoud (Muslim) emphasized “unity” and noted broadcasts have occurred since 2004, but non-Muslim residents report forced listening in yards and homes. Tensions escalated at city council meetings.
Significance: In America’s most concentrated Arab-Muslim city, the Adhan marks territory, with officials downplaying resident distress.
3. February 2026 (and recurring during Ramadan) – New York City, New York – Multiple Mosques, especially in Astoria, Brooklyn, and Manhattan Neighborhoods Mosques broadcast amplified Adhan without special permits in some cases, sparking widespread resident complaints on social media about loud blasts during Ramadan and beyond, including early morning calls disturbing sleep. Reports described it as part of a “we are taking over” sentiment. Permits were granted for Ramadan broadcasts in prior years (e.g., Astoria mosques in 2023), with ongoing noise issues in 2025–2026.
Significance: Even in dense, diverse NYC, the tactic erodes quiet enjoyment of public and private space, with political support for expanded broadcasts.
4. 2004–Ongoing (Major Incidents 2016–2025) – Hamtramck, Michigan – Citywide (America’s First Majority-Muslim City) Hamtramck legalized amplified Adhan in 2004 through voter-approved changes to the noise ordinance, allowing broadcasts within set hours. Complaints persisted over volume from mosques like the Ideal Islamic Center, disturbing senior housing residents. Debates continued into the 2020s, with ACLU involvement and resident pushback against “howling” sounds. By the mid-2020s, it contributed to the city’s transformation into an Islamic enclave.
Significance: Early precedent showing how Adhan legalization accelerates demographic and cultural shifts.
5. Additional Pattern Incidents (2016–2026)
Paterson, New Jersey (2020 onward): City approved Adhan broadcasts during certain hours, following similar noise debates.
Bloomington, Minnesota (Ongoing): Complaints about Dar al-Farooq Mosque broadcasts, amplified by the broader Minneapolis policy.
Astoria, Queens, NYC (Ramadan 2023–2026): Temporary permits for five daily calls, leading to resident irritation.
These cases are supported by news reports, viral audio/video recordings, city council minutes, and resident petitions. Many occur year-round or intensify during Ramadan.Why This Is a War Tactic, Not Religious Freedom
Auditory Intimidation: Constant exposure to the Adhan conditions non-Muslims to accept Islamic dominance in the public square, creating stress, sleep disruption, and a sense of invasion.
Enclave Formation: In areas like Dearborn and Hamtramck, it reinforces parallel societies where Islamic norms override local customs and laws.
Unequal Treatment: Cities accommodate Adhan while strictly enforcing noise rules against other events; church bells are rarely amplified at 4 a.m.
Precedent from Abroad: In Muslim-majority or high-immigration European cities, widespread Adhan has preceded demands for further Sharia accommodations and reduced integration.
America must resist this noise war. Enforce uniform noise ordinances without religious favoritism. Ban or strictly limit amplified Adhan to indoor use only. Document complaints, attend city council meetings, and demand accountability from elected officials. Silence is surrender—protect American soundscapes and way of life. Share this article. Contact your local representatives. Fight Islamization before the Adhan becomes the soundtrack of your neighborhood.
Sources: CBS News, CBN, Star Tribune, Detroit Free Press, WXYZ, YouTube footage, resident videos, and city ordinance records (2023–2026). All incidents are publicly documented.
The Islamic “Street Prayer” A War Tactic: Blocking American Roads to Intimidate Non-Muslims and Carve Out Islamic Enclaves By FightIslamization.com Published: March 27, 2026
Across America, a deliberate and increasing tactic of Islamization is taking shape in plain sight: large groups of Muslims blocking public streets, intersections, and iconic areas under the guise of “prayer.”
What appears to be peaceful religious observance is, in reality, a calculated assertion of dominance. By blocking roads, stopping traffic, and making non-Muslims go around or wait during Islamic rituals, these actions scare local communities, disrupt everyday life, and indicate the creation of Islamic-controlled areas where Sharia laws take precedence over American civic order.
This is not spontaneous worship due to a lack of mosques—many incidents occur in cities with dozens or hundreds of mosques nearby. Instead, it mirrors tactics used in Europe and the Middle East to claim territory, normalize Islamic supremacy, and pressure authorities into concessions. In the United States, this “street prayer” strategy has accelerated over the last decade, especially in Muslim-concentrated areas like New York City, Philadelphia, and beyond. It creates de facto no-go zones where non-Muslims feel unwelcome, and authorities hesitate to intervene.
Below is a documented list of key incidents from the last 10 years (2016–2026). Each includes date, location, description, and links to photos/videos for verification. These are not isolated events but part of a pattern.
Documented Street-Blocking Prayer Incidents in America (2016–2026)
1. September 15, 2023 – Ongoing (Weekly Fridays): Brooklyn, New York – Chester Avenue (Masjid Nur Al-Islam, Kensington) The New York City Department of Transportation granted Masjid Nur Al-Islam an official “open streets” permit, closing Chester Avenue to traffic every Friday from noon to 3 p.m. for Jummah (Friday) prayers. Worshippers lay out hundreds of prayer mats directly on the roadway, blocking the street while non-Muslim drivers and residents are rerouted. Councilmember Shahana Hanif (Bangladeshi American) championed the permit, calling it a “community builder.” In reality, it hands public space to Islamic observance year-round.
Significance: This set a precedent for legal street takeovers, turning a public road into an extension of the mosque.
2. July 2025 (and recurring Fridays): Philadelphia, Pennsylvania – Multiple City Streets Despite over 82 mosques in Philadelphia, large groups of Muslim men blocked entire streets during prayer times, laying mats on roadways and halting traffic. Viral videos captured cars stopped as worshippers performed Zuhr or other prayers in the middle of busy roads. NBA legend Ron Harper reacted strongly, suggesting drivers “run them over” in frustration at the disruption.
Video/Photo Evidence:
Viral footage of street shutdown (widely shared July 24–25, 2025): Search “Philadelphia Muslims block street prayer 2025” on X or Facebook (e.g., posts by Terrence K. Williams and America Now).
Photo still from the incident showing worshippers on the roadway with waiting vehicles: available via India Herald coverage and Reddit discussions.
Significance: Demonstrates the tactic even in cities with abundant mosques, prioritizing public dominance over civic convenience.
3. February 20, 2026 (Annual since 2022 – 5th Year): Times Square, New York City – Broadway and Seventh Avenue Thousands of Muslims gathered for Taraweeh prayers during Ramadan, completely overtaking the iconic Times Square area. Prayer mats filled the streets and sidewalks as worshippers chanted and prayed, blocking pedestrian and vehicle flow in one of America’s busiest tourist hubs. Organizers provided free iftar meals, turning it into a major public display. Previous years (2022–2025) saw similar takeovers during Ramadan.
High-resolution image of worshippers filling the street under billboards: Search “Muslims pray Times Square Ramadan 2026”.
Significance: Symbolizes the “takeover” of America’s cultural heartland, with chants of “Allahu Akbar” echoing as non-Muslims are sidelined.
4. November 21, 2025: Brooklyn, New York – Neptune Avenue (Masjid Omar / Islamic Center of Brighton Beach) A large group performed afternoon prayers directly on the street, with rows of men prostrating while cars waited. The video went viral amid claims of early-morning Fajr prayers (later clarified as daytime), highlighting repeated street usage despite nearby mosques.
Additional footage circulated on social media showing blocked traffic.
Significance: Part of NYC’s broader pattern of normalizing street prayer as a show of numbers and control.
5. Additional Pattern Incidents (2016–2024)
Chicago, Illinois (Multiple 2020s incidents): Footage of hundreds gathering for street prayers, blocking roads during large events (viral clips from 2024–2025).
Dearborn/Hamtramck, Michigan (Ongoing since ~2016): While focused more on amplified calls to prayer and protests, street prayers during rallies and holidays have contributed to enclave formation in these Muslim-majority areas.
Minneapolis, Minnesota (Somali enclaves, 2018–2025): Reports of street prayers spilling into roads amid high Muslim immigration.
These incidents are supported by viral videos, local news reports, and eyewitness accounts. Many occur during Jummah or Ramadan, when crowds are largest.
Why This Is a War Tactic, Not Religious Freedom
Intimidation: Non-Muslims face delays, honking, and pressure to yield—creating fear and resentment.
Enclave Creation: Repeated occupations mark territory, discouraging outsiders and encouraging further Muslim settlement.
Legal Concessions: Cities like NYC grant permits, eroding equal application of traffic laws (compare to denied Christian or other events).
Precedent from Abroad: Europe’s experience shows that street prayers evolve into demands for Sharia zones, no-go areas, and parallel societies.
America must wake up. This is not “diversity”—it is incremental Islamization through disruption and dominance. Local governments must enforce traffic laws equally, revoke special permits, and reject street closures for religious rituals. Citizens should document and report every incident.
Share this article. Demand action from your city council. Fight Islamization before American streets become permanent Islamic prayer zones.
Sources: Gothamist, Brooklyn Paper, Reuters, YouTube footage, viral social media reports (2023–2026). All incidents are publicly documented.
Public debate often treats Islamism and Communism as ideological opposites. One is religious, the other secular. One appeals to God, the other to history. Because of this contrast, comparisons between them are frequently dismissed as crude or offensive. That dismissal is a mistake.
When examined not as belief systems but as political projects, Islamism and Communism reveal striking similarities in how they understand power, society, and the individual. These similarities matter not because the ideologies are identical, but because they generate comparable political dangers.
Both Islamism and Communism function as total ideologies. They do not merely propose policies or reforms; they claim authority over the whole of life. Law, education, culture, morality, and identity are expected to conform to a single ideological framework. There is no neutral space, and no legitimate alternative worldview. Politics becomes an extension of ideology rather than a forum for citizen negotiation.
In such systems, dissent is not treated as disagreement but as corruption. The dissenter is reclassified as an apostate, a counter-revolutionary, or an enemy of justice. Authority is justified not through consent or accountability, but through claims to higher truth—divine revelation in the case of Islamism, historical inevitability in the case of Communism.
This logic explains a second shared feature: deep mistrust of the individual.
Communist theory subordinates the individual to class identity and the historical mission of socialism. Islamist political thought subordinates the individual to divine law as interpreted by religious-political authority. In both cases, freedom is tolerated only insofar as it reinforces ideological goals. Independent thought becomes instability. Personal choice becomes disorder.
Pluralism, therefore, poses an existential threat. Competing values fracture ideological certainty, and certainty is the foundation of authority. Once unity is treated as morally sacred, coercion becomes justified. Surveillance, censorship, and punishment follow not as deviations but as necessities.
The emotional engine of both ideologies is justice.
Communism frames justice primarily in economic terms, opposing exploitation and inequality. Islamism frames justice in moral and social terms, opposing corruption and oppression. These grievances are often real, which is precisely why the ideologies gain traction. But both make the same fatal move: they claim exclusive ownership of justice itself.
Once justice becomes ideological property, opposition automatically becomes injustice. Repression is rebranded as enforcement. Violence becomes purification. Power no longer requires restraint because it presents itself as morally necessary.
The differences between Islamism and Communism should not be ignored. Communism is explicitly secular and often hostile to religion. Islamism derives legitimacy from divine command. One speaks in the name of history, the other in the name of God.
But this difference does not neutralize the political risk. When leaders claim to speak for God, who can challenge them? When leaders claim to speak for history, who can resist the inevitable?
The lesson is not that faith is dangerous or that concern for equality is misguided. It is that any ideology—religious or secular—becomes dangerous when it demands total authority over human life.
Free societies survive not because they are perfect, but because they are limited. Limited government. Limited certainty. Limited power. They accept disagreement as permanent and pluralism as unavoidable.
The real political divide is not between left and right, or religious and secular. It is between systems that accept limits and those that do not.
History is unambiguous on this point: ideologies that promise heaven on earth too often demand obedience first, and humanity later.
Socio-Feudalism’s War on the Individual By Daniel Greenfield
The transformation of the medieval world into the modern world came about with the idea that man could and should transform his lot in life.
The liberal individualism of the Enlightenment however was soon countered by reactionary movements, feudal and socio-feudal, seeking to put the genie of individual autonomy back in the box through collectivist movements.
Socialism postured as progressive when it was reactionary. Its leaders, most often hailing from the upper class and upper middle class, reverted newly liberated societies in Russia and China back to feudalism under the guise of liberating them. The Bolsheviks took Czarist feudalism and rebranded it as collective farming, forbidding the “liberated” farmers from owning property or livestock, and even from leaving their farms to seek a better life in the big cities.
The empowerment of the individual had given way to the enslavement of man in the service of an ideal society. Individuals were once again worthless, except as they fit into a larger plan.
The ultimate struggle will be less about movements and more about individuals. The more the system fails, the more repressive it will become. And only millions of individuals can defeat it.
Socio-feudalism has the destruction of individual autonomy as its central goal.
The transformation of the medieval world into the modern world came about with the idea that man could and should transform his lot in life.
The liberal individualism of the Enlightenment however was soon countered by reactionary movements, feudal and socio-feudal, seeking to put the genie of individual autonomy back in the box through collectivist movements.
Among the most prominent of these was what would eventually be called socialism.
While early socialist movements had been a radical Christian heresy emphasizing communal living, these experiments invariably failed on a local level, leaving behind a trail of wrecked lives.
Nineteenth-century radical theorists began laying out plans for the communal transformations of entire societies.
Fourier’s socialist “phalanxes” which would influence everything from Soviet communal farms to hippie communes in the United States, were feudal mass communities with no private property and everyone assigned a role in life under the rule of a centralized “omniarch”.
Socialists had to justify the elevation of the collective over the individual through fatalism about the role of man.
All evidence to the contrary, man has no ability to change his lot in life. He is only an atom in the larger phalanxes of life. As Robert Owen, the father of British Socialism, told the US Congress in an address in 1825, man “never did, nor is it possible he ever can, form his own character,” but is “universally plastic” and socialists could make him over into anything at all.
The US Declaration of Independence asserted that man was born free, but to the socialists he was born a slave and the best that he could ever hope for was to be a slave to the right cause.
Ralph Waldo Emerson insightfully critiqued Fourier: “He treats man as a plastic thing, something that may be put up or down, ripened or retarded, moulded, polished, made into solid, or fluid, or gas, at the will of the leader… but skips the faculty of life, which spawns and scorns system and system-makers, which eludes all conditions, which makes or supplants a thousand phalanxes and New-Harmonies with each pulsation.
Was man a “plastic thing” or the bearer of the mystery of the “faculty of life”?
Leftist revolutionary movements might begin by hailing the power of the individual, but invariably ended up in a socio-feudalism system making malleable man over to fit the five-year plan.
Socialism postured as progressive when it was reactionary. Its leaders, most often hailing from the upper class and upper middle class, reverted newly liberated societies in Russia and China back to feudalism under the guise of liberating them.
The Bolsheviks took Czarist feudalism and rebranded it as collective farming, forbidding the “liberated” farmers from owning property or livestock, and even from leaving their farms to seek a better life in the big cities.
The empowerment of the individual had given way to the enslavement of man in the service of an ideal society. Individuals were once again worthless, except as they fit into a larger plan.
The socialist argument against individualism was human fallibility. The muckrakers gathered every example of misery and described them as social ills that society had to collectively remedy. Outwardly private philanthropic organizations claimed to help the poor, but their embrace of eugenics, including mandatory sterilization, seizing children from parents, prohibition, and greater state intervention, including mandatory centralized state education, set a pattern that was innately socialist even when its proponents avoided the use of the word.
Every crisis, including World War I and the Great Depression, was seen as a reason for replacing smaller institutions with larger ones and further disempowering the individual.
Hitler’s National Socialist party blamed Germany’s loss in WWI partly on free enterprise. Roosevelt and the Democrats blamed the Great Depression on free enterprise. Both built state systems for seizing control of it.
The Russian Bolsheviks not only blamed individual farmers for their famine, but used it to wipe them out.
The post-war economic rebound in America and Europe did not end socialism, but rebooted it, with governments confiscating even more wealth for “the benefit of society.”
The macro conflicts of WWII and the Cold War, the threat of nuclear annihilation, were used to define the individual as too small to make a difference on his or her own except as part of a larger mass movement.
In the 1960s, class warfare gave way to identity politics. Individuals had to join groups to fight for a fairer society. What governmental institutions had failed to accomplish in fully transforming man, the new movements set out to accomplish in the psychedelic decade. The individual was told that liberation would come from losing his bourgeois background, worldview, inhibitions, morality and values to a new emerging humanistic blob shooting along the rainbow to the right side of history.
The 1980s marked a reassertion of individual priorities over mass movements. The movements that had broken the country were distrusted. Socio-feudalism struck back with an environmental crisis taking place on such a scale that individuals were nothing when measured against it.
Global authorities had to immediately seize total power to save the human race.
Environmentalism has brought socio-feudalists closest to realizing Fourier’s vision of abolishing private property and packing everyone off to collective compounds with a defined role in life: Man has had his day, but individuals can’t help selfishly wrecking the planet. Only subservience to larger systems can stop global warming, end human misery and transform the world.
A new wave of gender identity activism further eliminated the line between the individual and the state. The personal was political at the most granular level. The pronouns you used, the products you bought, whether you left the light on or not, were political choices. Human existence became a series of political tests measuring allegiance to a state ideology.
When the personal is political, there is nothing personal left to the individual.
Socio-feudalism had contrived to reduce man to a state of total subservience.
Medieval England banned playing games, especially “fute-ball” because it was seen as a distraction from the priorities of the state.
Postmodern California passed two laws outlawing Indian mascots, along with plastic bags, gendered toys and a thousand other things.
Postmodern man occupies a world of illusory technologies and shrinking possibilities where children are discouraged from riding bikes, packed off to early schooling at toddlerhood and indoctrinated to believe that their playthings are the reason for the destruction of the world.
Socio-feudalism has the destruction of individual autonomy as its central goal, and the pandemic lockdowns showed how easy that goal is to achieve in the face of a crisis. Government could and did assert control over what an individual could wear and whether he could leave the house. The public eventually responded to it not with a mass movement, as those mostly failed or were repressed, but by unilaterally discarding the prohibitions of the state.
Americans had ultimately fulfilled Emerson’s faith in “the faculty of life, which spawns and scorns system and system-makers, which eludes all conditions.” And that is why socio-feudalism will fail unless it can reduce mankind to a state of abject helplessness, ignorance and fear.
That is what Communist and Islamist regimes strove for,with varying degrees of success. And it is still the great aim of socio-feudalism today.
The ultimate struggle will be less about movements and more about individuals.
The more the system fails, the more repressive it will become. And only millions of individuals can defeat it.
If a person burns the Bible, no Christian or Jewish law calls for the death penalty. If a person burns the Quran, Islam’s laws punish this stupidity with Death.
Resisting Islamism & Communism 