Bill Warner Announces CSPI International

Published on Sep 22, 2014 by CSPI International

JOIN US!
info@politicalislam.eu

Visit Bill Warner’s Website, Facebook and YouTube Channel 

THE MUSLIM MOSQUE: A STATE WITHIN A STATE

Muslim pilgrims circle the Kaaba and pray at the Grand mosque during the annual haj pilgrimage in the holy city of Meccaby Vijay Kumar: (re-posting from Aug. 7, 2013)

THE KABAH IN MECCA WAS NOT BUILT AS AN ISLAMIC MOSQUE. It was an ancient temple that had been shared by polytheists, Christians, Jews, and Hindus, honoring 360 different deities. In 630 A.D. the Kabah was captured by Islam in its military invasion and conquest of Mecca.

On the day of its capture, Mohammed delivered an address at the Kabah in military dress and helmet, according to Ayatullah Ja’far Subhani in his book, “The Message”:

“Bear in mind that every claim of privilege, whether that of blood or property is abolished . . . I reject all claims relating to life and property and all imaginary honors of the past, and declare them to be baseless . . . A Muslim is the brother of another Muslim and all the Muslims are brothers of one another and constitute one hand as against the non-Muslims. The blood of every one of them is equal to that of others and even the smallest among them can make a promise on behalf of others.” —Mohammed

Mohammed’s address at the Kabah overthrew the Meccan government and declared all of Islam, anywhere in the world, to be a political and military state against all non-Muslims, regardless of the non-Muslims’ political, geographical, or national origins.

“If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him.” —Koran 3:85

Although the rightful owners of the Kabah are the many religions that shared it before the Islamic military conquest of Mecca, according to Subhani the Kabah today is under the control of a hereditary regime going back to Mohammed: “currently the 12th Imam from the direct descent of the Prophet of Islam is the real protector, its custodian and guardian.”

All Islamic mosques everywhere in the world are required to have a clear visible indication pointing in the direction of Mecca and the Kabah, where the international political and military state of Islam was founded. In most mosques there is a niche in the wall—the mihrab—that points toward the seat of Islamic power. Each mosque, like the Kabah, is governed by an Imam in compliance with the political documents of Islam.

Mosques and the Political Documents of Islam

The Koran is the supreme political document of Islam—its political manifesto and political constitution. It is the only constitution of the nation-state Saudi Arabia, which is the home of Mecca and the Kabah, where all mosques point, and is the birthplace of Islam.

The Koran is a totalitarian constitution. It demands submission by anyone within its jurisdiction. The Koran governs all mosques everywhere in the world.

As a political document, the Koran asserts that everyone in the world is within its jurisdiction. So far, Islam has not been able to enforce that totalitarian claim on the entire world, but has managed to do so through threat, infiltration, violence, terrorism, and coercion on roughly 20% of the world. It is engaged in a 1400-year-long Universal Jihad to dominate the rest of the world. All mosques are its outpost headquarters.

Central to the Koran’s political mandates is prohibition of religious freedom and religious tolerance, along with denouncements of religions such as Christianity and Judaism.

“O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them.” —Koran 5:51

“Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)” —Koran 9:5

All mosque leaders must be loyal to and supportive of these political and militaristic mandates.

The Koran as a political document also forbids separation of church and state. That is why every Islamic nation, where Islamic leaders have managed to gain power, is a theocracy, ruled by the Koran and Islamic Sharia law.

The Hadith (reported sayings and acts of Mohammed) and the Sira (the official biographies of Mohammed) are the other political documents that, along with the Koran, constitute the basis for Islam’s Sharia law.

“There is only one law which ought to be followed, and that is the Sharia.” —Syed Qutb

Sharia law is administered by Islamic Imams who interpret the law and hand down rulings in their sole discretion. Sharia law does not allow trial by jury. Sharia law also mandates a double standard of laws for Muslims (believers) and infidels (non-believers). Sharia law mandates a discriminatory tax, called jizya, on non-Islamic religions and nations:

“Fight those who believe not in Allah…until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” —Koran 9:29

Sharia law also mandates discrimination toward women, and forbids any criticism of Islam or its founder, stifling freedom of speech.

Sharia law also mandates that all men are slaves with no right to freedom of religion:

“Allah’s right on His slaves is that they should worship Him (Alone) and should not worship any besides Him.” —Mohammed, Sahih Bukhari 4:52:108, Narrated Mu’adh

Sharia law does not allow for separation of church and state. Sharia regards church and state as one inseparable entity governing every aspect of individual and social life, both spiritual and secular. That is why all Islamic nations are theocracies.

In short, Sharia law stands in direct opposition to the American Constitution and Bill of Rights. The implementation of Sharia law demands the overthrow of the American Constitution and our form of government and system of laws. Mosque leaders, in every nation in the world, are loyal to the Koran, the Hadith, the Sira, and consider them divine law, and therefore supreme over all manmade laws.

Other political and military documents of Islam include treaties of Mohammed, which are held in reverence by Islam as models of conduct in relations between nations.

“Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah [Mohammed] a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah.” —Koran 33:21

“War is deceit.” —Mohammed, Sahih Bukhari 4:52:268, Narrated Abu Hurarira

In one treaty proposal, to Jaifer and Abd, Mohammed wrote:

“If you two accept Islam, your country will, as usual, remain with you. But if you refuse or object, it is a perishable thing.” —Mohammed

In another, to the Chiefs of Aqaba, he wrote:

“It is better for you either to accept Islam or agree to pay Jizya and consent to remain obedient to Allah . . . If you do not accept these terms . . . I shall have to wage war (to bring peace and security).” —Mohammed

These same patterns and political mandates have been used over and over by Muslims since 610 A.D. to invade and conquer many civilizations and nations throughout the world, and to eradicate human rights and freedoms in those lands. Iran once was called Persia and was Zorastrian. Egypt was Christian. What was once a Hindu civilization was conquered and made into Pakistan, which is now part of the Axis of Jihad, along with Iran and Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan was Buddhist for thousands of years. Now its chief exports are heroin and Islamic terrorism.

“When We decide to destroy a population, We (first) send a definite order to those among them who are given the good things of this life and yet transgress; so that the word is proved true against them: then (it is) We destroy them utterly.” —Koran 17:16

In every instance where Islam has conquered and “destroyed utterly” a nation or civilization, the key to the conquest was the establishment of mosques, which are political and military command and control centers for Islam, and which all point toward the seat of Islamic power: the Kabah.

Mosques and the Fallacy of the “Moderate Muslim”

The majority of Germans during World War II were not active members of the Nazi party, were not waging war, and were not involved in the holocaust. The leaders, though, were active members of the Nazi party, were waging war, and were involved in the holocaust.

The majority of Russians and eastern Europeans under the rule of the U.S.S.R. were not trying to spread Communism throughout the world, and were not threatening and waging war and revolution, but were going about their daily lives trying to survive. The leaders, though, were doing everything they could to spread Communism throughout the world, and were threatening and waging war and revolution.

Throughout history, since 610 A.D., the leaders of Islam have been waging Universal Jihad around the world for the purpose of Islamic totalitarian domination of the world. It has never mattered what percentage of the Muslim population was “peaceful” or “moderate.” Peace and moderation are not relevant to the totalitarian mandates of Islam’s political documents, and Islam’s leaders always follow the totalitarian mandates of Universal Jihad contained in them.

There are post-Nazi democracies. There are post-Communist democracies. There are no post-Islamic democracies. Literal Islam, as contained in its political documents, is the consummate totalitarianism. Neither Nazism or Communism had a metaphysical factor, as does Islam. Islam uses its metaphysics as a wedge to drive in its totalitarian political doctrines.

Once Islam has established itself sufficiently in any nation, it seeks to overthrow any existing regime or constitution or law, and replace it with Islamic theocracy. Even the most “moderate” Muslim is bound to obey Islamic law, and so is bound to fight if ordered to fight:

“When you are called (by the Muslim ruler) for fighting, go forth immediately.” —Hadith Sahih Bukhari 4:52:79:Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas

All Islamic mosques have Islamic leaders (rulers) who can call Muslims for fighting, and as such are satellite headquarters for spreading Literal Islam’s political doctrine of world domination and totalitarianism—no matter how many “moderate Muslims” they serve.

Read more at Political Islam

You Still Don’t Understand Islamism, Do You?

BY :

Around 2007, I gave a lecture at the Defense Department. One of the attendees presented a scenario suggesting that the “problem of Islam” was not political but a problem of verbiage.
There was a secret debate happening in the Defense Department and the CIA in which some people thought that all Muslims were a problem, some believed that only al-Qa’ida was a problem, and still others thought the Muslim Brotherhood was a problem.
The main problem, however, was that all Islamism was a political threat, but it was the second position that eventually won over the Obama administration. Take note of this, since 2009, if you wanted to build your career and win policy debates, only al-Qa’ida was a problem. The Muslim Brotherhood was not a threat; after all, it did not participate in September 11. This view was well known in policy circles, but it was easy to mistake this growing hegemony as temporary.
Actually, it only got worse.
A Muslim Foreign Service officer recounted how some U.S. officials were trying to persuade the powers that be that al-Qa’ida was split from the Muslim Brotherhood. Imagine how horrified he was. Still other officials told me that there was heavy pressure and there were well-financed lobbyists trying to force officials into the idea that al-Qa’ida was the only problem. Some high-ranking defense department officials–for example, one on the secretary of defense’s level–were pressured to fire anti-Muslim Brotherhood people. I know of at least five such incidences.
For example, I was asked to participate in a contract and co-direct a project for the federal government, and my paper was to be on the idea that all Islamists posed a threat. To my surprise, I was told that my paper was rejected. Shocked, I asked to speak to the two co-contractors on the telephone. Isn’t it true, I said on the phone, that I was to have co-direction of this project? The response was yes it was, nevertheless, a more junior member of the press could not prevail. By the way, this co-director, who likely became interested in the Middle East in large part because of me, was very rude. I then told him that though the project had originally been my idea, I was going to walk away from it and not demand compensation.
In another incident, a high-ranking CIA official posited a paper that the Muslim Brotherhood was not a threat, only al-Qa’ida was, and U.S. policy should therefore depend on the Brotherhood.
In another case, a U.S. official made a statement at a public function that neither Hizballah nor Hamas posed a threat to U.S. interests.
By 2013, this sprouted in a few people’s arguments that Iran could be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. The theoretical situation to government officials was thus clear: If you wanted to make some money in Washington, you would have to toe the line that the Muslim Brotherhood was not a threat. If sanctions ended against the Muslim Brotherhood or Islamists, including Iran, this could also lead to trillions of dollars in potential trade deals. Note that in 2009 and 2010, an attempt was made to build such a model with Syria, despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of people were being murdered in a civil war.
But Iran was a far more valuable state. In fact, Tehran was a far easier target because it had far more money and could possibly be bought simply by agreeing not to build a nuclear weapon.

Read more

450749fad583a3f3215c5cfa3588d83eProf. Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist for PajamasMedia at http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan)

 

Re-posting this for those who have not seen it, (Published on May 3, 2013)

Dr. Sebastian Gorka, Military Affairs Fellow and Director, National Security Fellows Program, Foundation for Defense of Democracies [Click here for transcript: http://bit.ly/14z8oJn]

Topic: Counterterrorism and Counterintelligence in the Second Obama Administration: Persistence of Threat Denial?

Recorded at Center for Security Policy’s National Security Group Lunch on Capitol Hill

When The Jihad Comes, Whose Side Will You Be On?

munafiqPolitical Islam, by Kenneth Roberts:

There’s good reason to ask this question to ‘nice’ Muslims. It invites Muslims to declare their true values and loyalties: “When jihad comes, whose side will you be on?”

Shoppers at Westgate Mall in Nairobi and Christian students in Nigeria have recently been killed because they had the wrong religion. What will our Muslim neighbors do when the jihadists come to our neighborhood schools, churches and shopping centers in Europe and North America? Will Muslims protect non-Muslim neighbors from death or will they side with the jihadists? A shopping mall jihad has already occurred in the U.S., but it was largely ignored.

You mean, it’s already happened in America?

Yes, an event similar to the Westgate Mall attack occurred on the evening of Feb. 12, 2007. A young Muslim man walked into the Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City with a pistol-grip, 12-gauge shotgun and a 38-caliber revolver and opened fire on shoppers, killing five and wounding four others, including a pregnant woman. The death toll at Trolley Square was higher than in the Boston Marathon Bombing, but the killings were misattributed to insanity, rather than jihad.

Will jihadists attack shopping centers across America? Undoubtedly! They will do so because it is the Sunna, the perfect example of Mohammed. In 627 AD, Mohammed beheaded 800 unarmed male civilians in Medina in a single day. He did so in a market.

Islam’s Dual Allegiance

Muslims have two loyalties: religious and political. Americans are loyal only to the constitution. America has no state religion to adhere to. But Islam has both. True Muslims must be loyal to the political act of jihad as well as to the religion of Islam. Islam is a religion as well as a military organization. This is not an opinion, but the decree of Mohammed:

“My brother and I came to the Prophet and I requested him to take the pledge of allegiance from us for migration. He said, “Migration has passed away with its people.” I asked, “For what will you take the pledge of allegiance from us then?” He (Mohammed) said, “I will take (the pledge) for Islam and JIHAD.” – (Bukhari 4,52,208)

Mohammed says allegiance to Islam includes the political act of jihad. Jihad is holy fighting against the Kafirs; it is the personal duty of every Muslim. If a Muslim does not participate in jihad, he will die a ‘hypocrite’ and burn in hell. Mohammed is the authority on Islam.

Why don’t Muslims denounce the terrorists?

Islam is harsh on ‘hypocrites’ (munafiqoon in Arabic). Munafiqs are ‘moderate Muslims’. They give only lip service to Islam. Mohammed wanted to burn the munafiqs to death in their homes for not participating in prayers or jihad.

Nonetheless, participate or not, they must not hinder jihad by thought, word or deed. Islam’s ‘munafiqs’ sit back and look the other way, while jihadists fight the Kafirs and subdue them. When a munafiq helps Kafirs during jihad, he becomes a traitor to Islam; he is considered to be a Kafir at war with Islam, so jihadists may kill him too.

When jihad comes, a munafiq is not neutral. He is on the side of jihad, rather than on the side of Kafirs. A munafiq is silent when the jihadists knock on their non-Muslim neighbor’s door. The reason for this silence is in the Koran (28.86) ‘never be a supporter of the disbelievers’.

Munafiqs can be reactivated in jihad

One of the surprising things about Islam is how non-practicing Muslims often return to active service in jihad. Sometimes it only takes a personal contact or a rousing sermon to turn a non-practicing, ‘moderate’ Muslim into a jihadist. This is similar to the recruitment of young pacifists in time of war. The Tsarnaev brothers were nice, ‘moderate’ Muslims and then they became religious jihadists.

Boston Munafiqs

How did ‘munafiqs’ behave during the Boston Marathon Bombings? When Djokhar Tsarnaev was about to be arrested, he called his non-practicing, ‘secular’ Muslim friends to dispose of incriminating evidence in his dorm room. They eagerly complied. When members of the Tsarnaevs’ mosque were asked about the two brothers, they kept silent about what they knew. When recruited, the munafiqs acted on the side of jihad.

Munafiqs at Westgate Mall, Nairobi

When jihad came to Westgate Mall in Nairobi, there were many munafiqs shopping that day. Did those munafiqs try to convince the jihadists that Islam is a ‘religion of peace’ and to stop the executions and tortures? No, they left hurriedly and let the jihadists do their work of executing unarmed Kafirs in a market. The Westgate jihadists believed they were following Sunna.

The Westgate Mall munafiqs were not neutral. They took the side of jihad by doing nothing to stop it. Their silence gave approval to jihadic terrorism.

Salman Rushdie Fatwa

When a fatwa was declared against writer Salman Rushdie, ordinary British Muslims expressed strong support for blasphemy laws to punish critics of Islam.

The musician known as Cat Stevens was asked if he would go to a demonstration to burn an effigy of the author Salman Rushdie. ”I would have hoped that it’d be the real thing,” he replied.

Furthermore, if Mr. Rushdie turned up at his doorstep looking for help, ”I might ring somebody who might do more damage to him than he would like…I’d try to phone the Ayatollah Khomeini and tell him exactly where this man is.” In his own words, Cat Stevens, aka Yusuf Islam, would take the side of jihad if the opportunity came. ‘Moderate’ Muslims like Yusuf Islam know which side they are on. Not on the side of the Kafir, because jihad is not a ‘peace train’.

Jihad at Broken Hill, Australia, 1915

In 1915, two Kurdish immigrants to Australia read the Sultan’s pamphlet announcing a universal jihad and planned their own self-directed jihad. They waited beside railway tracks and randomly shot Australian civilians on a train on its way to a picnic. Fatalities occurred. They then shot a police constable. It’s similar to the Boston Marathon bombings, when you think about it.

What has changed in 100 years? The doctrine is the same. The weapons are more sophisticated.

Munafiqs of the Armenian Genocide

Edwin Pears recorded this account from a Muslim woman in Turkey:
“Then one night, my husband came home and told me that the padisha (caliph) had sent word that we were to kill all the Christians in our village, and that we would have to kill our (Christian) neighbours. I was very angry, and told him that I did not care who gave such orders; they were wrong. These neighbours had always been kind to us, and if he dared to kill them Allah would pay us out. I tried all I could to stop him, but he killed them — killed them with his own hand.” (Sir Edwin Pears, Turkey and Its People, London: Methuen and Co., 1911, p. 39)

When jihad against Christian subjects of Turkey was declared in 1915, ordinary Muslim village men were led to Friday prayers. Someone read out the Sultan’s summons to jihad and the villagers proceeded to participate in the genocide of Armenians, Assyrian Orthodox and Greek Anatolians, the indigenous peoples of Turkey. Ordinary ‘moderate’ Muslims responded to the call of jihad. Three million people disappeared from the populace within ten years.

Notable Exceptions

There are some noteworthy examples of Muslims who saved lives during jihad. Khaled Abdewahhab of Tunisia was the first Arab to receive a ‘Righteous Gentile’ award from Israel. He had hidden a Jewish family at his country home until liberation came. In 1915, a Turkish doctor ‘married’ four of his Armenian patients to save them from extermination. The uncle of the Tsarnaev brothers denounced his nephews and ordered them to surrender.

So what motivates Muslims when they help Kafirs in trouble? The answer is these ‘moderate’ Muslims are disregarding the Koran (28.86) ‘never be a supporter of the disbelievers’.

We Western people need to reexamine our political correctness. We need to learn the dualistic doctrine of the Kafir that underpins jihad. Otherwise, we will continue to have attacks against Kafir civilians like those at the Westgate Mall, Trolley Square Mall and the Boston Marathon. Muslims who attack civilians are imitating what Mohammed did in Medina in 627 AD.

One of the ways to learn about Islam’s dualism is to ask a Muslim: ‘When jihad comes to our neighborhood, whose side will you be on?’

Fundamental Errors

Bill Warner

Bill Warner

 Political Islam, By Bill Warner:

The article, Separating the Kafirs from the Muslims, drew a comment from a rabbi. His comments are prototypical of many apologists for Islam, so it is worth responding to. Let’s take it one point at a time:

[this article] takes a particular version of Islam and claims that the claims of those who follow it are representative of the entire faith. They claim this, but the claim is false. An analogy would be a non-Christian saying that the KKK is typical of Christianity and, as those in the KKK insist, this is the truest form of that faith. This is false logic.

Actually, the article does not say that the al Shabaab jihadists represent Islam. What the article says is the language of the jihadists comes from the Islamic doctrine of jihad. This mistake is the crux of the matter. No one Muslim represents Islamic doctrine since Islam has a dualistic ideology. Let’s take the Islamic attitude about Jews. In the early Koran written in Mecca, it is very favorable towards Jews, since Mohammed makes the claim to be of the Jewish lineage of prophets. But when he moved to Medina, which was half Jewish, the rabbis of Medina informed Mohammed that he was not a prophet in their linage and rejected him. The Koran takes a turn for the worse and calls the Jews apes and pigs. The shift in attitude can best be seen in a simple word count:

Meccan Koran 960 words 0.99% of Meccan Koran
Medinan Koran 9282 words 16.9% of Medinan Koran

Amount of Koranic Text Devoted to anti-Jew

So is the Koran pro Jew or anti Jew? Yes, it is both. That is the neat thing about dualism; you can get either answer. The point here is that there are always two choices in dualistic Islam. In the end, Mohammed annihilated all of the Jews in Medina in about three years. Medina was Judenrein. But in the beginning, he was friendly and charming about the Jews.

The point here is that Muslims can be friendly to Jews or Jew haters and in both cases be Islamic. It is the same with jihad. Islam is peaceful; Islam is jihad. So al Shabaab is based on the Medinan part of Islam; the Muslims at the Family of Abraham religious dialogue are following the Meccan Islam.

The word “Kefir” is cognate to the Hebrew “kofer” which means “apostate.” From the Muslim point of view they represent the true Abrahamic faith while Jews and Christians, in denying the validity of Islam, are apostates or infidels. I’ve met plenty of Christians who believe the same about Muslims and Jews. Jews do not need such a doctrine because we believe that all people who live an ethical life get a reward in the next world.

The rabbi brings up the very important aspect of ethics. Islam is the only “universal” religion that does not have Golden rule. Indeed, Islamic ethics are dualistic, with one set of rules for Muslims and a separate set of rules for Kafirs. I wonder if apostate Jews are under a death ruling as Muslim apostates are?

But, there is another ethical issue here. The worst human rights violation of today is the jihadic murder of nearly 100,000 Christians every year in the most horrible ways. I wonder if the rabbi ever brings up this issue to Muslims. If not then he is guilty of silence in the face of evil. Islamic law treats silence as consent, so in the eyes of Islam, the rabbi supports the oppressor, Islam, and abandons the victims—Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists (Kafirs all).

The assertion that most of the Koran is about Kefirs and not about how to be a Muslim is plainly false as anyone who actually reads the Koran knows.

Not only is my count correct, here is the data for the Meccan Koran and the Medinan Koran Not only do I assert that the majority of the Koran is about the Kafir, but will go further and say that the majority of the Sira, 82%, (the canonic biography of Mohammed, a sacred text) is about Kafirs, as well.

The Meccan suras of the Koran discuss “peoples of the book” (Jews and Christians with the book being the Bible). They are not to be persecuted so long as those who live in the Muslim world follow the law of the land and respect Islam.

This deceiving statement puts a pleasant face on 1400 years of political and social subordination by Islam against all Kafir religions. The law of the land for Islam is the Sharia, a legal code of pure evil. Here are some details of respecting Islam taken from the Treaty of Umar written about Christians (Jews were under similar dhimmi laws):

We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks’ cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.
We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.
We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor bide him from the Muslims.
We shall not teach the Koran to our children.
We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.
We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.
We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas.
We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our- persons.
We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.
We shall not sell fermented drinks.
We shall clip the fronts of our heads.
We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists
We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.
We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.

The Koran says “there shall be no compulsion in religion.” That, of course, has been violated in some times and places. Also in practice, non-Muslims have a kind of second-class citizenship called dhimmi.

The “no compulsion in religion” is an early verse. The Koranic law of abrogation says that the later verse is stronger or better than the earlier verse. Verses written after the nice “no-compulsion” verse say that the Christians and Jews who do not submit to Islamic supremacy can be killed. The man who does not understand abrogation should not use the Koran.

Mohammed treated everybody well upon the first meeting. But when they did not submit to his ways, they were enslaved, murdered, raped and annihilated. The record is very clear. Mohammed, the perfect model of a sacred life, was a Jew killer, a pagan killer and a Christian killer. So says the Sira.

This brief essay is intentionally inflammatory and there are many other errors of fact in it as well as misuse of the terms cited. This is hate literature.

And now the rabbi fires his best shot—“this is hate literature”. Go back and read the article this is in response to. It addresses the actual language of the jihadist killers of Kafirs. It then shows that this language is taken directly from Islamic war doctrine. Next the article says that all people, not just Muslims, should use the correct naming and verbiage of the Islamic doctrine. Nowhere is any individual demeaned and not even the hateful doctrine even criticized. Show me the hate.

Muslim jihadist murder innocents, but I am the hater for talking about it. Go figure. What his term “hate” means is that the article violates the progressive multicultural dogma. The word “hate” no longer means immorality but political disagreement. This is an example of name calling, the weakest logical position.

I will give you an example of the falsity of this anti-Muslim literature. The practice of female genital mutilation is frequently cited. In fact this is not a requirement of any faith and it is practiced by ethnic groups that are Christian as well as Muslim. It is connected to ethnicity rather than religion, but Islamophobes frequently falsely claim it is a specifically Muslim practice.

Since the article makes no mention of female genital mutilation, where does this come from? It is a straw man. But now that the rabbi has brought the Islamic treatment of women up, let us take note of the fact that the Koran, 4:34, and the Sunna say that women can be beaten. Mohammed advises: Never ask a man why he beats his wife. Allah says that wives who do not obey the husband can be beaten. Wife beating is pure Islam. I would love to hold a talk with the rabbi about the treatment of women under the Sharia.

People like Warner use an academic disguise to give weight to their promotion of hate and fear. The problem, is not Islam, but fundamentalism, including Christian fundamentalism. Those who think they represent ultimate truth perversely often think they have a license to lie.

Let’s take these insults one a time. “academic disguise” is what he calls facts from the Koran, Sira, Hadith and Islamic political history.

“The problem is not Islam” Really? The Islamic doctrine is one of jihad, oppression of religious minorities, violence against women, enslavement and hatred of the Kafir. Islamic jihad has murdered 270 million over the last 1400 years and there have been over 22,000 jihad attacks since September 11, 2001. Islam is the problem.

In a discussion about Islam, we come to his crabbing about Christians. The rabbi’s comments have a slight flavor of Islamo-philia and Christo-phobia. Muslim jihadists kill Christians in the Westgate Mall (Kenya is about 90% Christian) which is owned by Jews and he speaks negatively about Christians.

I find that when a discussion about Islam turns to the Christians, it is because the person does not know enough about Islamic doctrine to carry forward. So they change the subject to one they know about.

What our rabbi does not seem to realize is that under Sharia law, Christians and Jews are in the same boat. After the Saturday people come the Sunday people.

As to “fundamentalism”, every Muslim believes the Koran is the exact, complete and perfect words of the only god. Every Muslim believes that Mohammed is the perfect model for all behavior. When Muslims say that they are believers that is what they mean. Every Muslim is a literalist; does that make every Muslim a fundamentalist? And why is being a fundamentalist bad? The case that a liberal interpretation is a better intellectual choice is not advanced, just assumed. It is not a matter of fundamentalism, but the truth of the Koran and the Sunna. Any scholar who reads the Koran and has studied world religious literature sees that the Koran is actually a derivative work that only advances two new ideas:

1. Mohammed is the prophet of Allah is the new truth introduced in Mecca.
2. The Medinan Koran introduces the new idea that if you do not accept Mohammed as the prophet of Allah, then you can be harmed.

The rabbi does not actually comment on whether he submits to the “truth” of the Koran. Rabbi, is the Koran true or false? Is Mohammed the divine human prototype? I hold that the Koran is a man made document and that Mohammed was deluded. That is why I am a Kafir.

L’shalom,

After calling me a hater and a liar, the rabbi signs off with peace.

There is a tragedy that goes far beyond his ignorance. Imagine that he is giving advice about the threat to Israel. Since he argues that jihadists are not real Muslims, he cannot understand the jihad against Israel as an expression of Islamic political doctrine. He cannot even use the jihad doctrine as a plan B to interpret political action on the ground to defend Israel.

What will this rabbi do when a woman of his congregation comes to him for advice about marrying a Muslim? Will he be able to tell her the facts about a Sharia marriage or will he give her his romantic fantasy about how we are all one happy family of Abraham?

Knowledge must come before wisdom. Rabbi, get yourself a copy of Mark Durie’s The Third Choice (he is an Anglican priest) or if you cannot read what a Christian writes about Mohammed, then read Andrew Bostom’s Islamic Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism (warning, it is a more difficult read) so that you can take the first step towards being a wise leader of the Jews. Or, if the rabbi can stand the vitriolic Jew hatred from Islamic clerics (yes, they are real Muslims practicing real Islam), check out the MEMRI website .

See The Counter Jihad Report’s Bill Warner youtube playlist 

THE MUSLIM MOSQUE: A STATE WITHIN A STATE

Muslim pilgrims circle the Kaaba and pray at the Grand mosque during the annual haj pilgrimage in the holy city of Meccaby Vijay Kumar

THE KABAH IN MECCA WAS NOT BUILT AS AN ISLAMIC MOSQUE. It was an ancient temple that had been shared by polytheists, Christians, Jews, and Hindus, honoring 360 different deities. In 630 A.D. the Kabah was captured by Islam in its military invasion and conquest of Mecca.

On the day of its capture, Mohammed delivered an address at the Kabah in military dress and helmet, according to Ayatullah Ja’far Subhani in his book, “The Message”:

“Bear in mind that every claim of privilege, whether that of blood or property is abolished . . . I reject all claims relating to life and property and all imaginary honors of the past, and declare them to be baseless . . . A Muslim is the brother of another Muslim and all the Muslims are brothers of one another and constitute one hand as against the non-Muslims. The blood of every one of them is equal to that of others and even the smallest among them can make a promise on behalf of others.” —Mohammed

Mohammed’s address at the Kabah overthrew the Meccan government and declared all of Islam, anywhere in the world, to be a political and military state against all non-Muslims, regardless of the non-Muslims’ political, geographical, or national origins.

“If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him.” —Koran 3:85

Although the rightful owners of the Kabah are the many religions that shared it before the Islamic military conquest of Mecca, according to Subhani the Kabah today is under the control of a hereditary regime going back to Mohammed: “currently the 12th Imam from the direct descent of the Prophet of Islam is the real protector, its custodian and guardian.”

All Islamic mosques everywhere in the world are required to have a clear visible indication pointing in the direction of Mecca and the Kabah, where the international political and military state of Islam was founded. In most mosques there is a niche in the wall—the mihrab—that points toward the seat of Islamic power. Each mosque, like the Kabah, is governed by an Imam in compliance with the political documents of Islam.

Mosques and the Political Documents of Islam

The Koran is the supreme political document of Islam—its political manifesto and political constitution. It is the only constitution of the nation-state Saudi Arabia, which is the home of Mecca and the Kabah, where all mosques point, and is the birthplace of Islam.

The Koran is a totalitarian constitution. It demands submission by anyone within its jurisdiction. The Koran governs all mosques everywhere in the world.

As a political document, the Koran asserts that everyone in the world is within its jurisdiction. So far, Islam has not been able to enforce that totalitarian claim on the entire world, but has managed to do so through threat, infiltration, violence, terrorism, and coercion on roughly 20% of the world. It is engaged in a 1400-year-long Universal Jihad to dominate the rest of the world. All mosques are its outpost headquarters.

Central to the Koran’s political mandates is prohibition of religious freedom and religious tolerance, along with denouncements of religions such as Christianity and Judaism.

 

“O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them.” —Koran 5:51

“Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)” —Koran 9:5

All mosque leaders must be loyal to and supportive of these political and militaristic mandates.

The Koran as a political document also forbids separation of church and state. That is why every Islamic nation, where Islamic leaders have managed to gain power, is a theocracy, ruled by the Koran and Islamic Sharia law.

The Hadith (reported sayings and acts of Mohammed) and the Sira (the official biographies of Mohammed) are the other political documents that, along with the Koran, constitute the basis for Islam’s Sharia law.

“There is only one law which ought to be followed, and that is the Sharia.” —Syed Qutb

Sharia law is administered by Islamic Imams who interpret the law and hand down rulings in their sole discretion. Sharia law does not allow trial by jury. Sharia law also mandates a double standard of laws for Muslims (believers) and infidels (non-believers). Sharia law mandates a discriminatory tax, called jizya, on non-Islamic religions and nations:

“Fight those who believe not in Allah…until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” —Koran 9:29

Sharia law also mandates discrimination toward women, and forbids any criticism of Islam or its founder, stifling freedom of speech.

Sharia law also mandates that all men are slaves with no right to freedom of religion:

“Allah’s right on His slaves is that they should worship Him (Alone) and should not worship any besides Him.” —Mohammed, Sahih Bukhari 4:52:108, Narrated Mu’adh

Sharia law does not allow for separation of church and state. Sharia regards church and state as one inseparable entity governing every aspect of individual and social life, both spiritual and secular. That is why all Islamic nations are theocracies.

In short, Sharia law stands in direct opposition to the American Constitution and Bill of Rights. The implementation of Sharia law demands the overthrow of the American Constitution and our form of government and system of laws. Mosque leaders, in every nation in the world, are loyal to the Koran, the Hadith, the Sira, and consider them divine law, and therefore supreme over all manmade laws.

Other political and military documents of Islam include treaties of Mohammed, which are held in reverence by Islam as models of conduct in relations between nations.

“Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah [Mohammed] a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah.” —Koran 33:21

“War is deceit.” —Mohammed, Sahih Bukhari 4:52:268, Narrated Abu Hurarira

In one treaty proposal, to Jaifer and Abd, Mohammed wrote:

“If you two accept Islam, your country will, as usual, remain with you. But if you refuse or object, it is a perishable thing.” —Mohammed

In another, to the Chiefs of Aqaba, he wrote:

“It is better for you either to accept Islam or agree to pay Jizya and consent to remain obedient to Allah . . . If you do not accept these terms . . . I shall have to wage war (to bring peace and security).” —Mohammed

These same patterns and political mandates have been used over and over by Muslims since 610 A.D. to invade and conquer many civilizations and nations throughout the world, and to eradicate human rights and freedoms in those lands. Iran once was called Persia and was Zorastrian. Egypt was Christian. What was once a Hindu civilization was conquered and made into Pakistan, which is now part of the Axis of Jihad, along with Iran and Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan was Buddhist for thousands of years. Now its chief exports are heroin and Islamic terrorism.

“When We decide to destroy a population, We (first) send a definite order to those among them who are given the good things of this life and yet transgress; so that the word is proved true against them: then (it is) We destroy them utterly.” —Koran 17:16

In every instance where Islam has conquered and “destroyed utterly” a nation or civilization, the key to the conquest was the establishment of mosques, which are political and military command and control centers for Islam, and which all point toward the seat of Islamic power: the Kabah.

Mosques and the Fallacy of the “Moderate Muslim”

The majority of Germans during World War II were not active members of the Nazi party, were not waging war, and were not involved in the holocaust. The leaders, though, were active members of the Nazi party, were waging war, and were involved in the holocaust.

The majority of Russians and eastern Europeans under the rule of the U.S.S.R. were not trying to spread Communism throughout the world, and were not threatening and waging war and revolution, but were going about their daily lives trying to survive. The leaders, though, were doing everything they could to spread Communism throughout the world, and were threatening and waging war and revolution.

Throughout history, since 610 A.D., the leaders of Islam have been waging Universal Jihad around the world for the purpose of Islamic totalitarian domination of the world. It has never mattered what percentage of the Muslim population was “peaceful” or “moderate.” Peace and moderation are not relevant to the totalitarian mandates of Islam’s political documents, and Islam’s leaders always follow the totalitarian mandates of Universal Jihad contained in them.

There are post-Nazi democracies. There are post-Communist democracies. There are no post-Islamic democracies. Literal Islam, as contained in its political documents, is the consummate totalitarianism. Neither Nazism or Communism had a metaphysical factor, as does Islam. Islam uses its metaphysics as a wedge to drive in its totalitarian political doctrines.

Once Islam has established itself sufficiently in any nation, it seeks to overthrow any existing regime or constitution or law, and replace it with Islamic theocracy. Even the most “moderate” Muslim is bound to obey Islamic law, and so is bound to fight if ordered to fight:

“When you are called (by the Muslim ruler) for fighting, go forth immediately.” —Hadith Sahih Bukhari 4:52:79:Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas

All Islamic mosques have Islamic leaders (rulers) who can call Muslims for fighting, and as such are satellite headquarters for spreading Literal Islam’s political doctrine of world domination and totalitarianism—no matter how many “moderate Muslims” they serve.

Read more at Political Islam

 

Subjective Islam – Objective Islam

By Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam:

Some people don’t want to learn about Islam from someone who was not a Muslim, a professor or some other “approved” source of information. How can someone without a degree in Islam be an expert on it?

The question is who can we trust to tell the truth about Islam? The answer you will get by going by talking to Muslims has the advantage that if you choose the right country and the right Muslim, you will get the “right” answer. But if you ask the “wrong” Muslim (usually called an extremist or radical Muslim) you will get the answer you won’t like. Is Saudi Arabia or Turkey the right country to go to? Is a Wahabbi imam or a Islamist scholar of Islam the right person to ask? Subjective Islam is a polling problem. Who you ask determines the answer you get. Apologists for Islam ask the “expert” who gives them the answer they want—Islam is wonderful.

But there is one source of knowledge about Islam that is not subjective. If you talk to Muslims, you will find that there is one thing that they all agree on: There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger. This statement is the beginning of Islamic objective knowledge, since 100% of all Muslims believe it.

Allah is found in the Koran. When you read and understand the Koran, you find that there are 91 verses that command all Muslims to imitate Mohammed, the divine human prototype. We find out what Mohammed did and said in order to imitate him in two places – Mohammed’s biography, the Sira, and his Traditions, the Hadith. And that is all there is to know about Islamic doctrine:

• Koran
• Sira
• Hadith

Objective truth: if it is in the Koran, Sira and Hadith, it is Islam. Islam is Allah and Mohammed, no exceptions. So skip asking a Muslim, going to a Muslim country or asking a professor. For objective answers, ask Mohammed and Allah. In other words, read the Koran, Sira and Hadith. The problem is that no one reads them is because they used to be difficult. Today are available because simple scientific methods have produced versions that anybody can read. For one example, see the Trilogy Project.

Mecca medina graph

Statistical methods reveal that there are two Korans, Mecca and Medina, and that there are two Mohammeds. In Mecca the Koran is religious, but only a 150 people became Muslims in 13 years time. Later in Medina, Mohammed became a politician and a jihadist, and the Koran becomes jihadic and political.

There are two Islams, two sets of facts – Mecca and Medina. Preaching the religion in Mecca was a failure. But, Mohammed averaged an event of jihad every 6 weeks for the last 9 years of his life, and by the time he died, every Arab was a Muslim. So if you want peaceful Islam go to Mecca. If you want politics and violence, go to Medina. Islam is a dualistic system where peace and jihad exist side by side. Dualism allows “experts” to get what they want, a peaceful Islam in Mecca. See, there it is in the Meccan Koran—peace. Just don’t ever mention Medina and the news is good.

However, the only trustworthy experts are Mohammed and Allah, found in Islam’s texts. They will tell you the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So, here is the rule to grade your experts: listen to those who quote Mohammed and Allah. And ask the expert: What else does Islam teach about this? Get the whole truth, the whole story.

Better yet, since the Koran, Sira and Hadith have been made readable by the average person, read the texts and become an expert yourself by quoting Allah and Mohammed. You will bring objective Islam to your world.

 

For more Bill Warner videos go to The Counterjihad Report’s Youtube Channel Playlist

Statistical Islam

religion vs politics and jihadThere would be no Islam today, if it were only a religion. Statistics show that Islamic politics is what brought Islam success, not religion. To say that Islam is the religion of peace misses the point, since the religion is not the core of Islam’s power. It is politics that count, not religion. The statistical conclusion: Islam is primarily a political ideology

By Bill Warner:

One of the great questions of the 21st century is: What is the true nature of Islam? There are two distinct answers to this question from the media and leaders. The popular message is that Islam is one of the great world religions, a peaceful religion, a foundation of world civilization, its Golden Age was the highpoint of history, and it preserved Western thought while we were in the Dark Ages. The alternative message is that Islam is a brutal, backward, woman abusing, violent, intellectually narrow ideology that is out to annihilate civilization.

Which side is right? How do we resolve this issue? Can it even be resolved? If we turn to the “experts” of any of the opinions, they will tell you that their view is correct. What then is the ultimate authority that will give us a firm foundation for reasoning and judgment about Islam? Is it possible to use critical thought or must we just accept the authority of experts?

There is way to achieve consensus about ideas that goes beyond expert opinion. The use of facts along with logic is the basis of critical thought. The ultimate form of critical thought uses measurements and numbers to resolve questions. This paper will use the foundational texts of Islam and measure the importance of ideas by how many words are given to concepts. The assumption is that the more content that is devoted to a subject, the greater the importance of the subject is. As an example: the Koran devotes 64% of its text to the subject of the unbeliever. This is assumed to imply that the unbeliever is important in Islamic doctrine.

The use of critical thought may seem counter-intuitive since many people view Islam as a
religion that does not have a rational basis. Actually, Islam is not only rational; it is hyperrational, but it uses another form of logic than the one we take for granted.
If we are to use critical thought, we must have a firm foundation.

All Muslims agree that: “There is no god, but Allah and Mohammed is His messenger.”

When this is repeated as a public testimony, you become a Muslim. However, this statement is not only the beginning of Islam, it is also the foundation and totality of Islam. It is not enough to worship Allah; you must worship as Mohammed worshipped.

Who is Allah and where do we learn about Him? This question points directly to the Koran.

Then the Koran, in turn, points directly to Mohammed. It says 91 times that Mohammed is the perfect Muslim. He is the divine human prototype, the only pattern acceptable to Allah. The actions and words of Mohammed are so important that they have a special name—Sunna.

We find the Sunna in two texts. The Sira is the biography of Mohammed and the Hadith is the collection of hadiths (small stories, traditions) about Mohammed.

Islam is based on Koran and Sunna. Since the Sunna is found in the Sira and the Hadith, this means that three books contain all the doctrine of Islam—the Trilogy. If it is in the Trilogy (Koran, Sira, Hadith), then it is Islam. If something is not in the Trilogy, then it is not Islam. All of the Islamic doctrine is found in the Trilogy. Now, we have the complete information with no missing pieces.

We have established our first criteria of knowledge. All authoritative statements about Islam must include a reference to the Trilogy to be authenticated. It does not matter what a scholar, imam, media guru, or anyone else says, if what they say cannot be supported by the doctrine in the Trilogy, then it is not Islam. If it is supported by the Trilogy, then it is Islam.

relative sizes of Trilogy textsWe have been taught that the Koran is the source of Islamic doctrine. However, the Koran is only 14% of the total sacred texts. Actually, the Sira and the Hadith are 86% of the total textual doctrine. Islam is 14% Allah and 86% Mohammed. This is very good news. The Koran is obscure, but anyone can understand the life and sayings of Mohammed. These statistics point to the easy way to know Islam—know Mohammed. Anyone, absolutely anyone, can understand Mohammed and hence, Islam.

 

If you would like to see the entire article, Statistical Islam, download it here.

Visit Bill Warner’s web page, Political Islam for much more

 

Robert Vaughan in Conversation with Dr. Bill Warner – Political Islam

imagesCA81OQHTRobert Vaughan of Just Right Media  interviewed Dr. Bill Warner in Toronto on Nov. 25, 2012. Dr. Warner holds a PhD in physics and math from NC State University, 1968. He has been a university professor, businessman, and applied physicist. He has authored several books on Political Islam, chief among them being “The Islamic Trilogy,” a three volume analyses of The Sira, The Hadith, and The Koran. Dr. Warner currently runs the web site politicalislam.com which has as its Mission Statement: “…to educate the world about political Islam, its founder Mohammed, his political doctrine and his god, Allah.”

Think Again: The Muslim Brotherhood

MB protestorsBY ERIC TRAGER:

How did so many Western analysts get Egypt’s Islamist movement so wrong?

“They’re democrats.”

Don’t kid yourself. Long before the Jan. 25 revolution that ousted Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, many academics and policymakers argued that his main adversary — the Muslim Brotherhood — had made its peace with democracy. This was based on the assumption that, since the Muslim Brotherhood participated in virtually every election under Mubarak, it was committed to the rule of the people as a matter of principle.

It was also based on what typically sympathetic Western researchers heard from Muslim Brotherhood leaders, and what I heard as well. “Democracy is shura,” Brotherhood Deputy Supreme Guide Khairat al-Shater told me during a March 2011 interview, referring to the Islamic jurisprudential tool of “consultation.” The implication was that the Brotherhood accepted a political system that encouraged open debate.

Yet since the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate, Mohamed Morsy, was elected president in June, the exact opposite has been true. The Brotherhood’s only real “consultation” has been with the Egyptian military, which the Brotherhood persuaded to leave power by ceding substantial autonomy to it under the new constitution. Among other undemocratic provisions, this backroom deal yielded constitutional protection for the military’s separate court system, under which civilians can be prosecuted for the vague crime of “damaging the armed forces.”

Meanwhile, the Brotherhood has embraced many of the Mubarak regime’s autocratic excesses: Editors who are critical of the Brotherhood have lost their jobs, and more journalists have been prosecuted for insulting the president during Morsy’s six months in office than during Mubarak’s 30-year reign. And much as Mubarak’s ruling party once did, the Brotherhood is using its newfound access to state resources as a political tool: It reportedly received below-market food commodities from the Ministry of Supply and Social Affairs, which it is redistributing to drum up votes in the forthcoming parliamentary elections.

The Brotherhood’s most blatantly undemocratic act, however, was Morsy’s Nov. 22 “constitutional declaration,” through which he placed his presidential edicts above judicial scrutiny and asserted the far-reaching power to “take the necessary actions and measures to protect the country and the goals of the revolution.” When this power grab catalyzed mass protests, Morsy responded by ramming a new constitution through the Islamist-dominated Constituent Assembly, and the Brotherhood later mobilized its cadres to attack the anti-Morsy protesters, and subsequently extract confessions from their captured fellow citizens. So much for promises of “consultation.”

As the Brotherhood’s first year in power has demonstrated, elections do not, by themselves, yield a democracy. Democratic values of inclusion are also vital. And the Muslim Brotherhood — which has deployed violence against protesters, prosecuted its critics, and leveraged state resources for its own political gain — clearly lacks these values.

Read the rest of this excellent piece at Foreign Policy

What is the Truth about American Muslims, Part 2/3

By Bill Warner

The First Amendment Center, the Muslim Brotherhood and assorted leftists at the Interfaith Alliance have produced a polished piece of apologist propaganda for Islam. It has been getting a lot media play, because it says all the things the public would like to believe about Islam. It is a textbook summary of arguments made by Islam’s apologists and serves as a teaching example of how to refute this propaganda using the scientific method.

Here is the truth about Muslims. They will not tell you the whole truth, but only a half truth. Islam is inherently dualistic and holds two opposing truths at the same time. There are two Korans, an early Koran written in Mecca and a later Koran written in Medina. There is no jihad in the early Meccan Koran, but the later Medinan Koran is filled with jihad. So which is the real Islam? Both peace and war are true Islam. A Muslim will only talk about the half he needs. But, there is one Muslim who will tell you the complete truth—Mohammed. Needless to say, this propaganda does not consult him.

Here is the second part of the analysis:

9. How do American Muslims participate in American public life?

American Muslims have created institutions of their own in the United States, just like other religious communities. There are many long-established groups such as the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an umbrella organization of some 300 mosques and Islamic centers based in Indiana, and newer organizations like the Council for the Advancement of Muslim Professionals.

“Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)”

Whoa! ISNA is participation in American life? ISNA is pure Muslim Brotherhood; in fact, they are at the top of the list in the Muslim Brotherhood memo submitted in the Holy Land Foundation trial. And what is the Muslim Brotherhood? An organization dedicated to bringing the caliphate to rule over the entire world and to destroy our Constitution by replacing it with Sharia law.

And remember the Muslim Brotherhood motto? Here it is:

“Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

ISNA and all other Muslim Brotherhood types participate in American life in the sense of working to annihilate it.

10. Is Islam a political movement?

No. Islam is a religious tradition and adherents to Islam are called Muslim. Of course, American Muslims like Americans from other religious groups, participate in American political life. American Muslim voting patterns generally mirror the broader American population. American Muslims are Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, liberals, and conservatives. There is no one political platform or agenda for those who practice the religion of Islam in the United States.

“Islam is a religious tradition”

Yes, but it is also a political tradition. To prove that read the Sira, the biography of Mohammed. It is very interesting to plot the data found in the Sira about how Islam grew. Here is the plot:

The religion of Islam was a failure. In preaching the religion of Islam, Mohammed converted 150 Arabs to Islam. Then he went to Medina and became a politician and a jihadist. During the last 9 years of his life in Medina, he averaged an event of violence on the average of every 6 weeks. When Mohammed died every Arab was a Muslim. Without politics and jihad there would have never been an Islam. The religion failed, the politics succeeded.

11. Have American Muslim leaders spoken out against extremist violence?

Yes. Many American Muslim leaders and organizations have repeatedly denounced extremist violence in the strongest possible terms.

Of the many statements and actions taken by American Muslims to condemn and counter terrorism, the fatwa (religious ruling) from the Fiqh Council of North America (an Islamic juristic body) captures the views of the vast majority of American Muslims: “Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives. There is no justification in Islam for extremism or terrorism.”

Fiqh Council of North America condems violence, but Islam does not condemn jihad. Jihad is neither extremism nor terrorism. The Fiqh Council of North America (a Muslim Brotherhood group) may condemn terrorism, but Allah does not.

8:12 God revealed His will to the angels, saying: ‘I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the Kafirs. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers!’

“innocent lives”

As you read about innocence, remember that a Kafir is in perpetual rebellion against Islam. Hence, Kafirs are never innocent, but guilty of offending Allah.

The Fiqh Council of North America’s statement affirms the following Islamic principles:

All acts of terrorism, including those targeting the life and property of civilians, whether perpetrated by suicidal or any other form of attacks, are haram (forbidden) in Islam.

“All acts of terrorism…are haram”

Well, so acts of terror are forbidden in Islam. But jihad is a community obligation for all Muslims. Jihad is not terror, but sacred violence to prepare the world for Islam and the Sharia.

Koran 2:216 You are commanded to fight although you dislike it. You may hate something that is good for you, and love something that is bad for you. Allah knows and you do not.

“It is haram (forbidden) for a Muslim to cooperate with any individual or group that is involved in any act of terrorism or prohibited violence.”

I guess that Mohammed did not get this memo, because he said, just the opposite:

[Bukhari 4,52,96] Mohammed: “Anyone who arms a jihadist is rewarded just as a fighter would be; anyone who gives proper care to a holy warrior’s dependents is rewarded just as a fighter would be.”

“It is the civic and religious duty of Muslims to undertake full measures to protect the lives of all civilians, and ensure the security and well-being of fellow citizens.”

Muslims are to undertake full measures to follow the Sunna of Mohammed and he attacked every single neighbor, without a single exception. And he did it year after year, until he ran out of enemies in Arabia and then he left Arabia to go to Syria and attack the Christians there.

12. Are American Muslims concerned about extremist violence in the United States?

Yes. Most American Muslims, like most other Americans, are deeply concerned about the problem of extremist violence committed in the name of Islam. According to the most reliable data we have, the overwhelming majority of American Muslims is well integrated into American society and report criminal activity. Over the past decade, 40% of domestic terrorism plots have been uncovered or deterred with assistance from American Muslims.[iii]

“40% of domestic terrorism plots have been uncovered or deterred with assistance from American Muslims”

Since 100% of the domestic jihad has been by Muslims, what can be said about the other 60%? What Muslims did not turn them in?

13. Do American Muslim leaders support freedom of expression and religious liberty?

“support freedom of expression and religious liberty”

Really? Then why do the Muslim Brotherhood organizations demand that only Muslims be allowed to talk about Islam to government officials? That is freedom of expression? Under pressure of Islamic leaders, no US agency can listen to a lecture about Islam if it is given by Kafirs, courtesy of Obama.

Yes. Many American Muslim leaders, educational institutions, and advocacy groups have repeatedly spoken out for freedom of expression and are actively involved in promoting religious liberty for all people both in the United States and abroad.

“promoting religious liberty for all people both in the United States and abroad”

The Center for the Study of Political Islam publishes a monthly newsletter called the Bulletin of Christian Persecution. It documents the murder, rape, kidnapping of Christians in Muslim nations. Thousands of Christians, Buddhists, and Hindus die each year at the hands of Muslims. This persecution was started 1400 years ago by Mohammed and sanctioned by Allah. Here is the liberty promised by Allah:

Koran 9:29 Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given [Christians] as believe in neither Allah nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what Allah and His apostles have forbidden [follow Sharia], and do not embrace Islam, until they pay the dhimmi tax out of hand and are utterly humiliated.

Allah’s liberty for Christians includes murder until the survivors agree to live by the Sharia, pay special taxes and are humiliated.

read more at Political Islam

What is the Truth about American Muslims, Part 1

By Bill Warner:

The First Amendment Center, the Muslim Brotherhood and assorted leftists at the Interfaith Alliance have produced a polished piece of apologist propaganda for Islam. It has been getting a lot media play, because it says all the things the public would like to believe about Islam. It is a textbook summary of arguments made by Islam’s apologists and serves as a teaching example of how to refute this propaganda using the scientific method.

The theme of this propaganda brochure is that “truth” about Islam is all about opinions. But, the truth of Islamic ideology is found in the Koran, Sira (Mohammed’s biography) and the Hadith (his Traditions). Mohammed’s acts and words are the perfect model of actions (Sunna) for all Muslims.

The grand lie of this propaganda comes from confusing cause and effect about Islam and Muslims. Islam is a concrete doctrine that produces Muslims. This brochure, What is the Truth about American Muslims, argues that we may learn about Islam from Muslims. The beauty of this approach is that you can choose the Islam you want by choosing the right Muslim. Although Islam can be precisely defined, Muslims are all over the map. There is one Islam, but 1.5 billion Muslims and whatever answer you want about Islam, you can find a Muslim who will tell you what you to hear. And that is what this piece is about—finding the Muslims who will tell you what you want to hear.

Here is the truth about Muslims. They will not tell you the whole truth, but only a half truth. Islam is inherently dualistic and holds two opposing truths at the same time. There are two Korans, an early Koran written in Mecca and a later Koran written in Medina. There is no jihad in the early Meccan Koran, but the later Medinan Koran is filled with jihad. So which is the real Islam? Both peace and war are true Islam. A Muslim will only talk about the half he needs. But, there is one Muslim who will tell you the complete truth—Mohammed. Needless to say, this propaganda does not consult him.
Knowing all of this, the following quotes are taken from the brochure, What Is the Truth about American Muslims?

“This resource has been endorsed by 21 diverse religious, secular, interfaith and civil rights organizations…”

Immediately we that learn the authority of this document is based on 21 groups of diverse people. Sounds good? Maybe. But the brochure is supposed to give us the “Truth about American Muslims”. If we are talking about Muslims, then there is no organization that matters. When we talk about Muslims, there is one way to find out the truth about Muslims–Islam. The only place to find the truth about Islam is in the Koran, Sira and Hadith—the Trilogy—Mohammed and Allah.

Think about it. Who cares what some theology graduate of divinity school says about Islam? If he agrees with Allah and Mohammed, then he is redundant. If he disagrees with Mohammed or Allah, then he is wrong. All the organizational “expert” brings is either redundancy or error. Skip the diverse, secular, interfaith and civil rights bureaucracies, and go to the factual basis of Islam—Koran, Sira and Hadith.

The same thing applies to all Muslims. A Muslim is only a Muslim when they follow the doctrine of Islam. When they don’t follow Islam, they are not being a Muslim. It is so simple. Neither a Muslim nor a non-Muslim has an opinion that is worth a hoot, unless it references the doctrine of Islam.

“During the past decade, acts of violence by extremists claiming to act in the name of Islam have raised fears and created confusion about Islam. In the United States, some individuals and groups have attempted to conflate all of Islam with extremist violence by disseminating misinformation and distortions about Islam and American Muslims. This has led to a rise in discrimination against American Muslims and those perceived to be Muslims, attacks on American Muslim institutions, and protests against the building of mosques in local communities.”

“acts of violence by extremists claiming to act in the name of Islam”

What are these “acts of violence”? There is a massive amount of violence in the Koran, Sira and Hadith and it is the violence of jihad. Here is a chart of how much violence there is in Islam’s sacred texts.


Nearly a third, 31%, of the complete doctrine of Islam is about violence. And who is committing this violence? Both Mohammed and his warriors. Is Mohammed an extremist? No. His actions, the Sunna, are the very definition of moderate Islam. There 91 verses in the Koran that say that the entire world is to follow his perfect example. The Koran defines moderation, the moderation of Islam. Islam is violent; hence when Muslims are violent against the Kafir, that violence is moderation. So say, Mohammed and Allah.

Most people consider “moderate” to mean non-extreme, normal, or average and hence, peaceful. But, pay attention here. Moderation implies some scale or reference. As an example, the temperature of 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit would be extremely hot in your living room. But, if you are talking about stars, then 10,000 degrees is moderate, and not even that hot. In the same way, peaceful relations between people are moderate on the scale of the Golden Rule. But, on the scale of the Koran, murder of Kafirs is moderate. So far as “claiming” to act in the name of Islam, when Major Hassan shoots 42 soldiers in Fort Hood while yelling “allahu akbar”, he is claiming to act in name of Islam. But what he is doing is not violence, it is moderation in the name of Islam—the moderation of jihad.

“some individuals and groups have attempted to conflate all of Islam with extremist violence by disseminating misinformation and distortions about Islam and American Muslims.”

Note that we do not conflate “all” of Islam with jihad. No, it is clear that since 67% of the Sira is about jihad, then 33% of the Sira is not about jihad. This analysis exactly measures the truth of the statement.

What is an “American Muslim”? What is any Muslim? A Muslim is one who follows the doctrine of Islam. What is the American Islam that an American Muslim follows? There is no American Islam because there is no American Koran and no American Sunna. There is only the Koran and the Sunna of Mohammed. End of story. There is only Islam. Muslims are in America as part of the umma (the Islamic community) first, being American is secondary.

Exactly, what part of the Koran and the Sunna does an American Muslim reject or reinterpret? It turns out the words “American Muslim” cannot be defined in terms of doctrine, only in misdirection campaigns such as this.

“By seeking to provide accurate information about religious freedom and American Muslims, this publication does not ignore or minimize the significant threat posed by extremists who promote and commit acts of violence in the name of Islam. We fully recognize the challenge to peace and justice posed by small factions within Islam who lift up extremist theology and pervert their faith to support their violence. All of the world’s major religions have faced similar challenges. But acts of violence by radical individuals and groups must not be used to condemn Islam itself – or to paint all Muslims with the brush of extremism.”

This paragraph is a target rich environment because it contains so many apologist clichés. Let’s tackle them one by one.

First cliché: “religious freedom”

What every person must care about is political Islam, not religious Islam. As an example, the Sharia dictates that during a part of Islamic prayer a Muslim’s backside must be higher that his head. Who cares? Who is trying to restrict that?

Jihad, a part of Islamic doctrine, is political since it is carried out against non-Muslims, the Kafirs. All of Islamic doctrine that concerns the Kafir is political. The amount of Islamic doctrine that is devoted to Kafirs is astounding. Look at this chart based on word count:


The big picture is that over half of Islam’s foundational texts are about the non-Muslim, the Kafir. Islam has a highly detailed doctrine about the Kafir and that means that most of Islamic doctrine is political. This is the reason that Islam has such political impact in America and everywhere Muslims exist.

So drop the “religious freedom” distraction. Let’s deal with the politics of Islam, let’s keep it political and talk all we want.

Next cliché: “must not be used to condemn Islam itself”

We do not need to condemn Islam. We need to know Islamic doctrine and see how it drives the actions of all Muslims, both peaceful ones and jihadists. Islam is dualistic and contains both peace and war (jihad). That is its true nature and we must not condemn it, but know it. We must know the detailed history of political Islam and how the Sharia has annihilated all Kafir civilizations for 14 centuries. We must understand Islam in both root and branch. It condemns itself; we do not need to condemn it.

Next cliché: “paint all Muslims with the brush of extremism”

No, we do not want to paint Muslims with extremism. We want to paint all Muslims with the brush of Islam. We must ask Muslims where they stand on Sharia, the Kafir, jihad, the beating of women, death to apostates and so on. Every Muslim must be confronted with Islamic doctrine. Do they reject the assassination of intellectuals who oppose political Islam? If so how do they oppose it, because Mohammed repeatedly ordered the assassination of all intellectuals and artists who opposed Islam? Assassination of opponents is Sunna, normative Islam.

“Our purpose here is to inform Americans about the vast majority of their fellow citizens who are Muslim. In doing so, we seek to uphold our shared commitment to religious freedom and contribute to a climate of understanding and respect among Americans of all faiths and none.”

Read more at Political Islam

The Political Warfare Campaign Against U.S. Counter-Terrorism Experts

By Katharine Cornell Gorka:

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation has laid out a strategy for preventing reference to terrorism in association with Islam. They are targeting training and education for the military and law enforcement, and pursueing their strategy by working through NGOs, think tanks and international organizations to label as Islamophobes those counter-terrorism trainers who were not approved by specific front-organizations. This article looks at the most recent initiative in this campaign of political warfare: a report by the Muslim Public Affairs Council entitled Not Qualified: Exposing the Deception Behind America’s Top 25 Pseudo Experts on Islam.

As Sun Tzu pointed out, the greatest warrior is one who can win without having to fight. Political warfare—operations designed to influence the perceptions or beliefs of one’s adversary—is thus an invaluable tool because it is a way of winning a conflict without having to use force.  The Soviets knew this well, as did numerous other totalitarian regimes, and the OIC is now using this form of attack to shut down crucial counter-terrorism experts and training in the United States.  This meets both a theological and a strategic imperative for the OIC.  Theologically, the campaign of psychological warfare against CT experts helps to shut down criticism of Muhammad and of Islam, which is deemed forbidden, based upon several different verses of the Koran.  Strategically, it is an advantageous approach because it neutralizes those who have become most knowledgeable on the Islamist threat, thus allowing even greater impunity for agents working to undermine U.S. national security.

The strategy to shut down critical analysis of Islam by declaiming Islamophobia was made public in 2005.  That year, The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), with its 56 member nations, stated that Islamophobia would be a major focus for the coming decade:

A Ten-Year Programme of Action has been developed, which reviews the most prominent challenges facing the Muslim world today…establishing the values of moderation and tolerance, combating extremism, violence and terrorism, countering Islamophobia, achieving solidarity and cooperation among Member States, conflict prevention, the question of Palestine, the rights of Muslim minorities and communities, and rejecting unilateral sanctions.”[1]

In order to combat Islamophobia, the report stated, the OIC would take a number of steps:  it would establish an observatory to monitor all forms of Islamophobia, work with the UN to adopt a resolution to counter Islamophobia, and urge states to enact laws to combat it.  The broad conclusions of the 2005 meeting were these: Islam can never be criticized and Islam must be de-linked from terrorism.

The OIC campaign scored its first big success with the March 2007 publication of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) “Resolution 4/9 on Combating Defamation of Religions,” which stated, “the council expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations.”  The resolution further stated that the Council would urge member states to ensure that “public officials, including members of law enforcement bodies, the military, civil servants and educators, in the course of their official duties, respect different religions and beliefs and do not discriminate against persons on the grounds of their religion or belief, and that any necessary and appropriate education or training is provided…”  The UNHRC document specifically points to education and training for law enforcement and the military as the target of these efforts.

By the following year, the Islamophobia Observatory was up and running, and in March 2008, The 1st OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia was published.  The report stated: “…the proponents of Islamophobia continue their campaign in defaming Islam and Muslims.” In laying out a strategy to prevent and preempt this perceived Islamophobia, the report stated that members would work with think tanks and NGOs in the US, the UK and Europe, to monitor and counter the “anti-Islam campaign” (sic).  What followed was a series of reports and articles attacking the alleged critics of Islam. In much the same way the Soviet Union used peace movements, trade organizations, and unions as front groups for their anti-American activity, so the OIC and individual Muslim funders worked through international and Western organizations for their purposes.  The first notable example was the University of Exeter’s Report entitled, Islamophobia and Anti-Muslim Hate Crime: A London Case Study. Published in January 2010, the study called on the UK government to evaluate its current policies, asserting that “counterterrorism strategy still wrongly conflates the al Qaeda threat with other Islamist groups which in turn licenses anti-Muslim hate crimes.” The study was funded by Muslim sources:  Islam Expo, the Cordoba Foundation, founded by Anas al-Tikriti, son of a Muslim Brotherhood leader inIraq, and Sultan bin Mohammed al-Qasimi, a member of the Supreme Council of theUnited Arab Emirates and current ruler of the Sharjah emirate.

In the United States, the funding behind similar studies was never made public, but the themes are strikingly similar to those set forth by the OIC:  concerns over Islamophobia, defamation of Islam, and the need to change the counter-terrorism policies and practices of law enforcement and military.  Among the relevant studies in the United Statesis the Washington Post’s major story entitled Top Secret America.  Published in July 2010, the Post openly stated that more than a dozen WP journalists spent two years developing the study, a significant commitment of resources for a newspaper today.  The report was a wide-scale condemnation of the way theUnited States had addressed terrorism post-9/11.  But what is most interesting about the report is its close adherence to the OIC strategy of targeting the trainers of law enforcement and the military: “Seeking to learn more about Islam and terrorism, some law enforcement agencies have hired as trainers self-described experts whose extremist views on Islam and terrorism are considered inaccurate and counterproductive by the FBI and U.S. intelligence agencies.”

Read more at the Westminster Institute

Katharine Cornell Gorka is Executive Director of The Westminster Institute, a non-governmental think tank whose mission is to promote individual dignity and freedom for people throughout the world, with a particular focus on the threat posed by extremism and radical ideologies.  kcg@westminster-institute.org

Europe Bows to Muslim Demands to Limit Free Speech

By Soeren Kern:

Protests over an American-made anti-Islamic YouTube film, Innocence of Muslims, have spread to Europe. Muslim rioters have clashed with police in several European cities, and more demonstrations are being planned. The protests are part of widespread anger across the Muslim world about the amateur film, which ridicules Islam and depicts the Muslim Prophet Mohammed as a fraud, a madman and a sexual deviant.

Muslims in many European countries are calling on governments to outlaw the controversial film. They are also pressing elected officials to enact anti-blasphemy laws that would criminalize the criticism of Islam. As most European countries lack American-like First Amendment protections, the momentum is building for the imposition of legal curbs on free speech when such speech is perceived to be offensive to Islam.

Police clash with protesters in Belgium

In Belgium, police using pepper spray and batons arrested more than 200 Muslims in the northern city of Antwerp after clashes at a demonstration against the film. The protest in the Borgerhout district of the city was organized by an Islamic fundamentalist group called Sharia4Belgium. The protest was organized via a text message which read: “We are ready to work with our souls and hearts to fight for our beloved prophet, even if death comes to meet us. Whoever has love for the Prophet must be present.” In Brussels, police arrested more than 30 individuals who participated in two separate protests — one in the Sint-Joost-ten-Node district, and another one in downtown Brussels near the American embassy.

In Britain, some 300 Muslims protested in central London outside the American Embassy. The crowd included many radical Muslims associated with the hardline group, Hizb ut-Tahrir; they shouted slogans and held placards, saying, “America — Get Out of Muslim Lands.” The gathering, which consisted mostly of men but also some women and children, listened to speakers who condemned the film, U.S. foreign policy and the “oppression” of Muslims.

In France, police in Paris arrested 152 Muslims for taking part in an unauthorized, impromptu protest on September 15 at the Place de la Concorde near the American Embassy; there were a number of clashes, with four police officers hurt.

French Interior Minister Manuel Valls said he would prevent any further anti-American demonstrations sparked by the anti-Islam film. “I have issued instructions so that this does not happen again,” Valls told France 2 television. “These protests are forbidden. Any incitement to hatred must be fought with the greatest firmness.” Valls also said that among the roughly 250 protesters, there were some groups that “advocate radical Islam.”

Nevertheless, Muslims have now issued a call via text messages and social media for new protests to be held on Saturday, September 22, at 2pm at the Trocadero district in Paris. The President of the anti-immigrant National Front party, Marine Le Pen, said the protests mark the beginning of a process of “intimidation” by Muslims.

In Germany, major Muslim umbrella organizations have warned that the movie could “endanger the public peace” and lead to “street massacres” in German cities. The chairman of Germany’s Central Council of Muslims, Aiman ​​Mazyek, has also called for a legal ban on the film within the Federal Republic. “I do think that we must use all legal means to ban the film,” Mazyek said in an interview with ARD television. Mazyek continued that the video had the goal of “sowing discord and hatred,” and therefore “I would use all means possible to outlaw the film.”

German political leaders are now equivocating about their commitment to free speech. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, commenting on the anti-Islam movie, said, “I can imagine there would be good reasons to outlaw the film” – a reversal of her statement of just two years ago, when, commenting on the Danish cartoon controversy, she declared: “Free speech is one of the greatest treasures of our society.”

Separately, Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich said he would consider all legal options to ban public showings of the anti-Islamic film. He said Islamic extremists such as the Salafists are likely to incite violent protests within Germany, which Friedrich called a “highly dangerous” situation.

Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle has also pleaded for a ban on the movie, arguing that freedom of expression has its limits. “The abuse of a religion that is likely to disturb the public peace is forbidden to us,” he said in an interview on Deutschlandfunk German radio. He also argued that a ban on the film would send the message that “Germany does not stand behind right-wing radicals who insult other religions.”

Section 166 of the German Penal Code already restricts free speech when it involves “insulting religion or belief.” In a landmark Section 166 case in 2006, for example, a German retiree in Lüdinghausen was sentenced to 12 months in prison for writing the words “Koran, the holy Koran” on toilet paper and mailing it local mosques.

Read more at Radical Islam

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group.

You Can Never Awaken a Man Who Is Pretending to be Asleep

Bill Warner:

The White House and media response to the events in the US embassies in Egypt and Libya can be characterized by the fact they speak like they have never seen Sharia mob justice before in their lives. Or, at least, you would think that from the knowledge and wisdom they display in their analysis.

For the last 11 years since 9/11, we have watched the same events unroll in the Islamic world and the same response come from our so-called leaders in the government, media, schools and the pulpits. The establishment view: Those Muslims are extremists, not real Muslims. We should be careful not to offend the religion of peace. When Muslims are offended by movies, Koran burnings and Mohammed cartoons, it is our fault.

The clue phone is ringing, pick it up. Here are the clues:

The murder of intellectuals and artists who criticize Mohammed is Sunna. Sunna is the perfect example of Mohammed’s life. When Mohammed captured Mecca, he first prayed, then he destroyed all religious art and then he issued death warrants for the artists and intellectuals who had opposed him. There are only two new facts in the Koran, a derivative work. The first new fact is that Mohammed is the prophet of Allah, and the second new truth is that if you don’t believe he is prophet of Allah, you can be killed.

Violence is what brings Islam success. In Mohammed’s life, he preached the religion of Islam for 13 years and garnered 150 new followers. When he went to Medina and became a politician and a warlord, when he died every Arab was a Muslim. Jihad violence was what made Islam successful. If Mohammed practice jihad, Muslims must use the technique of jihad.

Hello establishment experts, the black flag is not an Al Qaeda flag. The black flag with the Shahada, “There is no god, but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet” and the swords goes back to the Golden Age of Islam in Baghdad in the 9th century. (The establishment professors never tell you about this jihad aspect of the Islamic Golden Age.) This jihad flag is ancient.

Current news is that Ambassador Stevens was raped before he was killed. If so, then this is pure jihad doctrine. The rules for rape of captured Kafirs (unbelievers) are Sunna. At the conquest of the Jews in Khaybar, the Hadith are explicit that captured Kafirs can be raped.

The mob is a manifestation of the Sharia and the umma (the Islamic community). Notice that when a fatwa is issued, such as the famous fatwa by Khomeini against Salmon Rushdie for his artistic work The Satanic Verses, the fatwa is not to be fulfilled by the Islamic police. No, the murder is to be carried by any member of the umma. This is vigilante justice, Sharia justice, mob justice. Pay attention to how often Muslims riot to make political gain.

The shortest hadith is: war is deceit. So here come all of the “good” Muslims to explain how the murder and riots are not real Islam. And they are so upset about what Arabs are doing at the US embassies. But, they still can tell us that Islam is the religion of peace, without a single trace of irony.

The idea that we should not blaspheme Islam, Mohammed or Allah is pure Sharia and the position of the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation). It seems that none of the establishment experts have the foggiest idea of what Sharia blasphemy entails. Not believing that Mohammed is the prophet of Allah, that a woman is a second class citizen, that jihad is part of Islam is all blasphemy. Critical thought is blasphemy. The Golden Rule is blasphemy. Any well-founded religion can survive blasphemy, except Islam, and that is the reason it is forbidden. But the worst part of this travesty is the refrain from Obama and Hillary that we should subvert our freedom of speech to the demands of the Sharia. The Sharia is Allah’s law and our Constitution is a document of ignorance to be removed from the world. So say the imams and Obama and Hillary.

And now for the last tired response from the apologists: those violent people are an extremist fringe. NO! The mobs are main-line Islam.

You can awaken a man who is asleep, but you will never awaken a man who is pretending to be asleep. That is the reason that we find our experts in the government, media, education and the pulpits to be such dhimmis. They have refused to learn a single thing about Islamic doctrine and history since 9/11. But, cheer up! When the dhimmis write about the beauty of Islam and how the Kafirs are wrong, read the comments. You will find that the common man knows far, far more about Islam than the experts. The higher you go, the less they know.