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.
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
By Kenneth Roberts:
What causes a Muslim woman to honor-kill the children she has borne and raised? The explanation is ‘the Stockholm Syndrome’. It is one of the secret keys of political Islam and Mohammed’s greatest discovery.
The Stockholm syndrome or ‘capture bonding’ is a psychological paradox in which hostages develop empathy and positive feelings towards their captors, even to the point of adopting the captor’s oppressive ideology. One would expect captives to experience resentment and hatred towards an abuser, but that is not what occurs in the Stockholm syndrome.
Rather, the Stockholm syndrome takes hold in a few days as a result of captors performing small acts of kindness towards their doomed captives. The threat of certain death in contrast with kind gestures is thought to bring about the syndrome. The confused captive soon begins to identify with the cruel psyche of the captor in order to survive.
This push-pull dynamic of terror alternating with moments of relative benevolence produces this delusion in the mind of the captive. The captive then begins to believe the far-fetched justifications for brutality and murder that bend the minds of her or his terrorist captors.
The Stockholm syndrome is a severe form of a psychological phenomenon known as dissociation. It is the mind’s survival mechanism, the way trauma victims convince themselves that “this isn’t happening”. Mohammed discovered it by accident.
Why ‘Greatest Discovery’
The discovery of the Stockholm syndrome changed Mohammed’s life. Before discovering the Stockholm syndrome, Mohammed preached religion for 13 years and collected about 150 followers. After his discovery of capture bonding, Mohammed’s political movement grew exponentially.
Read more at Political Islam
Jihad-and-hegira (attack-and-retreat) is the third ‘essential doctrine’ (usul ud-deen) in Islam. This push-pull dynamic, applied against women, produces Islam’s Stockholm syndrome, forcing women to submit to men. Compliant women in turn create compliant families in a compliant, monocultural Muslim society.
Muslims instinctively recognize jihad-and-hegira, a dualistic pattern that allows Muslims in stages to be both militant, then conciliatory. Jihad and hegira are opposite ends of one swing or, if you will, two phases of one cycle. Militant jihad prepares the way for conciliatory ‘peaceful Islam’. ‘Peaceful Islam’ then sets up jihad/holy warfare. In this manner, Islam ratchets itself forward, just as a reaper advances into a field, cutting wheat with the forward-and-back, swinging motion of a scythe.
Dualistic Jihad-and-Hegira creates Stockholm Syndrome
Muslims instinctively expect jihadic violence to set up the conditions for conversion to ‘peaceful Islam’ (and so it does), but the ‘miracle’ they perceive is actually the Stockholm syndrome. An example from the Sira illustrates this point:
“Mas’ud leapt upon Sunayna, one of the Jewish merchants with whom his family had social and commercial relations and killed him. The Muslim’s brother complained, saying, ‘Why did you kill him? You have much fat in you belly from his charity.’ Mas’ud answered, ‘By Allah, had Muhammad ordered me to murder you, my brother, I would have cut off your head.’ Whereupon the brother said, ‘Any religion that can bring you to this is indeed wonderful!’ And he accepted Islam.” (Ishaq: 369)
This counterintuitive story from the Sira illustrates how terrorism and the startling threat of fratricide lead to Islamic conversion. After the carnage of 9-11, Muslims around the world claimed without evidence that there was an increase in conversions to Islam. Muslims sincerely believed the viciousness of 9-11 had led to a miraculous admiration for Islam, rather than revulsion. This is a telltale sign that Muslims unconsciously recognize the Stockholm syndrome.
However, victims of the Stockholm syndrome are unaware they have been programmed to endorse violence. Muslims themselves, and their victims, become dissociated through the ratcheting motion of jihad-and-hegira.
Many media discussions nowadays seem to hinge on the answer to the above question.
To support the idea that there is no single Islam, some point to the varied behavior of Muslims and the contradictory aspects of the Qur’an (tolerant verses as against totalitarian verses). Other analysts claim such contradictions are resolved by the Qur’an itself, and point to the Qur’an’s own doctrine of abrogation (Qur’an 2:106 and 16:101). Thus many Muslim scholars of Islam teach that the militant and totalitarian verses produced later in Muhammad’s career abrogate (cancel) the tolerant verses produced earlier in his career. From that point of view, there are no real contradictions and in the end only one Islam, the totalitarian, final, perfected Islam.
However, Bill Warner, who runs the Center for the Study of Political Islam, balances against the doctrine of abrogation a contrary perspective: many Muslims take everything in the Qur’an as eternally true. Warner concludes that Islam is dualistic, not logically consistent. A Muslim can believe two contradictory things at once, so long as the contradiction is present in the Qur’an. From that point of view, while the doctrine of abrogation does to some extent resolve contradictions, it is simultaneously true that it doesn’t — that the whole Qur’an, including both sides of any contradictions in it, is considered by Muslims eternally true. Allah is so dictatorially all powerful that he is not bound by anything, not even logic.
But having found the Qur’an at least somewhat contradictory and dualistic, does Warner stop there? Does he claim there is no single Islam? No. That would be too imprecise an answer. Warner comes out of a scientific background, and tries to drill down into the details. He takes a statistical approach, and looks at the trilogy of core Islamic texts — Qur’an, Hadith, Sira — quantitatively, asking how much of the trilogy is tolerant and peaceful, versus how much is totalitarian and violent. He finds that the percentage of tolerant statements is quite small, of totalitarian statements quite large. So although he doesn’t say there is one Islam, he does find an overwhelmingly predominant form of Islam. For example, in the most canonical hadith collection, Sahih al-Bukhari, Warner finds that over 98% of jihad hadiths refer to violent jihad. This confirms historian Bernard Lewis’ similar contention that in the core Islamic texts, “jihad” almost always means military jihad to defend or expand Muslim power.
So Warner’s view, by getting into specifics, really goes beyond the imprecise alternatives: Islam is One/Islam is Many.
Another perspective that influences the debate about this question is what might be called the “decontructionist” view. Even if you don’t know what the philosophy of “deconstruction” is, there’s a good chance its claims have seeped to some extent into your consciousness by a sort of cultural osmosis. The deconstructionist viewpoint is that a text can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways and can mean just about anything.
The more one thinks about that claim, however, the more it seems a gross exaggeration. While texts have elasticity of meaning to varying degrees, such elasticity is hardly infinite, and that is even more true with texts that are not largely poetic or mythical in content. The Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira are full of quite literal statements and commands. Because of that, Islam’s texts and past history have virtually always steered most interpretation into fairly similar and fairly definite grooves. Islam is not whatever one wants it to be. It is a rather definite historical reality. Many years ago, the eminent historian Bernard Lewis wrote of Islam’s inherent totalitarianism.
So we should not go to the deconstructionist extreme of suggesting that anything can mean anything. While Lewis Carroll or some other fantasist might be able to treat Islam’s core texts as almost a blank slate on which one could write just about any meaning whatever, the people who most seriously and religiously approach Islam’s texts generally go by what the texts actually say. Minor ambiguities of meaning dispersed throughout those texts do not erase their clear overall thrust.
So is there one Islam? Are there many Islams? The answer is much closer to the first alternative, though the second has some validity. The bottom line is that, despite real diversity among Muslims globally, there are also overwhelming commonalities of interpretation worldwide, as numerous international polls of Muslim opinion have shown. While there are many liberal Muslims, totalitarianism, to one degree or another, is and always has been the majority interpretation. It is no accident that the core Islamic region of the world has the worst human rights record of any region on the globe: Islam’s core texts, despite some vagaries, at bottom teach an expansionist theocratic totalitarian program.
Based on the study by Center for the Study of Political Islam
Dr. Bill Warner has done a statistical analysis of the Trilogy (Koran, Hadith, Sira) which cuts through the confusion caused by Dualism in Islam. Visit his site, Political Islam, to learn more. He has authored many books and booklets which are available on his site.