Measuring Extremism

 

Political Islam, By Bill Warner:

So how many times have you heard this? Islamic State cuts off heads or they’re selling sex slaves in Africa and the apologists for Islam say, “Oh, that’s radical, that’s extreme, that’s not real Islam. I know some Muslims at work and they’re fine people; and besides that, it’s just a tiny minority that’s doing all those things.” So, in other words, “We don’t need to worry about it.”

What do they mean by extreme? Certainly cutting off heads falls in that category. But, you know there are other things that are extreme, like beating your wife, child brides, inbreeding (i.e., marrying your first cousin). Those are extreme things too. And what do all these extreme things have in common? They’re all in the Sharia. Because the killing of Kafirs (Jihad) is all in the Sharia, as well as child brides and inbreeding. So what we need to do here is to be able to measure not just radical killing, but all forms of radical ideas. In other words, we need to measure the Sharia. This has all been done for us. Pew Research has done a poll of some 38 nations, and what they did was they studied Muslims and how they feel about the Sharia. This is an in-depth study. Interestingly enough, 28% of all those Muslims who think that the Sharia should rule say that apostates should be killed. This is extreme. Killing somebody because they had a change of conscience and leave their religion—if that’s not extreme, what isn’t? And 28% is not a small minority.

Annihilation

Now, there’s another very interesting statistic in here, and that is: out of the Muslims who want Sharia, 52% of them say that it should only cover Muslims. But, 42% think that the Kafir should be ruled by Islam as well. That’s a disaster! Here’s why: Have you ever wondered what happened to Christianity in the Middle East? Well, I’ll tell you what happened to it. Jihad put the Sharia in place and, once the Christians became Dhimmis ( i.e., second class subjects living in Islamic countries), they were ruled by the Sharia, a system that annihilates Christian civilization. In fact, it annihilates all civilizations. That’s what happened in Afghanistan, and that’s what happened in Pakistan. You see, they used to be Buddhist and Hindu, but the Sharia destroyed them. Sharia destroys and annihilates all Kafir civilizations. Now, it can take a while: for instance, the destruction of Christianity in Turkey took several centuries. But, as soon as the Sharia is in place and rules the Kafir, the Kafir civilization will die. This is more important than killing an individual; we’re talking about entire civilizations.

Reformation?

Now, if you’re a good apologist for Islam, you’ll say, “Well, maybe, but we just need a reform. Christians have had a reform.” Let’s examine the idea of reforming Islam. Let’s start with a simple fact. The Koran is complete, perfect, universal. How do you reform that? And, by the way, you do know there are two different Korans. There is an early Koran written in Mecca, and it’s generally tolerant of others and 64% of the Koran is in Mecca. But then there’s a smaller portion, written in Medina, that’s 36%, and the Medinan Koran calls for the rule of Sharia. Now, how are you going to reform this? Because, you see, the Medinan Koran follows the earlier Meccan Koran and the Koran itself says that it’s stronger. So, the minor part of the Koran is stronger than the major part. You can’t get rid of it; it can’t go away. Actually, those Muslims, the 42% who want the rule of Sharia, are the better Muslims. So, we’re stuck with no reform; it cannot change.

The Tiny Minority?

And we also have to remember this, 42% is not a tiny minority, it is a dominating minority. So, think about that the next time somebody tells you: “Oh, that killing, that’s not real, that’s extreme, and it’s just a tiny minority.”

The Mirage of Political Islam

Miguel Montaner

Miguel Montaner

America should help, not hinder, the secular democrats of the Muslim world.

By 

“You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.”

President Obama delivered these words in his Cairo speech, five years ago today, when he reached out to rehabilitate Islam and Islamic civilization in the eyes of the world — and redeem America in the eyes of the global Muslim community after the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

The Cairo speech was part of the road map based on the advice of the 2008 report “Changing Course: A New Direction for U.S. Relations With the Muslim World,” drafted by the leadership group on United States-Muslim engagement, composed of former senior government officials, both Democrat and Republican, as well as scholars (myself included), political analysts and international relations experts. All of us were concerned about the divide between America and the Muslim world, and we recommended that the new president deliver a major speech in a significant Islamic capital — Cairo, Istanbul, Jakarta or Rabat — directly addressing the Muslim world. That’s what Mr. Obama did at Cairo University on June 4, 2009.

Since then, Egypt has experienced the “Arab Spring,” followed first by the Muslim Brotherhood’s election to power, and then its downfall. If Mr. Obama’s message of 2009 had been conveyed again more forcefully to Egypt’s former president, Mohamed Morsi, before he was ousted by the army last July, the hopes of Arabs and Muslims around the world after the Cairo speech might not have been as disappointed as they are today.

Sadly, every one of the “ingredients” for democracy listed by Mr. Obama was flouted by Mr. Morsi during his tumultuous year in office. He forced the passage of the Muslim Brotherhood’s 2012 constitution, issued edicts imposing himself over the judiciary, failed to provide protections to Coptic Christians, started vendettas against journalists and activists and treated the secular opposition as enemies to be excluded from political life. In short, the Egyptian president furthered the political aims of the Muslim Brotherhood at the expense of the nation, exactly as Mr. Obama had cautioned against.

The result is that the Obama administration has found itself in an uncomfortable position. As the president remarked to the United Nations General Assembly last September, “America has been attacked by all sides of this internal conflict, simultaneously accused of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, and engineering their removal of power.”

But if the administration had been more critical of the Brotherhood’s infringements of democratic rights, it might have avoided this situation. Instead, when asked about Mr. Morsi’s fiat of November 2012 that gave his regime extraordinary powers, a State Department spokesman responded, “this is an Egyptian political process.” Mr. Obama may have said that “elections alone do not equal democracy,” but America acted as though elections in Egypt were sufficient. In the words of America’s ambassador to Egypt, Anne Patterson, “the fact is they ran in a legitimate election and won” — as if that settled the issue of the Brotherhood’s fitness for democratic rule.

Read more at New York Times

Mustapha Tlilia novelist and a research scholar at New York University, is the founder and director of the N.Y.U. Center for Dialogues: Islamic World – U.S. – the West.

The Blair Doctrine

ipeI-450x313by Daniel Greenfield:

Tony Blair’s latest speech on Islam is significant as much for what it doesn’t mention as for what it does. Not long ago, a speech of this sort would have been rich with contrasts between dictatorship and democracy. Democracy, the audience would have been told solemnly, equals freedom and modernity.

Instead Blair mentions the word ‘democracy’ only three times.

The first time he’s referring to Israel and the second time he disavows the entire program of dropping elections on Muslim countries and expecting their populations to make the right choices. Instead he argues,

“Democracy cannot function except as a way of thinking as well as voting. You put your view; you may lose; you try to win next time; or you win but you accept that you may lose next time. That is not the way that the Islamist ideology works.”

This is very much a post-Arab Spring speech and though he offers obligatory praise of that over-hyped phenomenon, the lessons he has drawn from its failure make for a changed perspective.

How changed? Blair endorses the Egyptian popular overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood and urges support for the new government within the larger context of “supporting and assisting” those who take on “Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood”.

That’s an impossible position in Washington D.C., but it emerges naturally out of an understanding that democracy isn’t enough and that an Islamist political victory inherently dismantles democracy.

“Islamist ideology”, Blair says, has an “exclusivist” ultimate goal, which is “not a society which someone else can change after winning an election”. The Muslim Brotherhood and terrorist groups, he says, are both part of an “overall ideology” in which “such extremism can take root”. They are all totalitarian group that differ on “how to achieve the goals of Islamism” rather than on “what those goals are.”

Democracy is downright destructive in a political landscape in which Islamic political forces compete. Instead Blair’s new doctrine replaces democracy with religious freedom.

The former British Prime Minister calls for supporting “the principles of religious freedom and open, rule based economies.  It means helping those countries whose people wish to embrace those principles to achieve them. Where there has been revolution, we should be on the side of those who support those principles and opposed to those who would thwart them.”

That position, Blair continues, leads him to support the Egyptian uprising against the Muslim Brotherhood and even interim Assad rule until a final agreement is concluded.

While that may not seem like much, imagine the last 15 years if the obsession with using democracy to replace dictatorships had instead been turned to promoting religious freedom at the expense of Islamic rule. Imagine if we made tolerance for Christians and other religious minorities into the defining line instead of the meaningless one of holding majority rule Muslim elections.

The Blair Doctrine surgically replaces democracy with religious freedom while leaving the larger worldview so common in European and American political circles untouched so that it does not seem like a shift, but a natural adaptation to the failures of the Arab Spring.

Blair cannot and will not say that the problem with democracy in countries with an Islamic majority is the tyranny of the majority, nor does he ever use the word ‘secularism’, and his rhetoric is largely dependent on assumptions made in the aftermath of the Cold War by a comfortable West.

He speaks positively of globalization, without conceding that the UK has a terrorism crisis largely because of it. He briefly mentions the export of ‘radicalism’ from the Middle East, but aside from the Muslim Brotherhood’s growing power in Europe, he doesn’t elaborate.

To a multicultural left that already embraces Burkas and FGM, his speech is rage fodder. But while Blair may have helped turn Islam into a problem in the UK, it’s his foes on the left who have championed its worst aspects.

Tony Blair is no Geert Wilders and the UK’s problem with Islam is in no small part of his making due to his government’s immigration policies, but revolutionary ideas are more likely to be accepted from thoroughly establishment sources.

In his speech, Blair argues that reactionary Islamic rule is the problem, rather than mere tyranny. It’s a shift that invalidates the entire political Islam movement behind the Arab Spring. And for all the many ways that he covers his tracks, subdividing Islam from Islamism, he does hold a nearly firm line on Islamic rule. That is a rarity in a world order which had come to embrace political Islam as the future.

Read more at Front Page

Also see:

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

Sunna – Deceiving the Politically Gullible

TAQIYYA+SOftening+hearts+of+non+believer+fingers+crossedPolitical Islam, By Bill Warner:

One of the most discouraging things about dealing with Islam is how our leadership has learned nothing in the years since Sept 11, 2001. Leadership’s favorite fantasy is that Islam is whatever a Muslim wants to say it is. So if you want a nice Islam, ask a nice imam. But, would a Muslim deceive the Kafir (non-Muslim)? Mohammed did.

 

Necessity and Obligation

Political Islam, by Bill Warner:

The answer to the demands of the Sharia is a full application of Sharia. In particular, we need to understand how necessity can abrogate obligation.

Subjective Fundamental Errors

 

Bill Warner

Bill Warner

Political Islam, By Bill Warner:

[This newsletter is the continuation of a debate begun with a rabbi’s criticism of an earlier essay, Fundamental Errors. The set off text is the rabbi’s comments.]

###
Your response [referring to the newsletter Fundamental Errors] here is filled with errors of fact as is almost everything people like you publish about Islam.
###

This is an excellent starting point—facts. When it comes to Islam, I use the facts of the Koran, Sira and Hadith. Briefly, the Koran says over 90 times that Mohammed is the perfect life example. Where do we find Mohammed? We find him in the Sira (his biography) and the Hadith (his traditions). Since most people think that the Koran is the bible of Islam, it is interesting to see the relative sizes of the three texts:

Koran Sira Hadith
14% 26% 60%

Relative Sizes of Islamic Texts

Islam is 14% Allah and 86% Mohammed. Islam can be defined as the political/religious doctrine found in the Trilogy. If it is in the Trilogy it is Islam. To know Islam, know Allah and Mohammed, the only two Muslims you need to know. Said another way, if a claim is made about Islam that cannot be traced back to Mohammed and Allah, then it is not Islam. And Islam cannot be reformed, by its very structure. Reforming Islam means reforming Allah and Mohammed. One does not reform perfection.

###
The basic error is in trying to attribute to Islam in general what is only true of the kind of political Islamists who are trying to remove modern influences from the Muslim world.
###

Islam is not defined by Islamists or any other kind of Muslim. The attributes of Islam come from its source texts, influences that are 1400 years old—Mohammed and Allah. It is critical to understand that Muslims do not cause Islam. Islam causes Muslims. Islam is a doctrine that insists that every Muslim submit to a perfect, universal, eternal Koran, the exact words of the only god. A Koran that is perfect down to the smallest detail. Interpretation and context do not allow any escape from this boundary. A Muslim’s only practical way to temper Islam is by denying or ignoring the texts.

There is a confusion about Islam that comes from the Trilogy. There are two Korans and two Mohammeds, hence two Islams. The first Islam is found when Mohammed lived in Mecca and was a religious teacher. The second Islam is found in Medina and is political and mostly about jihad. His two careers are found in the Sira. He preached Islam for 13 years and garnered about 150 Muslims. He went to Medina, where be became a politician and jihadist. In three years he annihilated the Jews. In the last 9 years of his life he averaged a jihadic event of violence on the average of every 6 weeks. When he died every Arab was a Muslim. Politics is what made Mohammed successful. It is the politics that I care about. I don’t give a rip about the religion of Islam.

So here we have two very different Mohammeds. Both are pure Sunna and hence pure Islam. The logical problem this dualism causes is when people meet a nice Muslim, they think that Islam is nice and hence, jihad is not Islam. But both the religious Muslims and the jihadists are all good Muslims. They just follow two different Islams and can go back and forth as needed.

###
You plainly depend on most of your readings never having read the Koran or studied Islamic history, culture, philosophy, etc. Most of the Koran is about how to live a good life.
###

I have a library of about 250 books on Koran, Mohammed, Islamic history and culture and have studied Islam since 1970. For about 10 years after 9/11 I read the Koran every day, many days for hours. I publish 3 different Korans.

Actually, most of the Koran is not about how to lead a good life, or a least not a life that is not harmful to others. Here are three examples:
1. About 24% of the Koran written in Medina is about jihad
2. About 17% of the Medinan Koran is devoted to Jew hatred.
3. 71% of all mentions of women in the Koran subjugate women.

###
Your assertion that Islam has no version of the Golden Rule is patently false. Here are two examples from the Hadith.
“None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.”
“That which you want for yourself, seek for mankind.”[63]
Those are two of several.
###

[I cannot locate the second reference about mankind, the first is from Bukhari, the primary hadith collector.] The word brother is used in two ways in Bukhari. The first meaning is an actual blood brother, sharing the same mother or father. The second meaning is another Muslim. There are a total of 209 hadiths that refer to the word “brother” and of these, 113 hadiths are about spiritual brotherhood. In every case a brother is a brother to another Muslim, not a Kafir.

Bukhari 3, 43, 622 Allah’s Apostle said, “A Muslim is a brother of another Muslim, so he should not oppress him, nor should he hand him over to an oppressor. Whoever fulfilled the needs of his brother, Allah will fulfill his needs; whoever brought his (Muslim) brother out of a discomfort, Allah will bring him out of the discomforts of the Day of Resurrection, and whoever screened a Muslim, Allah will screen him on the Day of Resurrection . “

Hadiths that say a Muslim is to love his brother do not apply to Kafirs. The Kafir is outside the Islamic pseudo-Golden Rule.

Let us go one step further with the Golden Rule. Mohammed is the perfect Muslim. Let us examine his status a good neighbor. When he was in Mecca, he argued with every Meccan. The reason that the Meccans drove him out of town was he was so divisive. When he moved to Medina, as soon as he consolidated his political power, he started jihad against the Meccans and after that all pagans. He destroyed the half of Medina that was Jewish. After his jihad against the pagans was successful, he turned north to attack the Christians in Syria. Mohammed attacked every single neighbor he had. Mohammed was a neighbor who caused every neighbor to suffer. So much for the Golden Rule.

This Golden Rule is so important that we need to drive the final nail in the casket. There are 13 verses in the Koran that refer to friendship. Each of them declares that a Muslim is not the friend of a Kafir. Here is one verse:

Koran 5:51 Oh, believers, do not take the Jews or Christians as friends. They are but one another’s friends. If any one of you take them for his friends, he surely is one of them. Allah will not guide the evildoers.

There is no Golden Rule in Islam.

###
In the usual passive aggressive manner you accuse me of “Christo-phobia.” In fact I have been actively involved with interfaith activities since I was a teenager. In my community I am very welcome as a teacher in local churches.

I am quite familiar with the dark side of Islamic history and also the dark side of Christian history, neither of which is over. The army of the Lord in east and central Africa. There are hundreds of Christian hate groups in our country. None of these is normative Christianity just as Al-Qaeda is not normative Islam.
###

I cannot comment on hundreds of Christian hate groups. Please name a few. Why is it that you cannot discuss Islam without bringing in Christianity? I hold that Islam is sui generis, a thing unto itself, without parallel. You seem to hold that Islam cannot be discussed without a comparison to Christianity. Why?

But I can deal with al Qaeda as being normative. In Islam normative can have only one meaning—adherence to Islamic doctrine as found in Koran, Sira and Hadith. To imitate Mohammed is Islamic normal and al Qaeda follows the example of Mohammed, the jihadist. Do you ever read their writings? They are constantly quoting the Medinan Koran and Sunna. Of course, the nice Muslim you meet at work is also normative Islam and quotes Meccan Koran. Dualism again. The nice Muslim and the jihadist are both true Muslims.

###
The concept of jihad is misused alike by today’s Jihadists and by Islamophobes. The term primarily refers to the personal struggle of the individual to overcome temptation and like a good life. The lesser jihad refers to holy wars in defense of Islam. Jihadis comfort themselves for their crimes by thinking that fighting against the West and modernity in general even as they violate the explicit rules of jihad against attacking noncombatants.
###

Jihad is NOT primarily about personal struggle. Bukhari contains 645,745 words and he devotes 132,315 words to jihad. Of these words devoted to jihad, 2347 words can be interpreted as spiritual jihad. Only1.7% of all jihad hadiths (2347 / 132,315 = 0.017, 1.7%) are devoted to spiritual jihad. According to Bukhari, 98.3% of all jihad hadiths are about killing Kafirs and 1.7% of them are about spiritual struggle. The jihadists and the “Islamophobes” (and I am an Islamo-critic) have it correct and you, sir, are wrong. So says Bukhari.

If you would read the Sira (Mohammed’s canonical biography) you will notice that 68% of the text is devoted to jihad and each and every event of jihad is about war against the Kafir. There is no jihad as spiritual struggle in the Sira.

And now let’s deal with “not harming non-combatants”. You are half right, but since Islamic doctrine is always dualistic, that means there are hadith which say the opposite. Here are two examples that determine the rules of jihad. They contradict each other, so the resolution is that either can be used as needed. (The M in the index number means abu Muslim, a canonical hadith collector)

M019,4319 in one of Mohammed’s battles, it was discovered that a woman had been killed by the Muslims; however, he did not approve of killing women and children.

M019,4321 Mohammed said, “they are from them,” when told of the killing of women and children by Muslims during a raid.

###
I am guessing that you are a fundamentalist Christian and an adherent of right-wing politics, because that is where most of this kind of literature comes from these days.
###

Actually, your guess is wrong. I am an apostate of liberal/progressive politics. I reject both political parties and consider them to be the Party of Evil and the Party of Stupid. I am probably more libertarian than anything else. I was raised a Christian, but practiced Buddhism up until 9/11. I claim no religion since that date.

###
I have been active in standing up to Islamic hatreds for decades including as an NGO delegate at UN meetings. I have done it on campus, in communal settings, and elsewhere.

I became active in interfaith work because I grew up in a community with a lot of Holocaust survivors. My rabbi, who was a survivor who had grown up in Nazi Germany, believed that it was poor relations among different faith groups that allowed the Nazis to sell the German people on demonizing Jews.

I know where teaching hate leads to and that is Auschwitz. Your response to me denies you are a hate group publishing hate literature. I have dealt with such things all of my life and I know it when I see it and I see it in you.
###

Since you claim to have the power to detect hate, give me your hate evaluation about this event taken from the Sira:

Ishaq554 The Apostle of Allah said, “Kill any Jew who falls into your power.” Hearing this Muhayyisa fell upon a Jewish merchant who was a business associate and killed him. Muhayyisa’s brother was not a Muslim and asked him how he could kill a man who had been his friend and partner in many business deals. The Muslim said that if Mohammed had asked him to kill his brother he would have done it immediately. His brother said, “You mean that if Mohammed said to cut off my head you would do it?” “Yes,” was the reply. The older brother then said, “By Allah, any religion which brings you to this is marvelous.” And he decided then and there to become a Muslim.

You see, I hate this kind of Jew hatred material. I also hate the Koranic subjugation of women. I hate jihad. I hate Islamic dualistic ethics. I hate the Islamic war against Christians. I hate the Islamic slave doctrine. I hate the persecution of pagans. I hate child brides. I hate the Sharia which says that I am a third class citizen. Where do you stand on these issues?

“I know it [hate] when I see it” Your standards of “hate” are subjective. No where do you advance a single objective rule to be used to determine whether something is hate or not. If you don’t like it, it is hate, but it is your personal subjective judgment. And on this issue we see the great divide between us. My statements are based on facts that can be verified by any third party. That is the basis of objectivity.

###
I am saddened and frightened by the promotion of hatred you represent. I know all too well how similar it is to accusations against Jews in the last century. You are no better than Fr. Coughlin and seem to me to be his spiritual brother.
###

The “hatred that I represent” is fact-based reasoning. Go back over what is here—extensive use of Islamic source doctrine. Why is that hate? Why is your righteous fantasy so virtuous and why is my fact-based reasoning called hatred? What is your moral basis?

I respect you and assume that our differences are about reason and logic. Even though I have studied Islam for over 40 years, you assert that I am ignorant and I am morally impaired. Facts are never hatred. Since your arguments fade in the light of Islamic doctrine, you turn to name calling. You shoot the messenger.

I look forward to your response.

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

 

The Guarantee Clause: Congress’ Duty to Oppose Theocracy in the United States

082411_koran-constitution-lgBy Robert M. Petrusak:

[Editor’s note: New Gingrich has called for a Federal ban on Sharia law in America.]

Theocracy is inherently oppressive and contrary to America’s core values. It regards God as the sovereign and source of law. It therefore places the coercive power of the state–including interpretation and enforcement of law–in the hands of believers. It excludes non-believers from the body politic and brings them suffering. In total contrast, the Declaration of Independence regards God not as a source of coercive power, but as a guarantor of inalienable rights including liberty and equality. The Declaration states that government derives its sovereign authority or “just powers” not from God, but “from the consent of the governed.” This concept of popular sovereignty is reflected not only in the preamble of the Constitution, but also in the “Guarantee Clause” of Article IV, Section 4 which obligates the federal government to preserve a republican form of government in every state. The Constitution also precludes theocracy through the First Amendment’s ban on laws respecting establishments of religion or prohibiting “free exercise” of religious beliefs.

Political Islam or “Islamism” is theocratic. It may be defined as a belief that Islam should control society and politics, not simply personal religious life. Accordingly to the eminent scholar Bernard Lewis, the ideal Islamic polity recognizes God as sole sovereign and law-giver and assigns believers the task of spreading His revelation until the entire world accepts it. This is to be achieved by extending the authority and membership of the community that follows God’s law, the Shariah, which deals with the acquisition and exercise of power and the duties of ruler and subject. [1] Accordingly, Shariah is not simply a prescription for exercising personal belief through activity such as prayer and diet. It is a system of laws that affects the conduct of both believers and non- believers in Islamic theocracies. More ominously, expansion of the community that regards God as sovereign suggests contraction and disempowerment of the community which does not.

Political Islam therefore challenges the United States Constitution, particularly its embrace of liberty, equality, and popular sovereignty. There is concern that this challenge includes not only violent terrorism but an ideological struggle against non-Islamic courts and legal systems and the principle that the people, not God, are the source of political and legal authority .There is similarly concern that Islamists seek to establish “functionally Islamic governments” in every nation [2] and that toward this end, they will create divisive alternative communities by insinuating Islamic rules of conduct for the temporal world into courts and other institutions. There is even concern that Islamism will limit traditional free speech through application of its restrictions on defamation of religion or blasphemy. [3]

Such concerns have resulted in “anti-shariah legislation” in various states and subsequent court battles over whether such laws violate the constitutional rights of Muslims. However, such concerns raise issues of national importance because efforts to make public institutions Shariah-compliant may violate not only the First Amendment’s provisions on religion or free speech but also the Fourteenth Amendment and Article VI of the Constitution. The former guarantees due process and equal protection; the latter proclaims the supremacy of federal statutes, treaties and constitutional provisions. Moreover, Article IV, Section 4 creates an affirmative federal obligation to guarantee a non-theocratic, “Republican Form of Government” in every state.

The very essence of republican government is the belief that sovereignty rests with the people. [4]. Our Constitution is derived exclusively from the people and alterable only by them through elected representatives. Similarly, elected representatives and elected or duly-appointed judges, not religious leaders, enact and interpret our statutory law. [5] These principles of popular sovereignty support the Article IV guarantee of republican government and are related to the concept of equality. Thus, the guarantee clause would be invoked in the struggle against slavery and in the post-Civil War struggle to include freed slaves in the body politic. [6] In this regard, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection evolved from our concept of republican government, [7] and a state that denies this fundamental right similarly violates Article IV, Section 4. The introduction into American courts, of laws or legal principles derived from a sovereign God or religious texts cannot be tolerated and the federal government has a clear responsibility to keep theocracy out of state courts and other public institutions.

Read more at Right Side News