Bill Warner: Moderate Muslims Cannot Save Us

moderate_radical-islamPolitical Islam, by Bill Warner, Sept. 7, 2016:

It is frequently said that moderate Muslims can solve the problem of jihad and terror. Everyone has met nice Muslims, some of whom are willing to admit that Islam has problems and may even say that Islamic State is bad. Moderate Muslims are nice people who come to interfaith events, interviews and talks at schools and churches. Moderate Muslims even tell us that they are the real victim, not the Kafir.

Here is the problem—Islam cannot be changed by anybody, moderate or not. Islam is the civilizational doctrine found in the Koran, Sira and Hadith. Nobody can change the Sunna and the Koran. Their words are eternal, perfect and universal. Nobody can change Islam. It is fixed and frozen by its unalterable doctrine.

What we call moderation is simply ignoring the violence and hate. But the jihad cannot be removed, it can only be denied by ignoring it. A moderate has the same Allah and Mohammed that a jihadist has.

Moderate Islam is Islam light, Islam ignored. Islam changes Muslims; Muslims can only choose not to practice the dark side of Islam, but they cannot change it or get rid of it. Islamic doctrine is fixed, eternal, unchangeable and forever.

***

CJR:

For reformist Muslims like Raheel Raza, who recently spoke at the Act for America 2016 conference, Islamic doctrine is interpreted by leaving all objectionable verses out as “only applicable in the 7th century”.  One current effort underway by the reform movement is to create a Quran only Islam. The problem is, how do you convince millions of Muslims and the authorities of Islam at Al Azhar University that this is legitimate? And how do you come up with a peaceful interpretation of Quran 9:29: “Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture (Jews and Christians) – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humiliated.”

For a discussion on why it is impossible to reform Islam without essentially creating a new religion read CounterJihad’s recent piece by Immanuel Al-Manteeqi:

A Woman Under Sharia: 8 Reasons Why Islamic Law Endangers Women

Here is the relevant excerpt:

Conclusion and a Possible Pathway for Reform.

…Now, the job of Western leaders and those in the intelligence community is to educate themselves about the underlying religious motivations of Islamists (and not censor talk about Islam in willful blindness). Muslim reformers, on the other hand, are tasked with the more difficult job of reforming Islam,and rejecting interpretations or Islamic source texts that are at odds with contemporary Western and egalitarian values.

Muslim reformers need to focus on cultivating a peaceful and tolerant Islam, one that bestows a much higher place to women than traditional Islam, and one which is not a prisoner to the above- interpretations or source texts.

However, as mentioned above, Muslim reformers should not just dismiss problematic stories like that of Ṣafiyya as ahistorical or unislamic whilst simultaneously accepting other material in the same earliest sources as being historical and Islamic. This is unlikely to convince any Muslim with a proclivity to the less palatable interpretations of Islam, and certainly not those who are intimately familiar with the source texts.

These Muslims, especially the non-Western ones, will immediately indict the Muslim reformer as succumbing to Westernizing influences in his/her understanding of Islam. They will challenge the reformer to explain why what he/she happens to find unpalatable in the sources is ahistorical or unislamic, and why what he/she finds palatable is historical or Islamic. The reformer will very likely be unable to provide a satisfactory answer here.

So Muslim reformers need a way to reform Islam without playing fast and loose with the source texts, an endeavor which is bound to fail (the proof of this is that so far it has failed miserably). Now, the reformation of Islam is a burden that moderate Muslims must carry themselves—reform cannot be imposed from outside the Muslim umma, but must arise naturally and organically within it. In a word, it is for Muslims themselves to go about the very difficult task of reforming Islam.

That being said, I suggest that one promising pathway of reform, at least one that is much more promising than cherry-picking what to believe in the early sources, is the methodology that is advocated by Ahmad Ṣubḥī Manṣūr, an Egyptian graduate of al-Azhar. Manṣūr is a prominent Muslim reformist who is a former Azharī PhD graduate and Azharī professor.

His reformist agenda is very simple: Islam should be based on the Qur’ān alone. To this end, he has written a whole book entitled al-Qur’ān wa Kafa (“the Qur’ān is Sufficient”) wherein he defends the Qur’ān-only view, of which he is currently and incontrovertibly the number-one proponent.

Manṣūr believes that the extra-Qur’ānic Islamic sources, written as they were many generations after Muhammad’s death, are historically unreliable, and are a byproduct of a later sectarian milieu with concerns that were alien to the time of Muhammad and the Qur’ān.[31] Indeed, he describes much of the unpalatable material found in the ahādīth as “garbage.”

An upshot of his view is that many of the unpalatable teachings in mainstream Islam are not found in the Qur’ān, but in the extra-Qur’ānic sources, and so will be eliminated from his version of Islam. Examples of unpalatable doctrines or events that are not found in the Qur’ān but are present in the extra-Qur’ānic sources are as follows: the view that women make up most of hellfire and are lacking in faith and intelligence; the view that apostates should be killed; the stories that Muhammad enslaved women and had (ostensibly non-consensual) sexual relations with some female captives; the view that Muhammad wanted Jews and Christians expelled from the Arabian peninsula; the view that people should be fought until they believe in Allah and Muhammad’s prophethood, etc.

It must be noted that the view that Islam should be based solely on the Qur’ān and not on the extra-Qur’ānic sources is not something that is completely without intellectual merit. The extra-Qur’ānic sources of Islam are in fact written long after Muhammad’s death and contradict each other on many important points. That a ḥadīthin Sahih al-Bukhari has Muhammad saying that whoever changes his (Islamic) religion should be killed is hardly good evidence that Muhammad said such a thing.

Furthermore, eminent Western (non-Muslim) scholars of Islam, like Gabriel Said Reynolds of the University of Notre Dame, consider the extra-Qur’ānic Islamic sources, viz., the sīyar (plural ofsīra), tafasīr (plural of tafsīr), and aḥadīth (plural of ḥadīth), to be historically unreliable for constructing the context of the Qur’ān, or giving us accurate information about Muhammad.[32] He views many of the extra-Qur’ānic stories as being Midrashic interpretations of enigmatic Qur’ānic verses that should be read as secondary literature rather than as historical accounts.

All this being said, the putative reformist pathway of Manṣūr is not without its demerits. First, the Sunna (or way of Muhammad) is firmly entrenched in early Islam and many Muslims would see a Qur’ān-only Islam as being very foreign from their understanding of the religion. And they would be correct. Qur’ān-only Islam is an alien form of Islam, after all, most of Islamic praxis today is based not on the Qur’ān but  on the extra-Qur’ānic sources (particularly the aḥadīth); for example, the obligation to pray five times a day is not something that is taught in the Qur’ān, but in the extra-Qur’ānic source materials.[33] So in one sense, a Qur’ān-only Islam is arguably a different religion than the mainstream Islam that is practiced today. [emphasis added]

Second, most scholars of Islam, whether Muslim scholars in Muslim countries, orientalist scholars, or otherwise, do believe that while the earliest extra-Qur’ānic Islamic sources are embellished, even to a high degree, they nevertheless retain a solid core of historical truth. Scholars like Reynolds are, as he himself notes, in the minority here. Orientalists still follow the methodology of the great Islamicist, Theodore Noldeke (1836 – 1930), which is different from the traditional Muslim approach to the sources only insofar as it utilizes a more critical approach.[34]

Third, while the Qur’ān-only approach does eliminate many things that are unpalatable to a Western audience, one is still left with apparently unpalatable verses in the Qur’ān. Some Qur’ānic verses, like the ones mentioned earlier in this article, will need to be explained by Muslim reformers. However, given that the Qur’ān is, as the Islamicist F.E., Peters notes, “a text without a context,”[35]there is much room for interpretive maneuvering.[36]

All things being equal, the less that is known about the context of an ancient text, the greater the plausible interpretations of the text. This gives Qur’ān-only Muslims much greater leeway in explaining the prima facie unpalatable verses than Christians and Jews have in explaining away the violent or unpalatable elements in the Old Testament (the context of which are quite clearly stated in the text itself).

This is just one of a few putative approaches that Muslim reformers can adopt in order to combat certain religious doctrines that are not compatible with an egalitarian and Western ethic. Whatever the path that Muslim reformers take, it will certainly be an uphill battle for them. Manṣūr himself was tried by an Azharī tribunal and expelled from the University in 1987. And after being on the receiving end of many death threats for his unorthodox views, he sought political asylum in the United States and was granted it in 2002.

More recently, a young reformist, Islam al-Buhayrī, was imprisoned by ʿAbd al-Fatah al-Sisi’s “secular” Egyptian government for his vociferous efforts to reject much of what is unpalatable in the mainstream Islamic tradition. Likewise, Sayyid Al-Qumni is currently being taken to court in Egypt for his allegedly blasphemous reformist views. These courageous reformers are leading the drive towards reforming Islam, but when it comes to women under sharia, Muslim women themselves should be more proactive and they should take the lead in demanding equal treatment.

As can be seen from the above, there is much in the Islamic source texts that is not compatible with contemporary Western conceptions of the equality of man and woman. However, there are possible pathways for reforming these elements of Islam. And reformists who apply an intellectually consistent methodology, people like Dr. Manṣūr, should be encouraged.

Totalitarian Islam

behead-those-who-insult-islam-600x290Political Islam, Aug 16 2016 | by Bill Warner

Totalitarianism is a political doctrine that seeks to control all aspects of a society, its economy, its laws and government, its culture.

Islam is a complete way of life, a total civilization, not just a religion. It is also a culture and a political system of Sharia laws which establish its supremacy. There is no aspect of personal and public life that is not included in the Sharia.

Not just Muslims but all people must submit to the Sharia. The very name, Islam, means to submit, submit to Mohammed and the Koran in all things: religious, political and cultural.

Mohammed practiced totalitarianism. All people around him had to submit to his demands. After Arabia submitted, Mohammed left Arabia and began his mission to have Sharia rule the world.

Both the Koran and Mohammed command the terror of jihad on non-Muslims or Kafirs until Islam dominates. After Mohammed died, the caliphs killed all apostates and conquered all the Middle East and northern Africa.

After Islam enters a society, over time, the society becomes totally Islamic. This is totalitarianism.

Bill Warner, PhD: No Sympathy for Kafirs

Published on Jun 28, 2016 by Political Islam

Brain physiology is such that we feel good when we help others. The Golden Rule, treating others as we would be treated, is hard wired into our physical makeup. However, Mohammed attacked each and every neighbor. Attacking your neighbors is not an expression of the Golden Rule. But, there is no Golden Rule in Islam.

A Kafir is worse than an animal and is hated by Allah. Twelve verses in the Koran say that a Muslim can be friendly to a Kafir, but should never be a true friend. Sympathy allows us to put ourselves in the place of others. This sympathy is outside of Islamic doctrine. In Islamic doctrine those Muslims who are true friends with a Kafir are not truly Islamic.

My personal opinion is that this lack of sympathy for Kafirs is the worst part of Islam. The Koran places barriers between Muslims and Kafir, which violates the idea of humanity being of one spirit.

TrilogyKafir_72dpi

Bill Warner: Islam uses a calendar while we’re using a watch

Published on Jun 6, 2016 by The Rubin Report

Dr. Bill Warner (Center for the Study of Political Islam) joins Dave Rubin, discussing his mission to educate the world about political Islam.

Bill Warner: Winning the Jihad War

maxresdefault-8

Political Islam, by Bill Warner, June 14, 2016:

The Kafirs lost 50 to 1 in the Orlando nightclub jihad.

The reason for choosing to kill homosexuals is found in Islamic doctrine. The Koran condemns homosexuals, but offers no penalty for the crime. The Hadith (traditions of Mohammed) calls for a death sentence.

But this latest jihad killing is just one of thousands that have happened around the world. Why are we losing? We are losing the war, because we keep offering reasons to excuse Islam for the jihad.

Jihadists are never lone wolves. Every jihadist has a perfect partner in the jihad in Mohammed and Allah.

Don’t see, don’t tell. Actually, we have a stupid motto of: “If you see something, say something.” But if you report a problem about a Muslim, it will be ignored and you can be called a bigot.

We accept Sharia as another set of religious laws, like Jewish law. However, the Sharia contains evil in the form of jihad, hatred of Kafirs, killing homosexuals and apostates. All of Sharia is contaminated with evil.

We call jihad extremism. But 24% of the Koran of Medina is about jihad. If it is in the Islamic doctrine, then it is not extreme, but normal.

We call jihad imams extremist. If an imam talks about the doctrine of jihad, he is not extreme, but speaking about doctrine.

We say that Islam needs reform. How do you reform a Koran that is complete, perfect, universal and eternal?

Those who talk about political Islam are called Muslim haters, but we just talk about a political doctrine.

We cannot criticize a religion (except Christianity). Well, political Islam is not a religion, it is a political system.

Our politicians back tying the hands of law enforcement. Clergy defend Islam and refuse to complain about the killing of Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists.

So, how do we win? Our strategy: It’s the Islam, stupid! We need to attack a political doctrine by knowing it and use the right language. Every Muslim shall be held accountable for all of the jihad, Kafir hating actions and words of Mohammed and Allah. We must defeat political Islam by using political attack methods of humor, irony, ridicule and criticism of a political system.

It’s the Islam, stupid!

The Pope and the Imam

Published on Jun 7, 2016 by Political Islam

Pope Francis met with a high level imam in order to spread peace and co-existence. The Pope is willing to ignore 1400 years of jihad against Christians to talk about peace. But peace in Islam only comes after submission. Co-existence in Islam comes when the Kafir becomes a dhimmi and accepts Sharia law.

The last Pope to talk about the history of Islamic murder of Christians caused Muslims to riot and kill.

This Pope calls terrorism the problem, not jihad. He also uses the phony phrase “true Islam” as if jihad is not true Islam. The shop-worn word “extremist” is used to divorce the doctrine of Islam from reality of current events and history.

The imam spoke the only word of truth: “We should not treat Muslims as a terrorist threat.” The threat is not Muslims; the threat is the doctrine of political Islam.

The Pope also brought home Muslim migrants, not Christian refugees from Islamic persecution. The Pope, Christians and everybody else ignore the suffering of Christians.

The Pope is no different from the ignorant Protestants and Jews. Ignorance is the problem, ignorance of the political nature of Islam.

Bigot, Racist, Hater, Islamophobe

oic-erasing-freedom-of-speech-edited-1

Political Islam, by Bill Warner, May 25, 2016:

When my talk was announced recently, the “virtuous” progressives call a critic a bigot. They did not produce a single fact, but said that a leftist group claimed that I was one of the chief Muslim bashers. Which is very odd since I don’t talk about Muslims, just Mohammed and Allah. I am an opponent of political Islam, not Muslims.

They charge me with presenting a “slanted” view of Islam, which is true. Three different views of Islam are demonstrated by the reaction to the day that Mohammed beheaded 800 Jews. Muslims see it as a day of victory; apologists see it as just another historic event. My view is that of a Kafir – beheading the Jews because they said that Mohammed was not a prophet – was an evil act. If you speak about Islamic political doctrine the apologists say you are a bigot.

A clergyman weighed in to say that I do not appreciate the vibrancy of Muslim culture. He is right. I only care about political Islam. I would hope that he would care about the brutality of Islam about Christians in Africa and the Middle East, but he is silent about that evil.

A community college president said that I should be forbidden to speak. This is symptomatic about schools becoming centers of ideology, not fact-based reasoning.

Why all of the insults? It is the only weapon of the ignorant.

Islam and Liberal Principles

Published on Apr 27, 2016 by Political Islam

Bill Maher is a self-declared liberal who has the courage and sense to condemn Islam’s brutality against women. And Mr. Maher gets the same response from liberals that I get. He is called a bigot. But, look at what Islam does to liberal principles. I used Wikipedia to get this list:

Freedom of speech: Sharia does not allow anybody to say anything negative about Mohammed and Allah.

Freedom of press: Mohammed cartoons.

Freedom of religion: An apostate from Islam can be killed. Even an atheist wants people to be free to choose what they believe.

Civil rights: all non-Muslims are Kafirs, who are third class subjects under Sharia law.

Democratic society: A Kafir does not have the same rights as a Muslim under Islam.

Secular governments: Secular is not Sharia. Islamic government is a theocracy.

Why do liberals and progressives defend an Islam that will destroy all they find so valuable?

A Comparison of Violence in the Bible and the Koran

April 13 2016, by Bill Warner

A recent study  makes the claim that the Bible is as violent as the Koran. Hence there is no need to worry about with Islam. It is just like Christianity and Judaism.

My only interest is in political violence, not when Cain killed Able. Political violence is when a group attacks those outside of it. It is political when Muslims kill Kafirs in jihad, for instance. This eliminates counting personal violence and internal wars.

We want to measure ideas, so we count more than individual sentences. We need to count all the content that applies to the political violence.

There is no political violence in the New Testament, There are 34,000 words about political violence in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and 328,000 in the Koran, Sira (life of Mohammed) and the Hadith (his traditions). In short, there is nearly 10 times as much political violence in Islamic doctrine than there is in the Bible.

The violence in the Old Testament is historical in nature, not prescriptive. The violence in Islam is prescriptive applicable to all people and times. Jihad is forever.

violence in texts

This data all makes sense. It will be Muslims committing murder in the morning news, not Methodists or Mennonites.

Hate Can Be a Virtue

de9a474abe02de62159350e76987d4e9
Published on Apr 7, 2016 by Political Islam

Progressives talk a lot about the evil of hate. We are told that if we object to Sharia law and jihad, then we are intolerant haters. But what about hating what harms people?

I hate wife-beating, yet the Sharia, Koran and Sunna support it.

I am intolerant of child abuse, including child marriage, but the Sunna and Sharia support it.

I hate the jihadist killings of Christians, Jews, Buddhists and apostates.

I am intolerant of religious leaders, such as the Pope and Dai Lama, who will not condemn the jihadic killing of their groups.

I hate dualistic ethics, which lack integrity.

I am intolerant of face coverings, since it cuts off open communication.

As a society, we have lost the ability to become morally outraged and are incapable of anger about the Islamic harm of innocents. I hate that.

Acknowledge, Don’t Apologize

Political Islam, Mar 29 2016, by Bill Warner:

Every time jihadis kill Kafirs, our leaders and Muslims launch another “Don’t blame Muslims” campaign. The latest campaign is presented by Omar Alnatour. He takes the approach of Muslims should not apologize for what criminals do, because terrorists have nothing to do with Islam.

OA: “Radicals have hijacked his religion”
If a Muslim imitates Mohammed, he is following the Sunna, which the Koran commands Muslims to do. It is not a crime, if you do what Mohammed did.

OA: “Islam teaches peace”
Islam does preach peace, but it also preaches jihad. Mohammed rose to power on politics and jihad, not peace.

OA: “Islam says not to kill the innocents”
Yes, but Kafirs are guilty of rejecting Mohammed and are not innocent.

OA: “Muslims are not terrorists”
No, Muslims are called to be jihadis, not terrorists. The Koran devotes 24% of the Medinan Koran to jihad.

OA: “Muslims condemn terrorism”
Perhaps, but will Muslims acknowledge that they cannot condemn what Mohammed did? They cannot condemn Mohammed’s jihad.

OA: “Good Muslims have no relationship to terrorists”
Peaceful Muslims say the same prayers, read the same Koran and follow the Sunna as the jihadis.

Also see:

Peaceful Muslims, Peaceful Islam?

islam-doctrine-435x235

 Political Islam, by Bill Warner,  Mar 22, 2016:

Many people know friendly and charming Muslims. The same people then believe that Islam could not condone jihad, since the Muslims they know are so nice.

Wake up to the fact that Muslims do not create Islam. Muslims only choose what parts of Islam they want to practice. Even if every Muslim in the world voted to not practice some part of Islam, Islam would not change. Islamic doctrine is perfect, eternal and complete and is changeless.

The other problem is that Kafirs do not know what jihad is and think that jihad is only about violence. No, jihad is the struggle to establish Sharia law. It is also a civilizational struggle that includes money, speech and the written word. The Koran, Sira and Hadith all lay out the complete form of jihad.

You must study Islam, not Muslims.

Bill Warner: To Know Islam, Know Mohammed

4111AooQ07L._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_

Published on Mar 9, 2016 by Political Islam

The easy way to understand Islam is to know the story of Mohammed. It is an incredible story that changed the history of the world, and it is even more powerful today. Mohammed is pure Islam. Ninety-one verses in the Koran say that every Muslim is to imitate Mohammed in all things.

Is sex slavery Islamic? Look to Mohammed. He had sex slaves, so when Islamic state has sex slaves, it is Islamic. What are women’s rights in Islam? Look to Mohammed. He said that women could be beaten, had to always obey their husbands and could be part of a harem. He also said that slaves were to be treated well.

Bill Warner on Islamic Migration and Sharia

CbYKosHUAAA3kwQPolitical Islam, by Bill Warner, Feb. 24, 20016:

There is a mass migration from Islamic lands to Kafir lands. It is the mission of Islam to bring the Sharia into power, everywhere. There is an ethical divide between Islam and the hated Kafir civilization. It is the purpose of Sharia to dominate the Kafir civilization.

As Muslims immigrate, they immediately make Sharia demands. These demands are endless in details, but the process can take generations. We can see the centuries long transformation in the Middle East and Turkey which used to be Christian.

This does not mean that every Muslim takes part in the politics of Sharia, since only a few Islamic leaders are needed. The reason that Islam can win every attempt to advance Sharia is that Kafirs are tolerant of all demands and do not push back. So if our attitudes do not change, Kafir nations will become Sharia nations.

Bill Warner Gives Talking Points on Tough Questions for Islam

hqdefault (5)Political Islam, by Bill Warner, Feb. 17, 2016:

When people go to an event where they might be able to ask questions of a Muslim, what is the best way to ask?

I recommend a specific technique. Do not ask about the Koran. Do not ask about Islam, instead ask about Mohammed. State some idea from the Sunna (what Mohammed did or said) and then ask the Muslim a question about obeying that Sunna. Your goal is to educate the audience.

Here is an example: The Sunna of Mohammed includes wife beating, as does the Sharia. Do you agree that wife-beating is a good practice?
You will never get a straight answer, but the audience learns about Mohammed and Islamic doctrine from your question.

Also see: