Political Islam, by Bill Warner, March 7, 2017:
Kafir Net is a new type of web site that allow us to work together to defeat political Islam. Watch this video for an introduction to a new concept for victory.
Political Islam, by Bill Warner, March 7, 2017:
Kafir Net is a new type of web site that allow us to work together to defeat political Islam. Watch this video for an introduction to a new concept for victory.
On Friday, Jan. 27, President Donald Trump fulfilled a campaign promise, briefly imposing a temporary ban on immigrants entering the U.S. to allow the government time to implement a more effective screening policy. Cries ranging from unconstitutionality to simply being un-American quickly followed.
It is imperative any analysis of this issue be driven by logic – not emotion. Yet critics play on emotion, claiming Trump’s ban targets Muslims.
As of 2010, 49 countries had Muslim majority populations; this ban only lists seven. And, all seven were flagged earlier by President Barack Obama as “countries of concern.”
They also were countries Obama had previously imposed restrictions against, including Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. All Trump did was to broaden those restrictions into a temporary ban. Critics voicing concerns about Trump’s ban registered no concerns about Obama’s earlier restrictions.
Other critics complain the ban fails to include countries with links to the 9/11 attacks – Saudi Arabia, Egypt and United Arab Emirates. This may well have been motivated by the false hope using Obama’s list would stymy criticism.
Clearly, the seven represent countries either in turmoil or known to foster anti-U.S. and terrorist sentiments. The fact all are heavily Islamic does not give them a free pass precisely for this reason. The ban is legal, focusing on threats emanating from the most prevalent countries.
Democracies have a value system tolerant of diverse beliefs, particularly when it concerns religion. What we need understand is some beliefs come with “baggage” – i.e., a noted propensity for violence. We simply cannot wave these believers through on the hope and prayer they will not act upon them.
Without stigmatizing an entire religion as violent, but while recognizing believers have performed numerous violent acts in its name, scrutinizing entry is not unreasonable. This is particularly so for immigrants originating from countries known as cauldrons of violence.
We must understand the baggage Islam brings with it and the threat it presents to our national security.
Islam is unique among religions. It is a hybrid involving two ideologies – one religious, one political. Fundamentals for both rest upon three pillars: the Quran, the Sira (Prophet Muhammad’s biography) and the Hadith (traditions mandating believers live their lives as did Muhammad).
An effort to separate these two ideologies by analyzing these pillars was undertaken by professor Bill Warner. Known as the Trilogy Project, his approach “was based upon scientific principles and objective methods, so that any independent person could achieve the same results if they used the same methods.”
It involved identifying every reference within the pillars where Islam dictates how Muslims are to treat “kafirs” – i.e., non-believers. Such references were tagged as “political” Islam for failing to address the believer’s relationship with Allah, while references that did address it were deemed “religious.”
Astonishingly, Warner found, “The Quran says that the kafir may be murdered, tortured, plotted against, enslaved, robbed, insulted, beheaded, demeaned, mocked and so forth. The Hadith and Sira agree. …”
Warner’s analysis applied a well-known ethical yardstick – the Golden Rule. As it demands one treat others as one would like to be treated, he noted its application, “…removes the brutality, insults and prejudice directed at the kafir. The constant attacks would disappear.”
Significant to our Muslim immigration threat analysis is noting Project Trilogy’s results. Applying the Golden Rule to these three pillars would require a large amount of their content, disguised as religion, be eliminated as purely political. Warner determined that 61 percent of the Quran’s content, 75 percent of the Sira’s and 20 percent of the Hadith’s meet this test.
Warner underscores Islam’s bottom line: “The worst error in thinking about Islam is that it is a religion … religion is the smallest part of Islam.” We must understand this: Islam is predominantly a political ideology packaged as a religion.
Just imagine Democrats or Republicans seeking to do what Muslims have – establishing a political ideology disguised as a religion. Think how much more effective they would be in imposing it upon Americans.
As Muslims’ fundamental beliefs evolve from these pillars, we must recognize what they teach believers about non-believers: intolerance.
The pillars tell Muslims to force non-believers, by whatever means necessary, to submit to Islam or die. Interestingly, any Muslim denying this is true becomes an apostate (disbeliever); however, any Muslim denying it just to mislead a kafir is exempted under taqiyya — the Islamic concept sanctioning lies by Muslims to non-Muslims to further Islam’s influence.
This leads us to question President Barack Obama’s assertions over the years that Islam is “peaceful.” The Trilogy Project results undermine this. Obama claimed Islam was hijacked by extremists endeavoring to give it a violent interpretation; we now know Islam was hijacked by moderates endeavoring to give it a peaceful one.
If an ideology is built around a belief system mandating all others submit to it or die, its believers potentially are a threat to non-believers. Does this mean all believers will embrace their right to kill? Of course not; however, the ideology issues believers an Allah-sanctioned “hunting license” to do so. Indiscriminately opening our doors to them without adequate screening leaves us to determine the identification of license users by the non-believer body count they leave behind. This was what we had to do in San Bernardino, Orlando, Fort Hood and elsewhere.
Accordingly, all Muslims conceivably present a potential danger to followers of all other religions. But critics objecting to Trump’s ban as targeting a specific religion ignore a responsibility to better understand Islam’s political ideology. Giving Islam the full weight of a religion only invites future attacks by Muslim extremists, gaining entry posing as moderates. Harboring a political ideology, Islam exceeds its baggage weight as a religion.
Too many of Trump’s immigration critics base their opposition on what is right about America without understanding what is wrong about Islam. What is wrong about Islam is the intolerant political ideology it brings, packaged as a religion. Islam’s small religious component has become the camel’s nose under the West’s tent seeking to impose its political ideology upon us. We ignore it at our peril.
The Glazov Gang, January 2015:
This special edition of the Glazov Gang presents the Bill Warner Moment with Dr. Bill Warner, the president of politicalislam.com.
Dr. Warner discusses The Self-Taught Revolution against Sharia, unveiling how intellectual guerilla fighters are breaking through the elite’s Party Line on Islam — and making the truth available for the common man.
Evidently someone in DC thinks Bill Warner is qualified to give briefings to security and intelligence officials there 🙂 He made this announcement at a talk with ACT Cleveland in early December. ( see video at about 55 min. mark)
On a more disappointing note, John Guandolo gave this news alert on facebook last Saturday:
UTT FLASH ALERT:
Trump Administration’s National Security candidates are being vetted by our enemy.
It has come to the attention of UTT that Bill Hagerty – whom UTT warned the administration about because he is a jihadi sympathizer and supporter- and John Gallagher, a leader inside the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas support organization the Institute for Global Engagement, are the two men vetting candidates for national security positions for the incoming administration.
This explains while all of the candidates which actually understand the threat have been rejected.
Standby for eight more years of the federal government supporting the jihadis.
The strategic incoherence continues.
From ACT For America – Cleveland, Ohio Chapter:
“I am pleased to invite you to come and hear our next guest, Dr. Bill Warner. He is considered by CAIR to be one of the top Islamophobes in the country. Now consider the source, LOL!
Dr. Warner is a renowned national and international speaker on the topics of Islamic doctrine and history.
Dr. Warner will explain quite clearly how and why Mohammed’s success began with migration. The Islamic calendar is based on Mohammed’s migration, the Hijra. Islamic migration is the beginning of Sharia and Jihad.
Here’s more of Dr. Warner’s Bio:
Dr. Bill Warner has been a physicist, businessman and professor. He is the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam. He is the first person to use the scientific method to produce a Koran that can be easily understood.
Dr. Warner made the other two sacred texts of Islam, the Sira, Mohammed’s biography, and the Hadith, his Traditions, simple to read and understand. He has written a dozen books on Islam. His Sharia Law for Non-Muslims is an international best seller.
Dr. Warner developed the first self-study courses on Islam — The Foundations of Islam and a three level training-A Self-Study Course on Political Islam, that explains Islamic political doctrine.”
Center for Security Policy, November 14, 2016:
DR. BILL WARNER, Founder and Director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam:
As Syrian refugees and other migrants are being brought to the US, we hear that we don’t need to worry about any nasty “terrorists” (jihadists, to use the right word), because they will be vetted.
We are worrying about the wrong kind of jihad. The “terrorist” is the least of our worries. Instead, we need to concern ourselves about the jihad of the increasing demands and use of Sharia. It is the Sharia that annihilates a native civilization. For an example, before the Sharia, Turkey was a Christian civilization. Today it is 99.7% Muslim. It was jihad that put the Sharia in place, and then, over the centuries, Christianity was annihilated.
Our vetting needs to focus on the Sharia, not just violence. The US has taken a stand against racial hatred, why not take a stand against Kafir hatred?
We need to say no to Sharia wife-beating, no to Sharia Kafir hatred, no to the Sharia killing of apostates, no to Sharia suppression of free speech, no to Sharia abuse of women.
When Islam came to Medina in the first migration, Medina was half Jewish and with some Arab Muslims. Five years later, Medina was totally Islamic and with no Jews. Annihilation by migration and Sharia is pure Sunna.
Why do we want American citizens who think our Constitution is haram (Sharia forbidden) and that Kafirs are scum? We need to vet all migrants and insist they repudiate political Sharia.
The oath of citizenship should read: I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, sovereignty, religious legal system of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen.
Political Islam, October 3, 2016:
This is a guest post on Bill Warner’s site by a first-time reader of the Qur’an who comes from a Buddhist/Hindu background & writes how shocked he was by the aggressive hatred toward all that is not Muslim. H/T Clare Lopez
I have never read the Koran before despite having travelled extensively in Muslim countries and read on many Eastern religions.
It took me two days to read the ‘Abridged Koran’ of Dr. Warner, which as the author himself writes is more of a study guide before beginning to read the real Koran. Now I have the context of history and other Muslim scriptures in order make sense of the Koran.
The Abridged Koran is an easy read but a disturbing read. You have heard of Christian and Hindu monks take a bath before reading their scriptures? I had to take a shower *after* reading the Koran because I felt spiritually unclean. It was like sitting through a non-stop horror movie with no breaks. I kept waiting for the good parts, the positive sections to begin. They never did. I found a minority of moral teachings scattered here and there, and just a few poetic descriptions in a very hateful book. About 3/4 of the way through it became as if a blur of hurtfulness and arrogance. The task felt like counting the flies on a corpse, it was so grotesque. I kept wondering ‘how could any rational and kind person, any normal human being actually accept this book as scripture?’ and ‘If they do and can, do we want such people in our country?’ After I completed my read, all I could think of was: ‘We must take steps to see this religion far away from us, and if possible destroyed permanently, erased from the planet except in history. I don’t care if people become Bahai’s, atheists, agnostics, Baptists or worship trees and dance around the Maypole naked. *Anything* but Islam will be a vast improvement’ in individual and group consciousness.
I learned why Muslims do things, why some get very upset and even violent when certain things happen. There are scriptural precedents. For example, ‘preventing’ Muslims from going to pray. Abu Jahl is criticized in the Koran for holding back a Muslim, his servant, who wants to pray. Perhaps employers at companies that do not eagerly pay for and permit pray times are likewise considered evil. Why ISIL Muslims degrade and abuse their enemies by placing a foot on the head and then turn the heads backwards after decapitating. Again Koranic precedent.
I made notes by colour-coding five tabs and writing succinct words according to my needs…
Priority 1, essential: red – fascinating fact or dangerous alert Priority 2, very important: orange – very interesting, a warning or something unique about Islam Priority 3, not so important: yellow – curiosity, something I didn’t know, a lead to something else, or an unanswered yet question Priority 4, useful to know: green – Islamic trilogy facts (Koran, Hadith, Sira) Priority 5, extra: blue – detail about the method or structure of Warner’s book
I ended up with 86 red, 129 orange, 143 yellow, 16 green and 15 blue. I find this curious because when I use a similar system reading other books, concerning the top three priorities, the ratio is usually much more bottom heavy versus top heavy. For example reading the encyclopedic Siva Purana of medieval Hinduism, or the mixed mythic and philosophical Cicero’s On the Nature of the Gods, the ratio is closer to 20/120/400. Even the brutally caste-ridden Laws of Manu of Brahminism has some nobility. The war-themed Mahabharata of the epic period of Hinduism is replete with universal teachings. By comparison, Buddhist and Christian texts have much more humanistic themes than the Koran. The only thing I felt inspired to do after reading the entire Abridged Koran, was to get out in the fresh air and sunshine. So, be prepared with some drinking water and a place to take a break, otherwise you might feel sad and negative. Reading the Abridged Koran was a pivotal experience for me, unfortunately verifying my worst fears.
With The Abridged Koran, the tag ratio from my reading was skewed to the most alarming, a lot of ‘read this and weep.’ I made almost no notes of interest regarding Dr. Warner’s book itself, further reading or even the Trilogy of Islam. The content rests squarely on the malicious, envious and otherwise anti-civil society things that the Koran itself has to say.
While a considerable amount of Abridged Koran is contextual (i.e. explanation from author but more so information from other trilogy sources such as Hadith and Sira) herein I offer only Koranic verses. So, this is an assessment of the Koran itself not Dr. Warner’s study guide to it. My next step will be to read the Koran as it commonly presented, ordered according to length not chronological (real) history, and translated by a mainstream Islamic source which presumably has no anti-Islamic ‘axe to grind’. I am giving Islam the benefit of the doubt, even though it looks like an exercise in futility.
My list is not complete, it is just what I made notes on, and a conclusion based on the gist of it. For brevity, I have reduced my own tagged quotes to a fraction or what caught my attention. I suspect that the verse numbers I quote are inaccurate as I sometimes quote the entire group of verses and Dr. Warner does not itemize them but instead writes full thoughts. All of these assessments of categories I made after reading the Koran. Although I have read and heard of others repeat some of them as part of their arguments against the atrocity and obscenity of Islam these are taken directly from my reading, not from third party sources such as websites or other books. And if I made a tag on one section of verses I didn’t necessarily add other tags if another group of verses following saying similar followed. So, in other words, these are the *minimums*, there are more than I count herein.
The following list is based on my own assessment, disregarding everybody else’s read (including the author’s), whether they agree with my own assessment or not.
Top seven themes of the Koran
1. All non-Muslims are bad just by virtue of not being Muslim. And for other reasons too 2. Non-Muslims deserve to be killed, taxed and forced to submit, simply because they are non-Muslim 3. Non-Muslims are going to hell 4. Christians are bad, Jews are really bad, Idolaters are the worst 5. Good Muslims finance holy war and if possible engage in it themselves 6. Heaven is a comfy and scenic banquet hall with beautiful women and boys, tasty drinks and lots of fountains.
7. Hell is fire with torture, and it goes on forever.
The Koran spends a lot of text space criticizing other religions and in particular the *followers* of other religions, especially Jews and Christians. The Koran doesn’t observe the nicety of distinguishing between Jews and Judaism, for example. Coming from a background of Hinduism and having a fascination for the many streams of Buddhist traditions all over the world, I find the Koran bizarre and appalling. This ‘our way or the highway’ (the ditch actually) is contrary to any Indian-origin Dharmic religion or Indian-influenced religions, which generally have a compassionate and accepting attitude to other religions, accommodating them even into their own systems (for example the historical Buddha being considered as the ninth incarnation of Vishnu). The Koran is the antithesis of Indian Islam – with its the saint worship, festivals and music . I have spent considerable time upcountry and in the cities of India (as well as lived in Buddhist regions of Southeast Asia) and pure Islam, not tempered by the modifications of Java and Cambodia etc is like something from another planet. I find Koranic Islam’s stated objections to other religions so severe as to be anti-religion. They make the Catholic Church’s ‘we know best’ perspective seem downright cosmopolitan. Bishops might disagree with my critique of their Church, even vociferously. But they are not going kill me. Probably not even mock me. Maybe ignore me. Basically, Islam as presented in its primary scripture, the Koran, is completely incompatible with diversity and human rights. After reading the Abridged Koran I do not see Islam as a religion at all.
The first key is do not use the Koran and Allah, because the Koran is structured to be hard to understand. Instead, use the Sunna of Mohammed. The Koran says 91 times that Mohammed is the perfect Muslim and he is very easy to understand. We find Mohammed in his traditions, the Hadith, and his biography, the Sira.
When we use Mohammed to explain Islam, we do what the Koran commands. Some Muslims might say that a particular hadith may not valid (meaning they don’t like what it says), but know that almost every hadith that I use is called Sahih (authentic), since I use Bukhari and Abu Muslim.
Sometimes you meet a Muslim who rejects all of the Sunna, so how do you use Mohammed? Simple, the Koran by itself cannot be understood by any person, without knowing the life of Mohammed. No Mohammed equals no understanding of the Koran.
Actually, there is an oddity about the Koran. It is said to be the perfect, exact words of Allah. However, the perfect Koran cannot be understood without knowing Mohammed. However, the life of Mohammed and his traditions were written by people who never met him, but wrote down what they heard from others. In a court of law, this is called hearsay. Hearsay is usually not admissible in our courts. So the perfect book cannot be understood without evidence that cannot be used in our courts. Odd, isn’t it?
Political 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.
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:
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. 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. 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. 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.
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,”there is much room for interpretive maneuvering.
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.
Political 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.
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.
Dr. Bill Warner (Center for the Study of Political Islam) joins Dave Rubin, discussing his mission to educate the world about political Islam.
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!
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.
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.