May

An Ethical Basis for War Against Political Islam, part 8

Posted in An Ethical Basis for War , HomePage / Make a Comment /

Of Interest

What does the grand Ayatollah Sistani think of kafirs?

A British imam takes to the streets to terrorize the kafirs.

Why a jihadi wants to die a martyr for Allah.

This newsletter is one of a series on the subject-

An Ethical Basis for War Against Political Islam
Newsletter #8

Blacks as Islam's Molested Children
Let's run down the generally accepted history of race in the U.S. White men captured Africans, then brought them to the U.S. and sold them as slaves. Wrong: when the white slavers showed up on the west coast of Africa, they didn't capture Africans. They looked them over in the pens, gave the African slave traders their money, got their bills of sale, and loaded their purchases into boats.

The African slave traders were Muslims. Their ancestors had been plying the trade of war, capture, enslavement, and sale for a thousand years. Mohammed was a slave trader. Long after the white slave traders quit, the Muslims continued their African slave trade up into the 21st century.

Sacred Slavery
Islam is so very clear about slavery. The Arab has many words for slave. But he has only one word for blacks- abid. The word serves for both black slave and African. Islam has another word for white slaves-mamluk. Arabic has more words for slaves than any other language.

Mohammed was a slave trader, and the survivors of jihad were war booty. The Hadith contains a full legal and philosophic system of slavery. The Hadith have many sacred examples of how the slaves were traded and what was done with the children, women (frequently raped), and men who survived. Muslims took slaves from all cultures.

Slavery is a constant image in the Koran and the Hadith. Mohammed called himself and his followers slaves of Allah. One of the most common Arab names is Abdullah, slave of Allah, Mohammed's father's name.

What about modern Africa? How can black leaders not see what is happening as Islam carries out its sacred violence? Why aren't the black columnists, writers, professors, or ministers speaking out? They are in total denial. They are the molested children of Islam.

The one thing whites and blacks have in common is that their ancestors were enslaved by Islam, and both are too ashamed to admit it. Molested black and white children of Islam. It is our shame, a secret shame.

Our Ignorance
Blacks, whites, Christians, Jews, atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, artists, intellectuals, and animists have all been brutalized by jihad and political Islam. Their reactions have all been identical to that of an abused child. Each and every one denies the events, refuses to teach the history, are profoundly ashamed, and try to placate the abuser, Islam. Each group of victims knows almost nothing about the other's suffering. All are afraid and even more afraid to admit it.

There are two more reasons for our ignorance-logic and ethics. People from a culture with ethics of unity find it almost impossible to actually understand Islam with its dualistic ethics.

The third barrier to understanding Islam is that Islam uses a different form of logic, dualistic logic. So we find it hard to understand a civilization that has a different way of thinking and feeling than everyone else.

Dhimmitude
Today the formal political status of dhimmi (a semi-slave who serves Islam) has been replaced by dhimmitude, the intellectual submission to Islam. One of the characteristic of a dhimmi under the fourth caliph, Umar, was that a dhimmi was forbidden to study the Koran. The chief mark of dhimmitude today is ignorance of the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith. The ignorance of our thinkers and historians about Islam is profound.

A dhimmi's second characteristic is attacking his natural allies. This is just one example: when Hindus are talking about jihad, they will frequently turn to criticizing Christians. This is due to impotence. It is like the husband who abuses his wife when he has a bad day.

A dhimmi's third characteristic is to try to make the situation with Islam better. This is done by complete denial of current events and arguing that Islam can be reformed or is not really so bad.

Our studies never mention the political doctrine in the Trilogy. The media discusses Islam in terms of political correctness, and multiculturalism. History courses don't teach about the civilizational annihilation due to jihad. Black history doesn't refer to the 120 million Africans destroyed over 1400 years of jihadic predation that fed the slave trade up to today. Religious leaders placate imams in public gatherings and have no knowledge what the imam actually thinks of them or their religion. Political thinkers do not even know Islam as a political force.

The problem with this ignorance is that our leaders are unable to help us. They do not understand that Islam is a civilization based upon the ideal of dualism, whereas our civilization is based upon the ideal of the ethics of unity. Our intellectuals cannot explain what this difference has meant in the past or what it will mean for our future.

In order for our civilization to survive, our leaders must understand the Trilogy and its impact. They must learn to think outside the politically correct, multicultural box of our media and universities. They must learn to connect the dots and see the systemic pattern of events based upon the Trilogy. The events of 9/11, the Mohammed cartoon riots, the London bombings, beheadings in Baghdad, the death fatwah against Salman Rushdie, and the killing of Daniel Pearl are all based upon the Trilogy. Know the Trilogy; know Islam.

Our historians must acknowledge the Tears of Jihad.

The Good Muslim
Here is the theory of the "good" Muslim. There are good Muslims and extremist Muslims. You can't judge Islam by a few extremists or even a lot of terrorists.
There are 1.3 billion Muslims. If you are going to measure Islam by individuals you will have to meet and talk with a lot of them, not just the handful you may know. That is the beauty talking about the doctrine. The doctrine stays the same everywhere and is constant over time. Every Muslim can interpret the doctrine as they see fit, so Muslims differ. But in the end, every Muslim is driven by the doctrine.

But let's talk about Ahmed, the good Muslim at work. Ahmed is a professional engineer. He says that terrorists are not real Muslims. His wife does not wear a burka.

It is the whole of Islam that we must measure. Even in Mohammed's day of full jihad, only some of the Muslims were out killing, stealing, raping, assassinating, slaving, kidnapping, and terrorizing. Others were back at home, doing whatever one does at home.

It has never been that every Muslim was a jihadist. But at any time that is always an option. Jihad is always an option for every Muslim.

So yes, Ahmed, the professional engineer at work, is a nice man. Where he differs from the nice Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, or atheist, however, is that Ahmed has another ethical option open at all times.

Remember that a good Muslim is commanded 14 times in the Koran to remember that a Muslim is not actually a friend to the kafirs. To the extent that Ahmed is your friend, he is not a Muslim. To the extent that Ahmed is a Muslim, he is not your friend. After all, you are kafir.

Koran 3:28 Believers should not take kafirs as friends in preference to other believers. Those who do this will have none of Allah's protection and will only have themselves as guards. Allah warns you to fear Him for all will return to Him.

Mohammed is the perfect model for a Muslim. Mohammed's uncle adopted him, raised him, taught him the trade of being a businessman, and protected him from harm. But his uncle never converted and Mohammed cursed him to Hell when he would not convert on his deathbed. Mohammed would be friendly to try to convert or get a favor, but he never, ever favored a kafir over a Muslim. He was never an actual friend to a kafir.

At any time that it is needed to advance Islam, Ahmed may be deceitful. He will also give money to Islamic charities that fund jihad. In political matters he will always come down on the side of Islam. And he will say that a terrorist is not a real Muslim. But according to the doctrine of political Islam both the terrorist and Ahmed are real Muslims.

So the question is how many Muslims follow which Koran? The same person can use either the Koran of Mecca or the Koran of Medina when needed. Islam will now and forever contain "good" Muslims who are kind and "bad" Muslims who are oppressive and confrontational. You can't have just "good" Muslims.

Within the secret heart of every "good" Muslim is the Koran of Medina and jihad. Ahmed's constant desire is to be more like Mohammed, who never had a kafir friend. Ahmed will always be one of those "moderate" Muslims who do not rise up and condemn or "rat out" the terrorists. And at all times and in all ways, Ahmed will support Islamization of our culture.

This problem of friendship is at the heart of the evil of dualistic ethics. It is this problem that members of the ethics of unity find the hardest to fathom. Most of the kafirs just cannot believe that someone with dualistic ethics is only being friendly, not a real friend. Ahmed, the person, may actually be your true friend. But, Ahmed, the Muslim, is forbidden to be your true friend.