Frank Gaffney wrote a piece on soft jihad at the Democratic convention.

Here is Robert Spencer's take on the same event.

A Victim at the Democratic Convention

Dr. Ingrid Mattson, President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), took part in the Democratic Convention in Denver.

As a brief aside, the ISNA is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood (its stated purpose is to destroy the West from inside) and is also included as an unindicted co-conspirator in terrorism financing conspiracy. All of the armed force's Muslim chaplains and prison chaplains have to take Dr. Mattson's course on Islam. In the course she supports Sharia law to replace our Constitution in order to achieve an "ethical" government. Like Obama, she believes that poverty and social oppression caused the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center. Neither one will speak of any basis for the attack in Islamic doctrine.

There are four kinds of jihad-sword, pen, mouth and money. Dr. Mattson is a jihadist of the pen and mouth version. Some people call it soft jihad.

At the Convention she spoke of Muslims as being victims in America. Poor Muslim immigrants have to leave their Islamic earthly paradises and come to a mean America where they are victims of the cruel kafirs.

But in Islam it is Sunna. Mohammed was a victim of oppression, so Muslims are always victims and never oppressors.

Examine the record. In Medina Mohammed sent out his jihadists eight times before they were able to kill their first kafir and steal the kafirs' wealth. They had their success in a holy month. The Arabs had rules of war and one of those rules was that there were holy months when no Arab was to attack another. So the Arabs complained that Mohammed had broken the rules of war and was oppressing other Arabs.

Mohammed was troubled by the charge of being a war criminal, but Allah came to his rescue:

Koran 2:216 You are commanded to fight although you dislike it. You may hate something that is good for you, and love something that is bad for you. Allah knows and you do not. When they ask you about fighting in the holy month, say: Fighting at this time is a serious offense, but it is worse in Allah's eyes to deny others the path to Him, to disbelieve in Him, and to drive His worshippers out of the Sacred Mosque. Idolatry is a greater sin than murder.

The way of life for the kafir Arabs that included their religion (idolatry is a greater sin than murder) made them fair game for jihad. The kafir Arabs had only one fault-they did not believe that Mohammed was the prophet of Allah. What the kafir Arabs had done by telling Mohammed to leave town (drive His worshippers out of the Sacred Mosque) was worse than war.

In short, the poor Muslims were the victims, and the dead kafirs were the oppressors. It has been ever thus for 1400 years.

All jihad is defensive. The kafirs make the first offensive move against Islam by not believing in the prophet-hood of Mohammed.

Dr. Mattson follows the doctrine of political Islam to the letter when she declares that Muslims are victims in America. And there is only one way that Muslims will stop being oppressed in America. Only when we live under Sharia law will the oppression stop. It would seem that Obama and the Democrats are doing what they can at this time to assure that no Muslim will be a victim.

Bill Warner

Permalink http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/a-vicitim-at-the-democratic-convention/

copyright (c) CBSX, LLC

politicalislam.com Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.

A short primer on the role of African slavery in Islam

Bernard Lewis writes on Race and Slavery in the Middle East.

The Legacy of Arab-Islam in Africa, a video. To order the book.

Islam, Kafirs and Slavery

We received an interesting comment about our work from a Muslim.

"And another thing about slaves, yes, they are kafir, but that is because they were not Muslims yet. And before the arrival of Islam, the kafir had slave-girls, who were kafirs. Basically, you're attacking Islam without telling people of the underlying behavior of the kafir."

This is just one of the paragraphs, but it is very revealing.

"they are kafir, but that is because they were not Muslims yet" The word "yet" means that he agrees that one of the desired effects of slavery is the submission of the slave to Islam. The word "agrees" is used since it is Sunna to only take kafirs as slaves. Since the taking of slaves is always done with deadly violence, i.e. slaves are taken after the protectors are killed, then violence is again part of making the kafir submit to Islam. Slavery has always been part of jihad.

It is true that before Islam, kafirs held slaves and even held slaves after Islam. This simple statement is absolutely true. We do not find a single culture that did not at one time use slaves. Whites, blacks, Asians, aboriginal Americans, everyone used slaves.

The difference between kafir slavery and Islamic slavery is that kafir slavery could be stopped, by force if necessary, and also by doctrine. There is no kafir culture that has a doctrine that supports slavery today. Islamic culture can never eliminate slavery from its doctrine because both the Koran and the Sunna are eternal, universal, complete and perfect.

Mohammed is the perfect model for slave traders and slaveholders. Mohammed was involved in every single aspect of slavery. He had kafir men killed so their women and children could be made slaves. He gave slaves away for gifts. He owned many slaves, some of them black. He passed around slaves for the purpose of sex to his companions, men who were his chief lieutenants. He stood by while others beat slaves. He shared the pleasure of forced sex with women slaves after conquest. He captured slaves and wholesaled them to raise money for jihad. One of his favorite sexual partners was a slave, who bore him a son. He received slaves as gifts from other rulers. The very pulpit he preached from was made by a slave. He ate food prepared by slaves. He was treated medically by a slave. He had a slave tailor. He declared that a slave who ran away from his master would not have his prayers answered. And he approved an owner's having sex with his slaves.

There is no one in history who was more involved in slavery than Mohammed. It is Sunna.

This case illustrates the difference between the ethics of the Golden Rule and the ethics of Islam. No one volunteers to be a slave. That is the reason that the Golden Rule prohibits slavery-hence the kafir prohibition of slavery. But Islam has one set of rules for the Muslim and another set of rules for the kafir, ethical dualism. Islam denies the truth of the Golden Rule. One of the ethical rules of Islam is that kafirs can be enslaved--hence, Islamic slavery.

One defense of Islamic slavery is that "kafirs did it too", which is the argument by the Muslim gentleman here. The other version of the defense of Islamic slavery is to say that slavery was prevalent in Mohammed's day and it the reason that he did it. But this is a total misunderstanding of Sunna. Nothing that Mohammed did was by historical accident. No, he was guided by Allah, not history. If it were just an historical accident then Mohammed could be excused.

Think of what would happen if you could annul Mohammed's slavery or the slavery rules in the Koran. If you delete it--because you don't like it--what else from the Sunna and Koran can you ignore? Prayer? Charity? The Sunna and the Koran are perfect, eternal, complete and universal. You don't get to pick and choose.

According to Islam, there is no good in kafirs or their culture. Kafir culture is jahiliya (ignorance). Good only comes from Allah and so Islam is pure goodness and wisdom. How can anything about Islam be justified by kafirs? Goodness can never be based on evil and wisdom can never be based upon ignorance. Islam stands alone and no comparison to kafir culture is valid. In short, Islam is independent from kafir culture. To say that Islam does something because kafirs do it is to deny the origins of Islam in Allah and Mohammed.

Slavery is pure Islam. It is the power of the kafirs that keeps Islam from having full-blown slavery, instead of only in a few places in the world today.

Permalink http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/islam-kafirs-and-slaves/

copyright (c) CBSX, LLC

politicalislam.com Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.

1. A. Guillaume, The Life of Mohammed, London: Oxford University Press, 1982, pg. 466
Then the apostle divided the property, wives, and children of B. Qurayza among the Muslims, and he made known on that day the shares of horse and men, and took out the fifth. A horseman got three shares, two for the horse and one for his rider. A man without a horse got one share. On the day of B. Qurayza there were thirty-six horses. It was the first booty on which lots were cast and the fifth was taken. According to its precedent and what the apostle did the divisions were made, and it remained the custom for raids.

2. A. Guillaume, The Life of Mohammed, London: Oxford University Press, 1982, pg. 499
The same informant told me that the apostle gave him in compensation Bir Ha, today the castle of B. Hudayla in Medina. It was a property belonging to Abu Taiha b. Sahl which he had given as aims to the apostle who gave it to Hassan for his blow. He also gave him Sirin, a Copt slave girl, and she bare him 'Abdu'l-Rahman. "

3. A. Guillaume, The Life of Mohammed, London: Oxford University Press, 1982, pg. 516
. The apostle had a slave which Rifa'a b. Zayd al-Judhami, of the clan al­Dubaybi, had given him (763). He was laying down the apostle's saddle when suddenly a random arrow hit him and killed him. We congratulated him on paradise, but the apostle said, 'Certainly not. His cloak is even now burning on him in Hell. He had surreptitiously stolen it on the day of Khaybar from the spoil of the Muslims.' One of his companions heard this and came to him saying, 'I took two sandal thongs.' He said, 'Two thongs of fire will be cut for you like them.'

4 A. Guillaume, The Life of Mohammed, London: Oxford University Press, 1982, pg 593
Abu Wajza Yazid b. 'Ubayd al-Sa'di told me that the apostle gave 'Ali a girl called Rayta d. Hilal b. Hayyan b. 'Umayra b. Hilal b. Nasira b. Qusayya b. Nasr b. Sa'd b. Bakr; and he gave 'Uthman a girl called Zaynab d. Hayyan; and he gave 'Umar a girl whom 'Umar gave to his son 'Abdul­lah.

5 A. Guillaume, The Life of Mohammed, London: Oxford University Press, 1982, pg 295
the apostle was standing praying. They said, 'We are the watermen of Quraysh; they sent us to get them water. 'The people were displeased ,at their report, for they had hoped that they would belong to Abu Sufyan, so they beat them, and when they had beaten them soundly, the two men said, 'We belong to Abu Sufyan,' so they let them go. The apostle bowed and prostrated himself twice, and said, 'When they told you the truth you beat them; and when they lied you let them alone. They told the truth; they do belong to Quraysh. Tell me, you two, about the Quraysh.'1 They replied, 'They are behind this hill which you see on the farthest side.' (The hill was al-'Aqanqal.) The apostle asked them how many they were, and when they said, 'Many,' he asked for the number, but they did not know; so he asked them how many beasts they slaughtered every day, and when they said nine or ten, he said, 'The people are between nine hundred and a thousand.' Then he asked how many nobles of Quraysh were among them. They said: "Utba, Shayba, Abu'l-Bakhtari, Hakim, Naufal, al-Harith b. 'Amir, Tu'ayma, al-Nadr, Zama'a, Abu Jahl, Umayya, Nabih, Munabbih, Suhayl, 'Amr b. 'Abdu Wudd.' The apostle went to the people and said, 'This Mecca has thrown to you the pieces of its liver!'2

6 A. Guillaume, The Life of Mohammed, London: Oxford University Press, 1982, pg 511
The apostle seized the property piece by piece and conquered the forts one by one as he came to them. The first to fall was the fort of Na'im; there Mahmud b. Maslama was killed by a millstone which was thrown on him from it; then al-Qamus the fort of B. Abu'l-Huqayq. The apostle took captives from them among whom was Safiya d. Huyayy b. Akhtab who had been the wife of Kinana b. al-Rabi' b. Abu'l-Huqayq, and two cousins of hers. The apostle chose Safiya for himself.

7. A. Guillaume, The Life of Mohammed, London: Oxford University Press, 1982, pg 466.
Then the apostle sent Sa'd b. Zayd al-Ansari brother of b. 'Abdu'l Ashhal with some of the captive women of B. Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons.

8 William Muir, The Life of Mohammed, AMS Press, pg. 425.
9 William Muir, The Life of Mohammed, AMS Press, pg. 425.

10 Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 440:
Narrated Jabir: A woman said, "O Allah's Apostle! Shall I get something constructed for you to sit on as I have a slave who is a carpenter?" He replied, "Yes, if you like." So she had that pulpit constructed.

11 Bukhari Volume 3, Book 34, Number 295:
Narrated Abu Mas'ud:
An Ansari man, called Abu Shu'aib, came and told his butcher slave, "Prepare meals sufficient for five persons, for I want to invite the Prophet along with four other persons as I saw signs of hunger on his face." Abu Shu'aib invited them and another person came along with them. The Prophet said (to Abu Shu'aib), This man followed us, so if you allow him, he will join us, and if you want him to return, he will go back." Abu Shu'aib said, "No, I have allowed him (i.e. he, too, is welcomed to the meal)."

12 Bukhari Volume 3, Book 36, Number 481:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
The Prophet sent for a slave who had the profession of cupping, and he cupped him. The Prophet ordered that he be paid one or two Sas, or one or two Mudds of foodstuff, and appealed to his masters to reduce his taxes:

13 Bukhari Volume 7, Book 65, Number 344:
Narrated Anas:
Allah's Apostle went to (the house of) his slave tailor, and he was offered (a dish of) gourd of which he started eating. I have loved to eat gourd since I saw Allah's Apostle eating it.

14 Abu Muslim Book 001, Number 0131:
Jarir b. Abdullah reported it from the Holy Prophet: When the slave runs away from his master, his prayer is not accepted.

15.Abu Muslim Book 008, Number 3383:
Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) reported that a man came to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: I have a slave-girl who is our servant and she carries water for us and I have intercourse with her, but I do not want her to conceive. He said: Practise 'azl, if you so like, but what is decreed for her will come to her. The person stayed back (for some time) and then came and said: The girl has become pregnant, whereupon he said: I told you what was decreed for her would come to her.

Here are some films with artistic value and realistic content about Islamic doctrine that are worth watching.

Not Without My Daughter American 1991
This older but outstanding film has aged well with time. It has a great plot, good characterizations, dialogue, art direction and superb performances by Sally Field and Alfred Molina.

Here is Roger Ebert's in-depth review of Not Without My Daughter

The Circle Iranian 2000
Iranian films are thoughtful, sophisticated and highly visual. Many of their plots are concerned with the lack of women's rights and their plight under sharia law. The opening of The Circle rates as one of the best in the history of foreign films, conveying the attitudes toward females in Islamic countries using few words and a claustrophobic location.

Here is Roger Ebert's in-depth review of The Circle.

A Criminal Modus Operandi

In a National Geographic article on Persia [1] there is a remarkable quote: "Before they (Islam) came, we (Persia) were a great and civilized power." …Echoing commonly stated, though disputed, lore…. "They burned our books and raped our women, and we couldn't speak Farsi (the Persian language) in public or they took our tongues."

Notice the hedging of bets with the "commonly stated, though disputed lore". It is conventional wisdom, but it may not be true. There are different ways to verify whether or not Islam burned books and raped the Persian women, but one way to verify is with what police call, modus operandi, MO, method of operation. It is used in law enforcement to describe a criminal's habitual patterns and style of committing crimes. MO is common sense. Criminals, like everybody else, do what is familiar and works.

But MO is usually applied to a person. Islam's habitual patterns are preserved in its doctrine. The first great principle of Islam is that non-Muslims are kafirs. A kafir is not just an unbeliever in Mohammed's prophecy but a kafir has a special place in Islam and that place is all bad. Islam has dualistic ethics for the kafir. A Muslim is a brother to another Muslim, but kafirs can be insulted, robbed, murdered and tortured.

Kafir women can be raped in jihad. There are three different verses in the Koran that relate to having sex with your slaves:

Koran 70:22 Not the devout, who pray constantly and whose wealth has a fixed portion set aside for beggars and the destitute, and those who believe in the Judgment Day, and those who fear their Lord's punishment-because no one is safe from their Lord's punishment-and who control their sexual desires, except with their wives or slave-girls, with them there is no blame; but whoever indulges their lust beyond this are transgressors), and who keep their trusts and promises, and who tell the truth, and who are attentive to their prayers. These will live with honors in Gardens.

This is an interesting verse. It is an ethical list of behaviors: pray, give charity to the poor, truth telling and having sex with your slave-girls. Another verse says that even married slave girls are to be used for sex.

What is a slave? A kafir who has been captured and who has no defenders. How long do you have to hold the captive until they can be considered good for sex? Well, the Hadith as an answer has for us.

Here we see that at first the jihadists were reluctant to have sex with the captive women because of their husbands being nearby. But the Koran established that it was not immoral for them to rape kafir women because they had husbands.

Abu Muslim 008, 3432
Mohammed sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being kafirs. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that: "And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (iv. 24)" (i. e. they were lawful for them when their menstrual period came to an end).

How soon? On the same day according to the Sira:

Ishaq 758 Dihya had asked Mohammed for Safiya, and when he chose her for himself Mohammed gave Safiya's two cousins to Dihya in exchange. The women of Khaybar were distributed among the Muslims.
Ishaq 759 A man said, 'Let me tell you what I heard the apostle say on the day of Khaybar. He got up among us and said: "It is not lawful for a Muslim to mingle his seed with another man's [meaning to have sex with a pregnant woman among the captives], nor is it lawful for him to take her until he has made sure that she is in a state of cleanness [not having her period].

As long as the kafir woman was not pregnant or having her period, the Muslim can rape her. Of course, a kafir should not even see the Muslim woman, hence, the veil, but a Muslim can have sex with a captured kafir woman. This is as good an illustration of Islam's dual ethics as any other.

The story of Islamic rape was repeated in Turkey, Eastern Europe, Egypt, Spain and Hindustan. It is going on in Africa today. Rape is the Islamic modus operandi, way of doing business.

What about the book burning? When Islam invaded Hindustan (India) the largest library in the world was at Nalanda, a Buddhist center of learning. It took days to burn the library.

After all, all kafir culture was jahiliya, ignorant and hated by Allah. Books, art and all kafir culture are despised by Allah. When Muslims destroy civilizations, they are doing a good moral work. The books destroyed in Persia and India were an affront to Islam.

The other part of cultural destruction is the elimination of languages. When Islam invaded Coptic Egypt, a kafir would have his tongue cut out for speaking Coptic in front of Islamic government officials. Today, Islam has declared war on the Berber language and culture in North Africa.

The power of jihad is its totality. Jihad goes far beyond the use of violence. It is the purpose of Islam to annihilate all kafir civilizations. This doctrine allows political Islam to be constant over time and continents. The MO of Islam is fixed by the Koran, Sira and Hadith.

[1] National Geographic, August 2008, Ancient Iran, pg. 62.

Bill Warner, politicalislam.com

Copyright CBSX, LLC

Use this as you will, just don't edit and give us credit.

Permalink: http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/a-criminal-modus-operandi/

The ummah (community of believers) must have a caliphate or leader to function as a nation or state according to Islamic doctrine. This nation is a religious/political body that is under sharia law and has no geographical borders. Restoring the caliphate is a dream of the Muslim Brotherhood and most Islamic terrorist groups. Here's an in-depth article on this subject.

Here is a Muslim's view of the caliphate.

Under Islamic rule by the ummah, Christians and Jews are dhimmis, second-class citizens who are "protected" peoples and have to pay a special tax, the jizya. They must abide by the Pact of Umar codified by the Caliph Umar in the 7th century. Here's what has happened to the Coptic dhimmis after centuries of "protected" status in Egypt.

The Doctrine of Islamic Deceit

Before the doctrine of deceit can be understood, we must have a context of Islamic doctrine in general. What is needed is more than facts, but an entire line of reasoning.

The most important question is: what is Islam? This simple question is the crux of all discussion about Islam. Most say that Islam is whatever Muslims say it is. This leads to endless articles and discussions about what some expert Muslim says and that, in turn, leads to the discussion of whether that Muslim is a "moderate" Muslim or an "extremist" Muslim. Using Muslims to define Islam is Muslim-ology, a branch of sociology.

Using Muslims to define Islam confuses cause and effect. Islamic doctrine causes Muslims; Muslims do not cause Islam. This can easily be seen in the naming. Islam means submission (not peace) and Muslim means one who submits. This clearly establishes cause and effect. Muslims submit to Islam, not-Islam submits to Muslims. Islam submits to no one.

Muslim-ology is not a reliable method since it is a branch of sociology and has all of its limitations. How many Muslims do you have to ask? Which ones do you believe if there are contradictions? Besides, if what a Muslim says disagrees with the Koran and the Sunna (what Mohammed did and said) it is wrong. If it agrees with the Koran and the Sunna, then it is redundant. The only Muslim who counts is Mohammed. Therefore, the only reliable answer comes from the doctrine of the Koran and the Sunna. There is only one other basis for studying Islam--its doctrine.

Islam is founded upon the words of Allah (the Koran) and the Sunna (the words and actions of Mohammed found in the Sira and the Hadith). The words of Allah are only about 17% of the total doctrinal texts. The words and actions of Mohammed comprise 83% of the doctrine of Islam.

The Sunna is the perfect example of Mohammed's words and deeds. The necessity for the Sunna is found in over 40 verses in the Koran that say that those who do not follow the pattern of Mohammed will go to Hell and the more than 30 verses that command Muslims to follow the example of Mohammed.

The Sunna of Mohammed is found in the Sira (Mohammed's official biography) and the Hadith (the Traditions of Mohammed). The Sira is found in the texts by Ibn Ishaq, Al Tabari, and Ibn Sa'd. Ishaq's text is the most authoritative. The Hadith are collections of what Mohammed did and said upon specific events. There are six major collections that are used by Sunnis. Of these Bukhari is the most authoritative.

So in summary, the doctrine of Islam is found in its three foundational texts--Koran, Sira and Hadith--the Islamic Trilogy.

ISLAMIC POLITICAL DOCTRINE
Islam is a complete civilization--a religion, a culture, a political system, a philosophy and a legal system.

The Trilogy divides all of humanity into two categories: those who believe that Mohammed is the final prophet of Mohammed's god, Allah and those who do not. Those who believe are called Muslims and those who do not are called kafirs.

Kafir is translated as unbeliever, but this is an incorrect usage. An unbeliever is a neutral term and is a statement of logic. It merely denotes a lack of belief. The word kafir is defined by its usage in the Koran and is far from neutral.

We can now make a great simplification of the textual material of the Trilogy. None of the doctrine that only applies to Muslims is of any importance to kafirs and can therefore be ignored. For instance, exactly how does a Muslim pray? The religious and cultural dimensions of Islam are of no concern to kafirs. This paper only relates how kafirs are treated and how Islam interacts with kafirs, as in jihad.

How Islam treats the kafir is political Islam. A Muslim is strictly forbidden to have any religious interaction with a kafir, except attempts at conversion. Of course, Islam has an entire doctrine of internal politics, but that is of no concern here.

It is surprising how much of the doctrine is about the kafir, political Islam. About 61% of the Koran is devoted to the kafir, and all of it is negative. About 75% of the Sira (Mohammed's biography) is about the kafirs. Only the Hadith is primarily about Muslims with only 20% of Bukhari (the most authoritative) being about jihad (jihad is only practiced against kafirs).

This means that we can now discuss Islam without getting into religion and stay with politics. This frees us from some politically correct restrictions such as disparaging a religion.

DUALITY
There is one last element of the background needed to understand the concept of deceit in Islam. Islam is founded on two principles--submission and duality. The very name, Islam, means submission and the principle is that all humanity must submit to Islam.

Submission as a principle is well known. The principle of duality comes from the Islamic foundational doctrine and is the second key to understanding it.

Duality emerges as a natural principle from the Koran. An analysis of the Koran shows that it has two distinct divisions--the early Koran written in Mecca and the later Koran written in Medina. What is important is that the Medinan Koran contradicts the Meccan Koran. This contradiction is resolved by the Koran's stated principle of "abrogation". Abrogation means the later verse is stronger than the earlier verse. But since both verses come from Allah, both verses are still true since Allah is perfect.

An example:
2:256 There should be no coercion in religion. The truth stands out clearly from error.

9:5 When the sacred months [by ancient Arab custom there were four months during which there was to be no violence] are passed, kill the kafirs wherever you find them. Take them as captives, besiege them, and lie in wait for them with every kind of ambush. If they submit to Islam, observe prayer, and pay the poor tax, then let them go their way [if they convert to Islam].

Verse 2:256 is tolerant, but verse 9:5 says to kill the kafirs unless they convert. These two verses contradict each other. The violent verse comes later in time after the tolerant verse and therefore abrogates it. The tolerant verse came when Mohammed was in a weak position, the violent verse came when he was strong.

But the two contradictory verses are both true since they both come from the Koran. The later verse is used when Islam is strong and the earlier verse is used when it is weak.

This leads to a dualistic logic. Two contradictory statements can both be true. This dualism confuses the Western mind. Our logic is based upon the principle that if two statements contradict, then at least one of them has to be false. This is a unitary logic.

DUALISTIC SYSTEMS
Here is an example of how duality works using the example of jihad. Jihad is struggle and can be practiced with the sword, the mouth, the pen and by money. The sword version is sometimes called "holy war". One popular explanation is that inner struggle is the greater jihad and that the jihad of the sword is the lesser jihad.

It is the nature of dualistic systems that there is never a single answer to a question, since there are two bases for any answer. So a statistical measure is the only answer.

Example:
The Hadith of Bukhari can be used to define jihad. The discussion of jihad takes up 20% of Bukhari's total text. Of the hadiths devoted to jihad, 3% are about the inner struggle, the greater jihad. But 97% of the jihad hadiths are devoted to jihad as a way to annihilate kafirs and their culture, the lesser jihad.

So, on a textual basis--jihad is 3% inner struggle, the greater jihad, and 97% violence against the kafir, the lesser jihad.
Notice that these statistics tell us nothing about what choice an individual Muslim may make. One Muslim may choose jihad as an inner struggle, the greater jihad, to quit smoking cigarettes, while another Muslim may choose jihad as using violence against kafirs, the lesser jihad. What is important is that both choices are morally acceptable inside Islam.

What is the right answer to the question: which jihad is the "real" Islam? The proper answer is that both are the real Islam. Dualism gives two "right" answers even if the answers contradict each other. This is very confusing to non-Muslims. We are used to unitary logic and unitary ethics, where only one side of a contradiction can be true. So we insist that one side of the duality must be the real one and the other, contradictory statement must be false. But in dualistic logic, two contrary answers can both be true and used when needed.

There is a good analogy about dualism found in quantum physics. An electron may have several states and probabilities for each state. An electron in orbit may have a 50% chance of being "spin up" or a 50% chance of being "spin down". But a measurement of an individual electron will show that it is either spin up or spin down at the time of the measurement.

Which is the "real" state of the electron? That is a poorly posed question and as such has no answer. The right question to ask about a multi-state system is: what are the states and what are the probabilities of each state?

Endless ink has been wasted over similarly poorly posed questions such as, what is the real Islam? Instead, the properly posed question is: what contradictory choices are available? How much text is devoted to each side of the contradiction? Then, which choice has a Muslim made?

DECEPTION AND DECEIT
Islamic ethics is based upon dualism. There is one set of rules for the Muslim and another set of rules for the kafir. Islamic ethical dualism extends to truth and deceit.

TRUTH
In Islam something that is not true is not always a lie.
Bukhari 3,49,857 Mohammed: "A man who brings peace to the people by making up good words or by saying nice things, though untrue, does not lie."

An oath by a Muslim is flexible.
Bukhari 8,78,618 Abu Bakr faithfully kept his oaths until Allah revealed to Mohammed the atonement for breaking them. Afterwards he said, "If I make a pledge and later discover a more worthy pledge, then I will take the better action and make amends for my earlier promise."

When deception advances Islam, the deception is not a sin.
Bukhari 5,59,369 Mohammed asked, "Who will kill Ka'b, the enemy of Allah and Moham-med?"
Bin Maslama rose and responded, "O Mohammed! Would it please you if I killed him?"
Mohammed answered, "Yes."
Bin Maslama then said, "Give me permission to deceive him with lies so that my plot will succeed."
Mohammed replied, "You may speak falsely to him."

Ali was raised by Mohammed from the age of ten and became the fourth caliph. Ali pronounced the following on lies and deception.
Bukhari 9,84,64 When I relate to you the words of Mohammed, by Allah, I would rather die than bear false witness to his teachings. However, if I should say something unrelated to the prophet, then it might very well be a lie so that I might deceive my enemy. Without question, I heard Mohammed say, "In the final days before Redemption there will emerge groups of foolish youths who will say all the right things but their faith will go no further than their mouths and will flee from their religion like an arrow. So, kill the apostates wherever you find them, because whoever does so will be rewarded on Judgment Day."

Deceit is part of Islamic war against the kafirs.
Bukhari 4,52,267 Mohammed: "The king of Persia will be destroyed, and no one shall assume his throne. Caesar will certainly be destroyed and no Caesar will follow him; his coffers will be spent in Allah's cause [jihad]." Mohammed cried out, "Jihad is deceit."

Deceit in war, the community and marriage:
Muslim 032,6303 According to Mohammed, someone who strives to promote harmony amongst the faithful and says or conveys good things is not a liar. Ibn Shihab said that he had heard only three exceptions to the rules governing false statements: lies are permissible in war, to reconcile differences between the faithful, and to reconcile a husband and wife through the manipulation or twisting of words.

TAQIYYA
The name for deception that advances Islam is taqiyya (safeguard, concealment, piety). But a Muslim must never lie to another Muslim. A lie should never be told unless there is no other way to accomplish the task. Kitman is a form of deceit that consists of not telling the whole truth.

Here are two examples of sacred deceit, taqiyya. They are taken from Ishaq (the Sira, Mohammed's biography):
Ishaq 224 A member of the Abyssinian royalty, called the Negus, became convinced of the truth of Islam. He was accused by the Christians of leaving his religion. The Negus wrote on a piece of paper, "There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet. Jesus was a Muslim, born of Mary, conceived without a father." He then pinned the statement under his shirt over his heart. When the other Abyssinians accused the Negus of leaving Christianity and they said, "Jesus was the Son of God." The Negus placed his hand over his heart (and the paper with the statement) and told the Christians, "I testify that Jesus was no more than this." The Christians took him at his word and left him. When Mohammed heard this, he prayed for the Negus when he died.

Ishaq 771 After the conquest of the Jews at Khaybar, al Hajjaj asked Mohammed if he could go to Mecca and get money owed to him by merchants there. He told Mohammed that he would have to tell lies in order to get his money. Mohammed told him to tell the lies.

There is a special case of deception mentioned in the Koran. It is acceptable to be deceptive about Islam as long as there is belief in the heart.
16:106 Those who disbelieve in Allah after having believed [became apostates], who open their hearts to disbelief, will feel the wrath of Allah and will have a terrible punishment--except there is no punishment for anyone who is compelled by force to deny Allah in words, but whose heart is faithful .

This material is not all of the doctrine on deceit, but it is enough to make the case that deceit is part of Islamic ethics.

THE GOLDEN RULE
Most kafir ethical systems are based upon some version of "treat others as you wish to be treated". Fundamental to this concept is that humanity is seen as equal. The Declaration of Independence and democracy are all based upon the Golden Rule. Slavery was ended on the principle of the equality of humanity before the law.

We don't always live up to the Golden Rule, but the it furnishes the basis for judging what is unfair and then correcting it. Those who treat others badly can be condemned and corrected by the Golden Rule. We may not always follow the Golden Rule, but we agree that it is our central ethical principle.

The underlying basis of the Golden Rule is the concept of "others". "Others" means each and every human being is included in its application. The Golden Rule is universal and is a unitary ethic. There is one rule for everybody. Islam explicitly denies the truth of the Golden Rule by the concept of the kafir. This makes it a dualistic system.

SUMMARY
A Muslim has the option of lying to a kafir. Mohammed repeatedly told Muslims to use deception when it would advance Islam.

Bill Warner

Signup for our weekly newletter.

copyright 2008, CBSX, Inc. dba politicalislam.com

Use this as you will, just do not edit and give us credit.

Permalink: http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/the-doctrine-of-deceit/

Home

1.  A Federal prosecutor may be in trouble because he’s a smart, successful kafir.

2.  Jihad against the Christians at the highest level!  A Common Word is supreme jihad by Islamic scholars and the Muslim Brotherhood, championed by the usual dhimmi suspects at Yale, Harvard and Princeton Divinity Schools. Here’s the brilliant rebuttal by knowledgeable kafirs to this taqiyya-fest titled, “Truth  About A Common Word.”

3.  The Muslim Brotherhood supreme guide in Egypt on Bin Laden the jihad fighter, Sharia law and various other hot Islamic political topics. From Memri.org.

Debating about Islam, Part 2

THERE ARE DIFFERENT KINDS OF ISLAM
The differences in the different kinds of Islam are due to religion, not politics. Take the Sunni/Shia split, the largest division in Islam. Both Sunnis and Shias completely agree on how to treat kafirs and jihad. All Muslim subscribe to one of five schools of the Sharia and the Sharia’s position regarding kafirs and jihad is the nearly the same for all the schools.

The only big difference is whether to use violent jihad or peaceful jihad against the kafirs.

HADITH—SOME OF THOSE AREN’T REAL
If you quote a hadith to a Muslim and they don’t like it, they will say, “Well, some of those hadiths are not acceptable (or true or some other disclaimer).” And that is true. Actually, when a Muslim says that, they are practicing taqiyya, sacred deception and duality. If it is a hadith, then a Muslim cannot be denied the right to follow it. It is Sunna.

The hadiths from Bukhari and Muslim  are the creme de la creme of hadiths. When Bukhari made his collection, he threw out 99% of those he found. Those 99% are the unsure ones, the other 1% which are used here are authoritative.

THE MYTH OF THE ARABS, ABRAHAM AND ISHMAEL
The core of the myth is told in the Koran about how Adam built the Kabah at Mecca. It was the first house of worship. Then Abraham brought Ishmael to Mecca, prepared to perform the sacrifice demanded by God. Ishmael was left in Mecca with his mother, Hagar.

We have a very detailed report of Mecca at the time of Mohammed right down to the names of individuals, their children and wives. Arabs were very keen on family relationships. A person’s very name gave you his father’s or son’s name and a chain of relationships. One of the things that infuriated the Meccans about Mohammed was that he said their ancestors were in Hell since they were not Muslims.

Not a single person in Mohammed’s Mecca is named Abraham, Ishmael, or Hagar. Not one. Why? They had no knowledge about any relationship between the Arabs and Abraham. They knew of the Jews and Abraham, but they made no claim of kinship with their names. After Mohammed, these names became common amongst Muslims.

This has another large implication. Islam claims that Muslims, Christians and Jews are members of the Abrahamic faith. Not so. There is no such thing. It was an unsubstantiated claim by Mohammed.

THE ISLAMIC GOLDEN AGE
If you spend any time talking about Islam you will hear: “What about the greatness of the Islamic Golden Age? Why, the West got all of its real learning from the Muslims. They preserved the Greek philosophers, invented algebra, chemistry, the algorithm and laid the basis of our learning.” Or: “The high point of human civilization occurred in Baghdad and Moorish Spain. It was all peace and harmony with Christians, Jews and Muslims living in multi-cultural compatibility.”

“When Europe was mired in the Dark Ages, Islam was a shining light on the hill. “

Hmmm. Let’s go over the data. Notice that the best of Islam is compared with the worst of the West. First, there never was a “Dark Age”. This prejudicial naming came from the time of the Renaissance when they looked back at the dogmatic approach to knowledge in medieval times and wanted to separate themselves from it. It is just like new rich wanting to shed their poor ancestry.

Let’s examine the Middle Ages for a moment and see how they came about. The collapse of Greek and Roman civilization came about from internal problems of too much wealth for too long. The ravages of the bubonic plague wiped out an estimated 30 to 60 percent of the European population, making it vulnerable to invasion. The annihilation of the centers of learning came from the jihad of Islam. So even if you want to use the term Dark Ages, at least recognize the influence of jihad.

And let’s look at how “un-dark” the “Dark Ages” were. Everyone agrees that the Renaissance was one of humanity’s great moments. But how did all of that greatness spring from the “Dark Ages”? You don’t get a champion racehorse from a plug mare. The Middle Ages were a time when the European man was created. The collapse of Roman central government allowed a new culture to emerge that was a fusion of Roman, Greek, Celtic and Germanic culture. Part of this culture was mechanical genius.

Europe was creating a new mind, the mind that would change the world by producing practical machines such as water mills and a thousand small improvements in daily life. The cathedrals were a stunning tribute to humanity and works of great beauty.
Without the Middle Ages there could not have been a Europe or a Renaissance.

Now look at the Golden Age of Islam in Baghdad. Where did it come from? Not from Islam. The Koran was the first book written in Arabia. Architecture in Arabia consisted of mud huts. Mohammed’s house was made from mud bricks; a man could touch the ceiling and a curtain served as a door. Arabic culture was barely iron age with its only art being poetry.

So where did the learning come from? Islam crushed the Christian, Zoroastrian, Buddhist and Hindu cultures and brought them all together in one culture. The scholars of these cultures were brought together and created an intellectual surge called the Islamic Golden Age. It was kafirs who created this so-called Golden Age while Islam took the credit. As an example, we call our numbers Arabic numerals. But the Arabs got them from the Hindus and took credit. We should call our numbers Hindu numerals.

It was Christian dhimmis who translated all of the Greek and Roman literature for their masters. Later, when this material was translated back into Greek and Latin, the Muslims got the credit for the work. In short, Islam got its knowledge just like it got its wealth— from theft and violence.

Islam cannot sustain any intellectual effort. Their own scholars cannot do the work due to the limitations of the dogma of Islamic thought.

And what were the Muslims able to do with this knowledge? Not much. What did they do with glass? Make pretty windows for the mosque. Europeans took glass and made microscopes and telescopes as well as stained glass. What did the Muslims do with mathematics? Not much. They combined the mathematics of the Greeks and Hindus and created algebra. And what did they do with algebra? Nothing. When it came back to Europe, the Europeans created calculus and physics.

A list of the great Arabic scholars reveals that many on the list were Christians with Arabic names. And the best of the Muslim scholars turned out not to be very Muslim and their works were later demolished by Muslims who were true to the real knowledge of Islam, the Koran.

Now let’s look at the great Moorish Spain. It was supposed to be a great center of multiculturalism. Of course, there was that day in Cordoba when the Muslims killed 8,000 Jews, but ignore that. What did Islam do as soon as it came to Spain? Shipped a thousand blondes off to be slaves in North Africa. But ignore that. Then there was the day when, after a battle against the Christian knights, they beheaded all the corpses and all the prisoners to build a hill of skulls. A Muslim then mounted the hill of skulls and issued the call to prayer. But ignore that.

How can any culture that makes slaves and dhimmis of all kafirs be called great? Simple. It served the needs of the groups that pushed the idea. It was Voltaire and Jewish scholars who created the idea of the Golden Age in Moorish Spain. Why? As an intellectual counterweight to the hated Catholic church. That propaganda attack survives today. It is the intellectuals who hate Christianity today, who push the same ideas.

If Islamic learning was so great, then where are the great Muslim scholars of today? No Islamic nation has ever had a Nobel prize in science. Not one. There have been eight Muslims who shared Nobel prizes in science, but it occurred in working in kafir nations and with kafir partners.

Bill Warner

Signup for our weekly newletter.

copyright 2008, CBSX, Inc. dba politicalislam.com

Use this as you will, just do not edit and give us credit.

Permalink: http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/debating-about-islam-part-2/

A Muslim professor discusses “moderate Muslims.”
His definition of this term should be read very carefully. Also notice that he includes the head of the Muslim Brotherhood in Europe, Tariq Ramadan, as one of this group.

China has its problems with jihad. And then there were the bus bombings.

A Muslim doctor on how to take over an American hospital and make it a Muslim one.

Dhimmitude at the Washington Post.

Debating About Islam

Once you know something about Islam and try to talk to others, you may find yourself in a debate. Here are some of the “standards”.

CAN YOU READ ARABIC?
Everyone from Muslims to atheists uses this. The implication is that Arabic is a unique language that can’t be translated and therefore, how could you know what you are talking about? First, the Koran claims to be a universal message for all humanity for all times. If the message is universal, then it must be able to be understood by all. If the message cannot be understood by everybody, then by definition it is not universal. So, which is it?

Another thing to consider is that over half of the Koran is about kafirs and politics. Do you really think that a political message about a kafir cannot be understood by the kafir? If so, what is that message that cannot be understood?

It must be made clear which Arabic is being spoken about. The Arabic of the Koran is classical Arabic which is about as similar to modern Arabic as the English of Chaucer and Beowulf is similar to modern English. Said in another way, not even a modern Arab can read classical Arabic. It is estimated that fewer than a thousand scholars who read classical Arabic can compose a paragraph on a random topic.

And what about the nearly billion Muslims who don’t even understand modern Arabic? If it is necessary to understand classical Arabic to understand what the Koran is about, then how can those billion non-Arabic-speaking Muslims understand the Koran? And if they cannot understand the Koran how can they be Muslims?

Ask the person who presents the argument if they have any opinions about the doctrine of Christianity. Then ask them if they read Hebrew, Aramaic or Biblical Greek? If they do not read those languages how can they form an opinion about something they have to read in translation? Of course they can read it and form an opinion, the same way we can read and understand the Koran.

A secondary question is why would anyone want to believe that the Koran couldn’t be understood? What is the purpose of believing that out of all the books in the world, why would there be one that cannot be translated?

The Koran is only 18% of the total doctrine. Would the questioner believe that the other 82% of the doctrine not be understood as well?

WELL, THE CHRISTIANS DID...
This response usually comes after some grim facts are given about Islam. This is probably the most common response from non-Christians. The best response is to ask if they have a reason that they don’t want to talk about Islam, since they want to change the subject. The average person knows next to nothing about Islam and sometimes this gambit is merely a way to steer the conversation into a familiar ground.

They are just trying to prove that Islam is not any worse than Christianity. At this point, welcome the chance to compare the two. Choose the ground of comparison. The best place to start is the founders. Compare Mohammed to Christ. The other good comparison is in ethics. Compare Islam’s dualistic ethics to unitary Golden Rule ethics.

Another version of this is that the person will compare some failed Christian to a “good” Muslim they know at work. It is fairly useless to do personal comparisons. How do you choose which Muslim out of 1.5 billion Muslims and which Christian do you choose out of a couple billion Christians?

A variation on the “Well, the Christians did …” is “What about the Crusades”? This is the time to say you welcome a comparison of the Crusades to jihad. Start with the question of why the Crusades were needed. Islamic jihad caused the invasion of the Middle East. The Crusades were a response to a cry for help by the tortured and oppressed Christians in their native land. Did the Christians do some very wrong things? Yes, but notice that the Crusades have been over nearly a thousand years. Jihad is active today. And while we are at it, why do academic libraries have many books on the Crusades, which lasted only 200 years, and so few on jihad, which has lasted 1400 years? The West has analyzed the Crusades forever and has never analyzed jihad.

I KNOW THIS MUSLIM AND HE SAYS...
Why is the Muslim your friend knows the only Muslim out of 1.5 billion that makes him the expert on Islam? Remember, the average Muslim knows very little about the doctrine of Islam. Why? Because, historically the imams have acted as the high priests of Islam and they have never made the doctrine simple to understand. That is one way they keep their prestige and power.

But once you know something about the doctrine, you can say that you know also know a Muslim, and his name is Mohammed, and what you say comes from the Sunna. In short, your Muslim, Mohammed, can beat your friend’s Muslim on any issue of doctrine. If the Muslim your friend knows says something about Islam that agrees with Mohammed, then it is right. If what he says contradicts Mohammed, then he is wrong. So this Muslim your friend knows is either wrong or redundant, but never more right than Mohammed.

I KNOW THIS MUSLIM AND HE IS A NICE MAN
Probably so. What does that prove about Islam? He may follow the Golden Rule and not Islam. That is, he may be a poor Muslim and a good person.

Now is the time to explain about the Islam of Mecca and the Islam of Medina and which one is the more powerful. It is also time to explain about dualism and how Islam always has two faces.

Stay with doctrine and history of Islam, never get personal and talk about an individual Muslim. Actually, there is one way to talk about any Muslim, show how what they do and say follows the doctrine.

Besides, you know this Muslim and his name is Mohammed. Don’t talk about “Muslims,” talk about Mohammed.

THAT IS NOT THE REAL ISLAM
If you are quoting the Koran or the Sunna, then it is the real Islam, by definition. The Koran and the Sunna are Islam, the real Islam. All other Islam, such as is found in the media, is the false Islam. There is only one real Islam, the doctrine of Islam.

THEY DON’T REALLY BELIEVE THAT.
This comes after you have revealed some horrific part of the doctrine. What do Muslims call themselves? The believers. What do they believe? The Koran and the Sunna. They say that is what they believe. Really believe.

I KNOW THIS MUSLIM AND HE IS NOT VIOLENT
This is a restating of, “I know this Muslim and he is good man.” He may be a poor Muslim and a good man who follows the Golden Rule.

But, the statement shows that there is no understanding of the duality of Islam. The Koran has both violence and tolerance against the kafirs. Today in America the power of Islam is just getting started, so Islam is still weak. When Mohammed was weak in Mecca, he did not kill anybody. Islam is still in the first phase of jihad here.

But the Koran says that one Muslim can beat two kafirs. It also says that Islam must be the dominant political system. So when Muslims reach a third of the population (that makes it 2 to 1), they will be in the full stage of Medina and violence becomes a standard operation. But even then, we know from the Sira, that many Muslims just don’t have the stomach for the violence. The Sira shows that Muslims can support jihad many ways, besides personal violence. The “peaceful” Muslim you know is commanded to give money to Islamic charities and the charities give the money to the actual fighters.

WHAT ABOUT THE VIOLENCE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT?
Look at the violence in the Old Testament. It has two qualities—local and temporary. None of the violence is commanded to be global and eternal. In each case the violence is directed in a political struggle and when it was over it was over.

The violence in the Trilogy is for all Muslims, in all places and for all time. Jihad is to stop only when every kafir submits. Look at Mohammed, the perfect example. He was involved with violence until the day he died. And on his deathbed he directed eternal violence against the kafirs when he said in his last breath: “Let there be neither Christian or Jew left in Arabia.”

IF ISLAM IS SO VIOLENT, HOW CAN IT BE SO SUCCESSFUL?
The Sira records that when Islam committed violence, it attracted new followers. As Osama bin Laden says: “People like a winning horse.” After 9/11 in the US, new followers joined Islam. Communism was a political system that preached, promised and delivered violence and it attracted many people. Many people love violence. Have you never paid any attention to Hollywood? Violence is piled upon violence and people line up to see it.

Islam is growing rapidly. but most of the growth can be attributed to high birth rates, not conversion. Islam’s growth in kafir countries is due to immigration, not conversion.

Bill Warner

Signup for our weekly newletter.

copyright 2008, CBSX, Inc. dba politicalislam.com

Use this as you will, just do not edit and give us credit.

Permalink:http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/debating-about-islam-part-1/

Home

After Mohammed had destroyed the three tribes of Jews in Medina, he attacked the Jews of Khaybar, a hundred miles away. After they surrendered, he made them dhimmis. A dhimmi was a non-Muslim who agreed to resist nothing about Islam in law, customs, art or any public writing. In short, the culture became Islamic and the Jews could be Jews only in their homes and in the synagogue.

So today, a dhimmi is a kafir (non-Muslim) who goes along with Islam and even defends Islam. Examples of dhimmitude are ministers and rabbis who attend multicultural meetings with imams and say they worship the same god. A dhimmi never reads any of Islam’s source texts. When schools fail to teach the history of 270,000,000 killed in jihad, the school is practicing dhimmitude.

Since ignorance causes dhimmitude, knowledge of the doctrine of political Islam will change a dhimmi into a kafir.

Here is one dhimmi treaty with Christians:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor hide him from the Muslims.
4. We shall not teach the Koran to our children.
5. 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.
6. We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.
7. We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments.
8. We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our persons.
9. We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.
10. We shall not sell fermented drinks.
11. We shall clip the fronts of our heads. [An Arabic sign of shame, a beaten man]
12. We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists.
13. 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 take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.
14. We shall not build houses higher than the houses of the Muslims.

Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact.
(from Al-Turtushi, Siraj al-Muluk, pp. 229-230)

The Koran defines the kafir and says that the kafir is:

Hated- 40:35 They who dispute the signs of Allah [kafirs] without authority having reached them are greatly hated by Allah and the believers. So Allah seals up every arrogant, disdainful heart. and despised by Allah.

Mocked- 83:34 On that day the faithful will mock the kafirs, while they sit on bridal couches and watch them. Should not the kafirs be paid back for what they did?

Punished- 25:77 Say to the kafirs: My Lord does not care for you or your prayers. You have rejected the truth, so sooner or later, a punishment will come.

Beheaded- 47:4 When you encounter the kafirs on the battlefield, cut off their heads until you have thor-oughly defeated them and then take the prisoners and tie them up firmly.

Confused- 6:25 Some among them listen to you [Mohammed], but We have cast veils over their [kafirs] hearts and a heaviness to their ears so that they cannot understand our signs [the Koran].

Plotted against- 86:15 They plot and scheme against you [Mohammed], and I plot and scheme against them. Therefore, deal calmly with the kafirs and leave them alone for a while.

Terrorized- 8:12 Then your Lord spoke to His angels and said, "I will be with you. Give strength to the believers. I will send terror into the kafirs' hearts, cut off their heads and even the tips of their fin-gers!"

Annihilated- 6:45 So the kafirs were annihilated. All praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds.

Killed- 4:91 If they do not keep away from you or offer you peace or withdraw their hostilities, then seize them and kill them wherever they are. We give you complete authority over them.

Crucified- 5:33 The only reward for those who war against Allah and His messengers and strive to com-mit mischief on the earth is that they will be slain or crucified, have their alternate hands and feet cut off, or be banished from the land. This will be their disgrace in this world, and a great torment shall be theirs in the next except those who repent before you overpower them. Know that Allah is forgiving and merciful.

Made war on- 9:29 Make war on those who have received the Scriptures [Jews and Christians] but do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day. They do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden. The Christians and Jews do not follow the religion of truth until they submit and pay the poll tax [jizya], and they are humiliated.

A Muslim is not the friend of a kafir- 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.

A kafir is ignorant- 6:111 Even if We had sent down the angels to them [kafirs], the dead had spoken to them, and We had gathered all things before their eyes, they would not believe unless Allah had willed it, but most of them are ignorant.

Evil- 23:97 And say: Oh my Lord! I seek refuge with You from the suggestions of the evil ones [kafirs]. And I seek refuge with you, my Lord, from their presence.

Disgraced- 37:18 Tell them, "Yes! And you [kafirs] will be disgraced." a partner of Satan 25:55 And still they worship others besides Allah who can neither help nor hurt them. The kafir is Satan's ally against Allah. Unclean- 9:28 Oh, believers, only the kafirs are unclean.

Cursed- 33:60 They [kafirs] will be cursed, and wherever they are found, they will be seized and mur-dered. It was Allah's same practice with those who came before them, and you will find no change in Allah's ways.

Stolen from- Bukhari 5,59,537 On the day of Khaybar, Allah's Apostle divided the spoils of war of Khaybar with the ratio of two shares for the horse and one share for the foot soldier.

Raped- Ishaq 759 [Mohammed's official biography] On the occasion of Khaybar, Mohammed put forth new orders about forcing sex with captive women. If the woman was pregnant she was not to be used for sex until after the birth of the child. Nor were any women to be used for sex who were unclean with regard to Muslim laws about menstruation.

Christians and Jews are infidels, but infidels are kafirs, too. Polytheists are Hindus, but they are also kafirs. The terms infidel and polytheist are religious words. Only the word "kafir" shows the common political treatment of Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, animist, atheist and humanist.

The word kafir should be used instead of "unbeliever", the standard word. Unbeliever is a neutral term. The Koran defines the kafir and kafir is not a neutral word. A kafir is not merely someone who does not agree with Islam, but a kafir is evil, disgusting, the lowest form of life. Kafirs can be tortured, killed, lied to and cheated. So the usual word "unbeliever" does not reflect the political reality of Islam.

[From jihadwatch.com]

The Dalai Lama said Sunday that "it's totally wrong, unfair" to call Islam a violent religion. This is not the first time that the Dalai Lama has spoken up to say that Islam is not violent. Where does he get his information? He bases his statements on what his Muslim friends have told him.

For the Dalai Lama these Muslims represent the real Islam. They are not violent, and therefore, there is a peaceful Islam.

The Dalai Lama does not recognize the existence of a civilization called Islam. Islam has a highly detailed political doctrine that determines 100% of what a Muslim does to kafirs (kafirs is what the Koran calls unbelievers). This political doctrine includes what being "nice and moderate" to kafirs really means.

His opinions are of no consequence to Islam. Islam defines absolutely everything about a Muslim, down to how to say, "Hello".

Start with the basics. All Muslims believe that there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet. Simple, but it demands that Muslims follow the Koran and the perfect pattern of Mohammed's words and deeds (his Sunna). The Sunna is found in the Hadith (Traditions of Mohammed) and the Sira (Mohammed's biography). Today, these three texts, the Trilogy, are available in readable editions.

The doctrine of political and religious Islam is contained in these three books. It is very simple--three books--a Trilogy. To know Islam, read the Koran, Sira and Hadith; don't go and ask your Muslim friends.

This "peaceful Muslims = peaceful Islam" statements are actually about Muslim-ology, not Islam. It is perfectly fine to study Muslims, but do not draw conclusions about Islam from them. There is a cause and effect relationship that is confused. Islam causes Muslims. Muslims do not cause Islam. Muslim-ology teaches little about Islam.

This means that you judge Muslims by Islam, not Islam by Muslims. If you want to know anything about Islam read the Trilogy. If you want to know if someone is a moderate Muslim, use Islam to measure them, not personal opinion.

Islamic doctrine says that moderation consists of patterning your life after Mohammed's perfect example and living by the Koran. By this standard of moderation, Osama bin Laden is a moderate Muslim. Osama follows the example of Mohammed, the warrior jihadist, and the later Medinan Koran. The Koran has two parts and the second part is about politics and jihad. A jihadist is a moderate Muslim.

But wait, what about those other moderate Muslims? They follow the Islam of the earlier Meccan Koran. So they are moderate too.

Islam is dualistic and has two different kinds of moderate. Here is the bad news. Islam is a process, not just a name. Both the Koran and the Sira, Mohammed's life, show a process of starting off with civility, then demanding and next moving to violence as Islam grows stronger.

Mohammed preached the religion of Islam in Mecca for 13 years and gained 150 followers. He went to Medina and became a politician and warrior in jihad. In 10 years he conquered all of Arabia and died without an enemy left standing. Just as there are two Korans, there are two Mohammeds. Islam is dualistic in its nature.

Mohammed's life was a dualistic process, an Islamic process of success. Those "moderate" Muslims represent the early stages of Islamification.

In Islam, doctrine matters, and doctrine is what the Dalai Lama doesn't understand. What is his justification for ignoring it? Read his statements and comments. He never, ever, not even once, quotes any Islamic doctrine. He merely asserts that his Muslim friends have told him what Islam is. What if he asked different Muslims? He would get different answers.

The Dalai Lama is a hypocrite. In addressing Buddhism, he is very careful to quote doctrine and facts. When he talks about Islam, he just repeats what his Muslim friends say.

Here is the real tragedy. The Dalai Lama is not different from George Bush or any other politician. They know absolutely nothing about Islam, just what their Muslim "friends" tell them.

When will we have leaders who can talk from knowledge about the doctrine of Islam found in the Koran, Sira and Hadith? Hello Dalai, if you want to be a leader quote the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith, not your Muslim friends.

Bill Warner
Signup for our weekly newletter.
copyright 2008, CBSX, Inc. dba politicalislam.com
Use this as you will, just do not edit and give us credit.
Permalink:http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/an-ethical-basis-for-war-against-political-islam-part-3/Home

Radio Interview with Bill Warner

July 10, 2008, 12:00 PDT, 3:00 EDT on the Web, BlogTalkRadio.

From the Bookshelf

The Last Night of a Damned Soul http://www.amazon.com/Last-Night-Damned-Soul-Novel/dp/0802117805 by Slimane Benaissa.

Slimane Benaissa, an Algerian Berber living in France, is an author, playwright, and actor. He wrote The Last Night of a Damned Soul in reaction to the suicide bombings of 9/11. It is a noble and courageous response for a Muslim, as his intent is to tell the painful but illuminating truth about the Islamic jihad ideology of death.

The protagonist, Raouf, is a computer programmer living in Northern California. His father, now deceased, was from Egypt and his mother from Lebanon. His well-educated parents are professionals and barely a cultural Muslim as is he.

Raouf has become depressed, fearful and emotionally empty after his father's death. When his devout Muslim friend and co-worker, Athman takes him to the ranch of a wealthy Saudi to celebrate the Feast of the Sacrifice, Raouf's life takes a sharp turn. He is touched by the sheik's sermon and feels that perhaps he can be saved from the void his life has become by submitting to the will of Allah and returning to the practice of Islam.

Raouf formally repents and is welcomed by the community of Believers. Little by little, he divests himself of all western ways, his Christian girlfriend, his beloved dog, and secular pleasures such as the use of alcohol. Even his treatment of his mother changes as he turns to religion for comfort and direction. His devotion leads him to make jihad but he still asks philosophical questions about the path he has chosen.

In retreat for two months, Raouf purifies his body by fasting and prepares his mind by prayers, Koran readings and sermons from the imams. Secure in his intent, he joins a terrorist cell to become a suicide bomber and takes an oath of loyalty to his Muslim brothers. His jihadi training to overcome the fear of death and to focus his concentration consists of sleeping in a shroud, stimulus deprivation and detachment from the material world, extreme fasting, drugs, chanting Koran suras and repetitive prayers to induce trance states, and quasi-mystical ceremonies. The jihad these mujahidin will make is the flying of hijacked airplanes into a tall building . . .

This book has been criticized for a lack of literary merit and didacticism including the inclusion of many sermons, quotations from the Koran and prayers. It is the last category that is the reason I recommend it. Benaissa shows us step by step how the process from Muslim "hypocrite" to mujahidin happens, how the religion of Islam is the catalyst for its politics, and how the pattern of jihad is contained in the Islamic trilogy of the Koran, the Hadith and the Sira. Benaissa gives us a chilling blueprint for the training of the jihadi, a key that unlocks the door of the psychology of the making of a suicide bomber.

CSPI's criticism of the book is due to the use of the words God for Allah and heathen for kafir. Allah is described in the Koran as anthropomorphic, misogynistic, a plotter and deceiver who delights in the torment and suffering of the kafirs. He is nothing like the God of the Jews, the Christians and Hindus. Muslims call their god Allah and that is how we should refer to him. In the same way, the word kafir is translated as heathen. Heathen is defined in Webster's Dictionary as an "uncivilized" or" irreligious" person, while the Islamic term kafir defines a person who is despicable, hated and sub-human.

The Last Night of a Damned Soul is a look into the indoctrination of a jihadi and as horrifying as any Stephen King novel. True, it is not a literary work, but it is well worth the read.

Bill Warner

Signup for our weekly newletter.

copyright 2008, CBSX, Inc. dba politicalislam.com

Use this as you will, just do not edit and give us credit.

Permalink: http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/last-night-of-a-damned-soul/

Home