Implied Pressure: Mr. Albanese, Jew hatred, and the Education We Were Afraid to Teach

Naming the Game Without Saying the Name

When Prime Minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese, announced the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion (RCA), he did something both cautious and daring at once. The Commission’s terms of reference call for examination of the nature and drivers of Jew hatred, including “ideologically and religiously motivated extremism and radicalisation”, alongside measures to strengthen social cohesion and public safety.¹

Yet conspicuously absent is any explicit naming of Islam or its doctrine. That omission matters, because the current global wave of Jew hatred, particularly in its post-2001 manifestations cannot be examined seriously without confronting politics, violent jihad, Sharia and the treatment of non-Muslims embedded within Islamic primary texts.

The result is a paradox. Mr. Albanese has invited scrutiny of “extremism” while leaving the ideology, Political Islam, which is embedded in the Islamic primary doctrine, unnamed. He has, in effect, opened the door without putting a sign on the room.

Mr. Albanese’s approach is not weakness but tactical courage. He is attempting to keep his eye on the ball of Jew hatred and social cohesion, while the powerful doctrinal and political pressures attempt to divert attention away from full and accurate disclosure of Islamic political teaching.

Doctrine and the Prohibition of Critique

Classical Islamic jurisprudence does not treat critique as neutral scholarship. It treats it as moral offence. In Reliance of the Traveller (RoT) , an authoritative manual of Sharia in the Sunni tradition, the definition of slander (ghiba) is remarkably broad:

“If he notices something bad, it is unlawful to mention it, as this is slander.” (RoT g2.5)

And further:

“Slander means mentioning anything concerning a person that he would dislike.” (RoT r2.2)

Applied doctrinally, this framing means that critical examination of Islamic political and legal content is not merely disagreement; it becomes prohibited speech.

The Koran reinforces obedience over inquiry:

“And it becometh not a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His messenger have decided an affair (for them), that they should (after that) claim any say in their affair; and whoso is rebellious to Allah and His messenger, he verily goeth astray in error manifest.” (Koran 33:36)

“O ye who believe! Come, all of you, into submission [Islam] (unto Him); and follow not the footsteps of the devil. Lo! he is an open enemy for you.” (Koran 2:208)

“He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion. And Allah sufficeth as a Witness.” (Koran 48:28)

Taken together, these sources frame Islam not simply as faith, but as complete civilization. Legal, political and social ideology. Questioning its structure is, as described by the Islamic doctrine itself, an act bordering on blasphemy.

This matters for the RCA because any investigation into “religiously motivated extremism” that touches doctrine is immediately subject to pressure not to ask certain questions, not to use certain words, and not to disclose certain texts.

That pressure is not accidental. It is doctrinal.

Rushdie and the Cost of Looking Too Closely

The sensitivity of doctrinal exposure is not hypothetical. Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses, a fictional and indirect engagement with Mohammed’s Hadith material, resulted in a fatwa that remains in effect decades later. Mr. Rushdie did not run a Royal Commission. He wrote a novel.

If a novelist’s imagination can trigger such reaction, one should not underestimate the resistance faced by political leaders who are tasked with asking whether religious doctrine itself contributes to hostility, violence, or antisemitism.

Mr. Albanese’s RCA, although far more cautious, nonetheless places pressure on a protected zone: doctrine itself. It asks whether antisemitism arises socially alone, or whether theological and legal frameworks embedded in religious systems play a role.

The difficulty is that Islamic jurisprudence traditionally frames such inquiry not as civic necessity, but as insult. The fatwa on Mr. Rushdie is an implied pressure that many dare not test.

Education Without Disclosure

Before the RCA, Mr. Albanese appointed two special envoys — one on antisemitism and one on Islamophobia, whose reports called for education almost one hundred times. Education is presented as the cure-all.

The Endless Answer to the Wrong Question

Education, apparently, is our national incense: wave it at any problem and hope the smoke clears.

Yet Australia already teaches Islamic studies extensively. Hundreds of units, thousands of books, decades of scholarship. What exactly remains undiscovered?

The issue is not absence of education, it is selective education.

Victorian research into 21 years of Islamic studies examinations found that only 3 (1.5%) of questions addressed management, subjugation, or violence against non-Muslims. The overwhelming majority focused on devotional, ethical and domestic matters. The fact is that 6.7% of the Koran’s content is an anti-Jewish text, 8.7% is dedicated to jihad. All together Koran focuses 64% of its content to non-Muslims. This is not balance. It is structurally and systemically selective.

CSPII’s statistical methodology shows a similar pattern in Western security discourse. For example, in the USA, words such as jihad, Islamic, Sharia, and Islamist quietly disappeared from official lexicons after 2007, replaced with generic euphemisms (Acts of Violent Jihad and Ideological War of Political Islam 2020).² The doctrine did not change; the language did.

Education became reassurance rather than instruction.

As a result, students graduate knowing how followers of Islamic doctrine pray and eat, but not how the doctrine governs law, authority, obedience, jihad, or relations with non-Muslims, the very elements relevant to antisemitism, extremism and a fracturing of social coehesion.

Parliament’s Long Memory, Academia’s Short One

Hansard from the early post-9/11 period reveals that Australian leaders from Canberra to all corners of Australia called for deeper, not shallower, inquiry. Parliamentary debates recognized that ideology, political doctrine mattered.

At the same time, representatives also warned about sensitivities. One 2002 ACT Assembly debate argued that repeatedly linking terrorism and Islamic doctrine would provoke division.³ That caution gradually hardened into avoidance.

Instead of confronting doctrine carefully, institutions learned to scope it out.

Ironically, Australia’s own terrorism cases Jack Roche, Joseph “Jihad Jack” Thomas and others explicitly referenced doctrinal motivation in legal proceedings.⁴ These were not sociological accidents. They were ideologically informed acts.

Yet doctrine vanished from education while remaining central to security law.

Implied Pressure and the Art of the Mark

Implied pressure on our leaders can be found in the wider civilizational context surrounding the issue, reflected starkly in more than 49,000 recorded jihad events worldwide.⁵ These are not merely statistics; they form a background hum of consequence that shapes political behaviour. In such an environment, leadership decisions are rarely made in a vacuum. They are influenced by anticipation of reaction, backlash, and  destabilisation long before any policy is publicly articulated.

Here the Australian football metaphor becomes useful. When a player goes back with the flight of the ball, the hardest part is not the mark itself; it is the implied pressure. Knees rise, bodies close, eyes wander. The instinct is to look for who is coming rather than where the ball is. Fear diverts attention. The mark is missed not because the ball is difficult, but because the player becomes preoccupied with impact. The best players don’t do this. They absorb the risk, block out the noise, and keep their eyes on the ball.

In the present debate, Islamic doctrine exerts precisely this kind of implied and actual pressure. It pressures institutions, politicians, and academics to look sideways: toward offence, toward community backlash, toward reputational risk anything except full disclosure of texts, law, jihad, authority structures, and the doctrinal treatment of non-Muslims. The consequence is hesitation disguised as sensitivity, avoidance framed as tolerance, and silence justified as prudence. Only through careful management of political levers and disciplined public discourse can such a delicate subject be explored without dire consequences and only if leaders, like elite players, keep their eyes on the ball rather than the oncoming collision.

Many drop their eyes.

Mr. Albanese, however, has not. By establishing the RCA around antisemitism and extremism, he is going for the mark. It is clear that criticism will come. But he has kept the ball in sight: understanding the real drivers of antisemitism rather than merely its social symptoms. It is courage under pressure.

Conclusion: Education, But Not as Before

Education will indeed be central to the Royal Commission’s work as evidenced by the government’s establishment of an Antisemitism Education Taskforce and its endorsement of curriculum reform. (Department of Education)

But the critical question remains: education about what? Unless Australians confront the doctrinal dimensions underlying current global wave of antisemitism and ideological violence, we risk producing more textbooks than understanding, more institutions than insight.

As Louie Simmons used to say: “Doing the same bad drills and expecting a different result is nuts.”

The RCA has begun a conversation that many have avoided. The next step is ensuring what is taught includes the elements long excluded. Only then can education fulfill its promise — and the implied pressure exerted by this Commission be translated into structural clarity, not just cautious rhetoric.

Read Our Submission to the Royal Commission:

Contact for Australia

Gregory Francis Hearn
CSPII 🇦🇺 Education Director & C4WU Director
[email protected]

Sources

1. Letters Patent, Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, Terms of Reference, Commonwealth of Australia.
2. Center for the Study of Political Islam International (CSPII), Acts of Violent Jihad and Ideological War of Political Islam, statistical analysis of lexicon disappearance.
3. Hansard, ACT Legislative Assembly, 12 November 2002, debate on terrorism and religion.
4. R v Roche (2003); R v Thomas (2006), Australian terrorism prosecutions referencing ideological motivation.
5. The Religion of Peace, online resource, www.thereligionofpeace.com
6. Pickthall, Marmaduke. 1930. The Meaning of The Glorious Koran, An Explanatory Translation, New York: Alfred AKnopf.
7. Keller, Nuh Ha Mim, Reliance of the Traveller: A Classical Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, Amana Publications.

Political Islam’s version of the story of women’s rights in Arabia is that: before Islam, women had no legal rights or any standing in society; that they had neither property nor inheritance rights because they themselves were considered property; that they were bought and sold into marriage and their male relatives kept the money. Muslims claim that all changed with Mohammed and Islam. Not only do they assert that Islam granted women rights and made them equal with men, they even go so far as to call Mohammed the first feminist. What does the historical record say, and more importantly, what does Islamic doctrine say? How did the advent of Islam ultimately affect the status of women?

In the tribal society of pre-Islamic Arabia, your social status depended not only on your sex, but also on your tribe, and your family’s status within your tribe. While some tribes were arranged according to a patriarchal hierarchy, women had the power in others. In those tribes it was the men who were deprived of property and other rights. They were not bought and sold like women in patriarchal tribes, but they were politically irrelevant. Perhaps a more honest assessment of Arabian society in Mohammed’s day is that it was not in any way egalitarian. Your position in society was determined by a confluence of factors.

Low status members of high status families were not necessarily stuck in lives deprived of all rights and privileges. They often had access to wealth, allowing them to bend or even break with tribal norms. Khadijah, Mohammed’s first wife, was one such person. As a member of one of the more powerful families in the patriarchal Quraysh tribe, she became a wealthy, powerful and well-respected businesswoman in her own right. That is how she met Mohammed. She hired him to run a caravan and trade merchandise on her behalf. She was impressed with his business acumen and honesty and proposed marriage to him. They were married for about 15 years before he started to preach Islam. 

Khadijah supported Mohammed and Islam unconditionally. This ultimately cost her not only her fortune, but her life. Years of privation during the boycott of Banu Hashim caused her illness and death in 619 CE. Before Mohammed and Islam, she was powerful, wealthy and respected. Then she lost everything. Mohammed acknowledged all the years of unwavering emotional and financial support Khadijah gave him. He never forgot her after she died and often spoke highly of her. And yet, it is this view of women that is eternally enshrined in the Islamic doctrine:

“Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.” Koran, 4:34

Allah says men are in charge because they are the providers. A woman’s right is to be supported financially by her husband. (What did Mohammed ever provide for Khadijah?) A woman’s responsibility is to obey her husband. In fact, her right to be provided for is contingent upon her obedience. (Did Allah “reveal” this verse to ensure Mohammed could control the wives he married after Khadijah’s death?) If a man even suspects or “fears” any rebellious behaviour from his wife, he can take “disciplinary action” just as he would with a slave or a child. Mohammed physically “disciplined” his wife, Aisha at least once that we know of:

 “…Narrated Aisha…He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?…” Sahih Muslim, Book 4, Hadith 2127

Of course, Mohammed’s example was followed by others:

“…`Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Messenger came, `Aisha said, ‘I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!’…” Sahih al-Bukhari 5825

It’s not certain what dictionary Islamic apologists use to define the word “equality,” but it can’t be Oxford or Merriam-Webster. Women are expected to serve and obey and be grateful for the opportunity to do so. If a woman finds this difficult, she is probably going to Hell:

“Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:

The Prophet said: “I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers were women who were ungrateful.” It was asked, “Do they disbelieve in Allah?” (or are they ungrateful to Allah?) He replied, “They are ungrateful to their husbands and are ungrateful for the favors and the good (charitable deeds) done to them. If you have always been good (benevolent) to one of them and then she sees something in you (not of her liking), she will say, ‘I have never received any good from you.” Sahih al-Bukhari 29

Here are more details about women and hell:

“Narrated Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri:

Once Allah’s Messenger went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) of `Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, “O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women).” They asked, “Why is it so, O Allah’s Messenger?” He replied, “You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.” The women asked, “O Allah’s Messenger! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?” He said, “Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?” They replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn’t it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?” The women replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her religion.” Sahih al-Bukhari 304

How can anyone claim that Islam honours women and keep a straight face?

Mohammed did occasionally say something in praise of women, mostly as mothers. Most of the time, though, his rhetoric made it clear that a woman’s status in Islamic society is considerably lower than a man’s—even in the case of slaves.

Islamic doctrine says that freeing slaves is a good deed:

“Narrated Asma’ bint Abu Bakr:

The Prophet ordered us to free slaves at the time of solar eclipses.” Sahih al-Bukhari 2519

“Narrated Asma’ bint Abu Bakr:

We were ordered to free slaves at the time of lunar eclipses.” Sahih al-Bukhari 2520

Unless it is a female slave who is freed:

“Narrated Maimuna, the wife of the Prophet that she manumitted her slave-girl and the Prophet said to her, ‘You would have got more reward if you had given the slave-girl to one of your maternal uncles.’” Sahih al-Bukhari 2594

Ok, so maybe female slaves didn’t count for much, but Islam gave free women choice in regard to when and who they married, right? Not always. This freedom was denied to Aisha, who was given in marriage to Mohammed by her father Abu Bakr when she was only six years old:

“Narrated By ‘Aisha : 

The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became alright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.” Sahih al-Bukhari 5:58:234

“’A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah’s Apostle married her when she was seven years old, and she was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.” Sahih Muslim 1422c

“Narrated `Aisha:

I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah’s Messenger used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for `Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.)” Sahih al-Bukhari 6130

Not only was Aisha denied the right to a husband of her own choosing in adulthood, she was married off and then sent to live in a marital home and perform wifely duties while still a child. It cannot be stressed enough that Islamic societies are still practicing child and forced marriage today because Mohammed did it and they are still following his example. The Koran, which declares itself to be perfect, states 89 times that Mohammed set the perfect example for all people to follow for all time. Things have not changed for women in 1400 years of Islam and they are not going to change, ever, because you cannot improve on perfection.

Aisha wasn’t the only female who was robbed of her supposed marriage rights under Islam by its founder. Mohammed forced his cousin, Zainab to marry his adopted son, Zayd, an ex-slave who Zainab felt was beneath her. Her objection prompted Allah (Or, was it really just Mohammed?) to reveal this highly convenient verse:

“And it becometh not a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His messenger have decided an affair (for them), that they should (after that) claim any say in their affair; and whoso is rebellious to Allah and His messenger, he verily goeth astray in error manifest.” Koran 33:36

Because she was a very pious woman who wholeheartedly believed in Islam, she acquiesced to the union. A couple of years later, the story goes that Mohammed stopped by Zayd’s house to visit him, and caught a glimpse of Zainab in scant dress and began to lust after her. Zayd subsequently divorced Zainab when he heard Mohammed wanted her. Mohammed knew if he married her it would not go down well with his fellow Arabs because it was incestuous according to the morality of the Arab society. But Mohammed was ready with another highly convenient verse from Allah to justify his actions:

“And when thou saidst unto him on whom Allah hath conferred favour and thou hast conferred favour: Keep thy wife to thyself, and fear Allah. And thou didst hide in thy mind that which Allah was to bring to light, and thou didst fear mankind whereas Allah hath a better right that thou shouldst fear Him. So when Zeyd had performed that necessary formality (of divorce) from her, We gave her unto thee in marriage, so that (henceforth) there may be no sin for believers in respect of wives of their adopted sons, when the latter have performed the necessary formality (of release) from them. The commandment of Allah must be fulfilled.” Koran 33:37

Mohammed’s revelation of a new verse from Allah to justify his actions or achieve desired outcomes was a tactic that he used effectively on a number of occasions, especially in his dealings with women. Mohammed told men that they could marry up to four wives each, provided they could treat them all equally. Mohammed himself married far more, up to 11 or 13, depending on the source. Allah told Mohammed he did not have to limit himself to only four wives, and he also gave Mohammed some wiggle room in regards to equal treatment of his wives. Aisha, the clever girl, took notice:

“Narrated Aisha:

I used to look down upon those ladies who had given themselves to Allah’s Messenger and I used to say, “Can a lady give herself (to a man)?” But when Allah revealed: “You (O Muhammad) can postpone (the turn of) whom you will of them (your wives), and you may receive any of them whom you will; and there is no blame on you if you invite one whose turn you have set aside (temporarily).’ (33.51) I said (to the Prophet), “I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires.” Sahih al-Bukhari 4788

Aisha had a valid point. Allah often “sent verses” that made life easier for Mohammed or that gave him something he wanted that was forbidden, or that backed up his “authority.” How can this behaviour be considered anything other than self-serving? How could outright lying and manipulation be a good example for anyone to follow?

So, how did Islam impact the lives of Arabian women? Well, it did give them some pocket money since Mohammed declared that women should have inheritance rights as well as the right to be paid their dowries. But it also made women permanently the wards of men. To be the ward of someone else is not freedom or equality. It is control. And because Islamic doctrine is timeless, the control is eternal and complete.

So, what do you think? Was Mohammed a feminist?

Europe’s Elite want their citizens to believe open borders and migration from Islamic countries will solve their need for a future workforce due to a shrinking population. I call their bluff. If they need workers, why not get them from the poorer parts of the EU–Romania, Bulgaria, Greece? This isn’t about guest workers. This is about the Left securing a voting block so they can be voted into office in perpetuity.  Islam makes for a perfect partner in their endeavor to achieve political dominance. Both conspire to tear down society and rebuild their utopian ideal. What the Left doesn’t realize is when Islam ultimately takes power, as it tends to do, the last laugh will be on the them, just as it was with the Tudeh Party in Iran. In the end, Islam has no loyalty to Kafirs, only to Allah and Mohammed.

To understand Islamic migration today, it is imperative to understand the concept of hijra. The hijra dates to the time of Mohammed when he left Mecca and moved to Medina where he became a warlord and politician. Mohammed’s migration, or hijra, is so important to the success of Islam that it is the basis for the Islamic calendar.

Hijra is a form of soft jihad and is quite effective for spreading Islam. Al Qaeda recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki stated, referring to doctrine: “Jihad today is obligatory on every capable Muslim…it is your duty to find ways to practice it and support it.” He then lists 44 ways to support jihad. In #36 Preparing for Hijrah, al-Awlaki quotes Mohammed: “Hijrah does not stop as long as there is an enemy to fight”.  Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Al Qaeda 9/11 mastermind, said, “the practical way to defeat America is through immigration and “outbreeding non-Muslims”.  These jihadists are not creating new ideas. They are repeating 1400 year old doctrine.

The bottom line: Hijra is a tactic to pave the way for Sharia.

Ultimately, the danger of migration is not that there will be too many unemployed workers draining welfare dollars from the state, but it’s that Sharia supremacists will keep Islamicizing the EU.  These guest workers aren’t going home. They have a religious duty to stay and fulfill the doctrine. Their loyalty is to Allah and Mohammed, not to the Kafir countries of the West. History has shown that once a nation is invaded by Islam, it will become 100% Islamic, unless driven out.

What is the solution?
We must wake up to the true nature of the problem. The doctrine of the Left says we aren’t nice enough, we need more programs, we need to integrate migrants better–the fault is always ours. I happen to agree that the fault is with us, but it is due to our ignorance, not our lack of virtue.

Once we understand the problem is the Islamic doctrine, then we can make proper plans for solutions, like changing migration laws, citizenry laws, instituting zero tolerance for Sharia, etc. In the meantime, churches and everyday people need to push back. We can’t wait for the government Elite.

Society can use social pressure like a weapon. We need to make fun of Sharia, use shame and humor. Islam reacts to shame and humor like a weed to poison. When a society can make Mohammed jokes, we win. It’s that simple. As soon as we become a citizenry of blasphemers, the problem solves itself.  This is key: to reverse Islamization, it must entail mass civil disobedience against censorship and oppression of freedom of thought, not just a few brave souls.

We must never give up. We must come out of the closet and face our fears. We can prevail and must because our civilization and freedoms are too precious to lose. Stand up Europe. Do not let North Africa and Arabia be your destiny.

To learn more about hijra, watch video Hijra: Islamic Migration

https://politicalislam.com/migration-madness/

The protests in Iran are not only about economics and politics, they’re also about Islam. Iran in the 1960’s saw mini skirts, smiling women with uncovered hair, men and women freely holding hands on university campuses, and in the air, there was a sense that progress was possible. Then the Shah was deposed during the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and the Ayatollah and imams came to power. Iran had been purified, returned to its Islamic roots of Mohammed. Today, we are witnessing the Persian people rise up again against the Iranian Islamic regime and say “no more”. How will this play out?

Over the 1400 years of Islam, there is a pattern that can be observed that I call THE GRAVITY OF MOHAMMED. It can be visualized as a cycling wave graph, or a sine wave (see figure below). An Islamic nation will cycle between secularism and hard line Sharia, a push and pull of modernity vs Mohammed or civilizations retracting and embracing the perfect example of Mohammed. It is hard to escape the Sunna of Mohammed which the Sharia implements. As long as you have the remnants of Islam in a society, Mohammed will always return. Said another way, as long as a society believes Mohammed is the prophet of Allah, Sharia will return.

Examples of this are Turkey and Iran. Turkey under Ataturk pulled away from Mohammed, only to return with Erdogan. Iran pulled away from Sharia under the Shah only to return under the Ayatollah, and now there is a good possibility that the Persians may push away from the Sharia again. However, this will surely be temporary as the only way to destroy rule by Sharia is to destroy the belief that Mohammed is the prophet of Allah (the Shahada). Thus, the Gravity of Mohammed predicts that although Iran will pull away from Sharia for now, and maybe for years to come, it will fall back again to its Islamic roots. Like gravity, Mohammed is always there.

Totalitarianism is a political system of absolute power where the state has no limit to its authority and regulates every aspect of public and private life.

THE NATURE OF ISLAM
The most common assumption about Islam is that it is a religion based on the Koran. However, the religious aspect is only a small part of Islam. It is not possible to know how to pray or do any other practice of the religion with what is found in the Koran.

Allah is found in the Koran and Mohammed is found in two texts, his biography, the Sira, which is a detailed life history and his traditions, or Hadith, are events that occurred in Mohammed’s life. The hadith is usually a few paragraphs long. A collection of his traditions (hadiths) is called the Hadith. So the Sunna is found in the Sira, his biography, and Hadith, his words and deeds.

Over 90 verses of the Koran say that Mohammed is the perfect life pattern for all Muslims. Mohammed is the perfect Muslim and all Muslims are to pattern their life after his. He is the perfect father, husband, judge, leader, warrior, businessman and politician. His life example, what he said or did, is called the Sunna of Mohammed.

Therefore, the totality of Islam is found in three books—Koran, Sira and the Hadith. Most people would be surprised to learn that the amount of words devoted to Mohammed is more than 6 times the size of the Koran, the words of Allah.

Another common assumption is that to know Islam, you must learn about it from a Muslim. This is not so. Islam is Allah and Mohammed. If you read the Koran (and it has now been made understandable) and know Mohammed, you know Islam. It is critical to understand the importance of this. Whatever is in the Koran and in the Sunna, it is Islam. If something is not based on the Koran and the Sunna, no matter who says it, is not Islam. The only Muslim who is an absolute and total authority on Islam is Mohammed. Once you know Mohammed, you know the only Muslim who matters.

This means that only those who know Mohammed and Allah can reason about Islam. A corollary is that you don’t have to be a Muslim to understand Islam. And further, since most Muslims know little about the Koran and the Sunna, their comments about Islam can be personal opinions.

POLITICAL ISLAM
So all of the doctrine is found in three books—Koran, Sira and Hadith, the Islamic Trilogy. If you read the Trilogy, something remarkable becomes obvious, you find that most of the doctrine is not about how to be a Muslim, but refers to the non-Muslim. The Arabic word for the non-Muslim is Kafir, sometimes translated as infidel or unbeliever.

In Islamic doctrine there is nothing positive about the Kafir. Allah hates Kafirs and plots against them. Muslims claim that Christians and Jews are accepted under Islam and are called people of the book. But the doctrine goes further and states that the only “real” Christians are those who accept Mohammed as the final prophet, agree that the Gospels are in error, and reject the divine nature of Jesus. The real Jews are those who accept Mohammed as the final prophet and consider the Torah corrupt. If a Christian or Jew does not accept this, then they are Kafirs. Pagans, polytheists, agnostics, atheists, and all others are Kafirs as well. It is important to note that Islam claims to be the final judge of all religions. This is part of its totalitarian nature.

It is very instructive to see what portion of each of the Trilogy texts is about the Kafir.

More than half of Islamic doctrine concerns itself with the Kafir. The Kafir is outside of the religion of Islam, and yet is part of Islamic doctrine. This doctrinal relationship is political, not religious or cultural. Political Islam is defined as the Islamic doctrine of the Kafir; the largest part of Islam is political. Only Muslims are concerned by religious Islam, but all of humanity is affected by Political Islam.

Islam is not a religion, but a complete civilization. Islam has a position or rule for every aspect of life. It is a religion, culture and political system, a complete way of life. If Islam were only a religion, it would be of no concern. As an example, Buddhism is a religion, how much media and political space is concerned about Buddhism? Buddhism makes no demands on a civilization. Islam makes demands on every facet of society.

TOTALITARIANISM
Totalitarianism is a political system of absolute power where the state has no limit to its authority and regulates most aspects of public and private life. There are no competing political parties since they would balance and limit authority. The critical element of totalitarianism is absolute power striving to rule in as many areas of life as possible.

Totalitarianism in Islamic Doctrine

Totalitarianism is found in the very name, Islam. Islam means submission, submission to the Koran and the Sunna of Mohammed. We see the basis for absolute power in Mohammed’s life. After he went to Medina, he became a jihadist and attacked his neighbors. When he arrived in Medina, it was half Jewish. In two years, there were no more Jews left in Medina. They were exiled, assassinated, enslaved and executed. Mohammed attacked the pagans of Arabia and the Jews. After Arabia submitted to Islam, Mohammed turned to Syria and attacked the Christians.
In the end, Political Islam will not tolerate opposition. Here is a sample of some of the Islamic political doctrine of absolute, total power:

Koran 2:193 Fight them [Kafirs] until there is no more discord and the religion of Allah reigns absolute, …

Here are two hadiths:

Muslim 001, 0031 Mohammed: “I have been ordered to wage war against mankind until they accept that there is no god but Allah and that they believe I am His prophet and accept all revelations spoken through me. …

Bukhari 4, 52, 196 Mohammed: “I have been directed to fight the Kafirs until every one of them admits, ‘There is only one god and that is Allah.’

This doctrine, based on Mohammed’s life, is that jihad will be waged against the Kafirs until they submit to Islam. This theory causes relentless pressure in all areas of life over centuries. The doctrine is not in full force at all times, it waxes and wanes, but the pressure to bring the Sharia into power never vanishes. Today the power of Islam is increasing over the globe due to jihad and migration.

After it enters a society, Islam rules given enough time. The result of Islamic political doctrine is that all power – political, cultural, and religious–becomes totally Islamic. The only exceptions occur when Islam is resisted by force, such as in Spain, the Balkans and at the Gates of Vienna.

Universality of Islamic Doctrine
1. Islam applies to the most basic details of life
2. Every person and all nations must submit to Islamic doctrine.

SHARIA
Since Islam is a complete civilization, it has its own legal system called the Sharia. But Sharia is far more than a legal system of laws. It includes theology, law, philosophy, religious rituals and morals. The Sharia claims to be Allah’s law and must replace all other forms of government.

One of the easiest ways to see the universality of Islamic doctrine is to examine a manual of Sharia law such as The Reliance of the Traveller [sic]. The topics include (but are not limited to) theology, how to pray, funerals, taxes, business law, banking law, wills, marriage, how to be a wife/husband, how to be a mother/father, sex, divorce, criminal law, apostasy, political rule over the Kafir, jihad, the dhimmi, Christians, Jews, punishment, family law, food, ethics, sex, art, dress, use of the bathroom, how to say hello, knock on a door, a structure of government, and on and on. There are few details of life that are not included in Islamic doctrine.

Note that laws pertaining to the Kafirs are included in the Sharia. There is no one who is not included in Islamic doctrine. No one can opt out of the totalitarian Sharia.

A TOTALITARIAN HISTORY
After Mohammed died, Abu Bakr, his closest companion, became caliph. His first order was to attack and crush the Muslims who wanted to leave Islam. Everyone must submit to Islam and once a Muslim, you must remain a Muslim, or you can be punished.

The next companion of Mohammed who became caliph was Umar. His ten year rule was spent in jihad conquest of the Christian and Zoroastrian Kafirs.

The Law of Islamic Saturation

Turkey used to be called Anatolia or Asia Minor and was a Christian civilization. Today Turkey is over 95% Muslim. North Africa, Egypt, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon used to be Christian. Afghanistan was Buddhist; Pakistan and Malaysia used to be Hindu. Today they are more than 95% Muslim. Islam does not reach a balance point with the native civilization; it dominates and annihilates the indigenous culture over time.

This process of total civilizational domination is the Law of Islamic Saturation. The doctrine calls for jihad to never cease until the native population submits to the Sharia. As time goes on, the Sharia brings about submission to Islam. The doctrine is totalitarian, so the result is totalitarian.

Islam is the most successful totalitarian system in history. There are post-Communist societies and post-Nazi societies but, there are no post Islamic societies.

The Truth about Christians Among the Refugees

Executive summary
A female interpreter of Eritrean origin, who lives in Germany and of whom neither the Muslim migrants nor the locally hired Muslims know that she is a Christian, revealed what she experienced in refugee shelters in Germany:
Adult Muslim migrants threaten and physically attack Christian and Yazidi refugees.
Muslim migrant kids do not play with Christian refugee kids, then they explain that they hate them, just like their parents do.
Locally hired Muslim interpreters and security men seem integrated on the outside, they grew up in Germany, went to German schools and have jobs, but when they are among themselves, they reveal their true colors by stating that Germany must be Islamized, and that they disdain Germany and its values.
In mosques in Germany, pure hate is preached against people of other religions.
Muslim migrant women want to outbreed Christians, because they want to annihilate them.
German aid organizations and Christian politicians have confirmed her words with their own experience. They also added that Muslim interpreters intentionally mistranslate the words of Christian refugees to make them unable to obtain asylum, cover up Muslim mobbing on Christians, and arbitrarily move Christians to the end of the charity recipients’ list.
==================
Source and German-to-English translation
14 November 2016, 10:00
Unerkannt in Flüchtlingsheimen: Was Christen alles erleben
http://kath.net/news/57457
November 14, 2016 10:00
Incognito in refugee shelters: Everything Christians live through
What a Christian female interpreter hears in shelters, is terrifying. An article by idea editor-in-chief Daniela Städter.

Wetzlar (kath.net/idea)

Only 14 per cent of refugees who filed for asylum in Germany in 2015 were Christians – over 73 per cent are Muslims. Recently, there have been aggravated reports by Christians about discrimination by Muslims in refugee accommodations. Even some Muslim interpreters and security duty coworkers would put pressure on Christians. A Christian female interpreter observes this, but she is not detected as a Christian. What she hears in the shelters, is terrifying. An article by idea editor-in-chief Daniela Städter.

In September 2016, the call of a long-standing German top female politician reaches the Evangelical News Agency idea (in Wetzlar). She has contact to a female Christian engaged in refugee assistance, who could tell controversial things about the situation in German refugee shelters. Nevertheless, the name of the woman shall not be mentioned. Subsequently, a discussion takes place in Wetzlar among the female politician, an expert in the field of refugee issues, and the 39-year-old Christian female interpreter originating from Eritrea. She speaks Arabic fluently and has already worked in various refugee shelters as an interpreter – mostly only with Muslim colleagues. The woman acts “undercover” at it. Nobody suspects that she is Christian. The native-born Eritrean fled for Germany in 1991 on her own. She is thankful that she was taken in openly in her new homeland and was supported in many ways. Later she wants to give something back and begins to help in refugee shelters five years ago or so in an honorary capacity. She has been active mainly as an interpreter since the summer of 2016. That she is Christian, she has not mentioned it in the accommodations since the beginning. Because of her knowledge of the Arabic language, she notices quickly: “Christians are getting subjugated, intimidated and harassed by Muslim refugees. That is usual.” Often nobody realizes the mobbing, by which Yazidis and homosexual refugees are affected, too.

“Germany must be Islamized”
Security duty coworkers and interpreters are, according to her data, almost always Muslims. They make, says the 39-year-old, a very nice impression at the first glance: “Most of them grew up here, often studied, have esteemed occupations, and they behave open-mindedly.” However, that changes as soon as they are “among themselves”: “Then they show their true colors and say sentences like ‘Germany must be Islamized’. They disdain our country and our values.” The young woman is appalled, and for a long time she does not want to take this for real. She still withholds that she is Christian in order to learn more. Among other things, she visits the Quran courses of various mosques: “There, pure hate is preached against people of other religions. The kids get that here, in Germany, taught to them from an early age.” It is similar in the refugee shelters. She notices how Muslim boys refuse to play with Christians. The female interpreter tries to mediate: “You are Muslim, he is Christian. What difference does it make?” The five-year-olds answer her: “With the Christians, I do not play. My parents hate them, too.” The female interpreter becomes frightened: “They fled from the war to Germany and should be happy after all, that a Christian country takes them in.”
We, Muslims must get more kids than the Christians

She also tries to establish contact with the Muslim women. Many of them, despite their young age, have already had multiple kids. She cautiously wants to enlighten them about contraception methods. “After that, some women told me: We want to multiply. We must get more kids than the Christians. Only this way can we annihilate them.” As she objects and says that it is, after all, the Christians who help them, she bumps into rejection. Helping the Christians is a sin.

The might of the interpreters
The European Mission Community (in Penkun, Vorpommern) has lived through the might of the Muslim interpreters, too. Its chairman, Frank Seidler reports that at the hearings at the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, they sometimes falsely rendered the testimonies of Christian refugees within the asylum process. That is why now, a Persian-speaking coworker is accompanying the refugees to the interviews, so that he can directly intervene in an emergency: “Since then it has been running better.” Seidler tells further about an Afghan having converted to Christianity, who was beaten up in his collective accommodations and was injured very severely. After he was helped to press charges, there were immediately countercharges by multiple Muslim refugees. The process is still running, although he counts with cessation, because testimony stands against testimony: “Unfortunately, we have already gone through this lapse often.” But where this leads is that the attackers think that they could allow themselves everything in Germany and would never be held accountable, so says Seidler.

A permanent pressure burdens Christians
The Christian aid organization Open Doors (in Kelkheim at Frankfurt am Main) makes similar observations. It is often hard to prove incidents. “With the incidents, it is not always about violence”, says the coordinator of public relations, Ado Greve, “but rather about forms of discrimination, for example at food distribution, or about threats. A permanent pressure burdens the Christians – especially the converted ones.” When a Christian is being threatened in his mother tongue in the corridor, “We cut through your neck!”, or “We will rape your wife!”, then it triggers great fear. Greve: “The religious features imprinted by Islam in their homeland are often brought with by the perpetrators. However, to prove that, it is hard in most cases.” But it should not lead to that the incidents are not taken seriously: “It is important to give credit to the reports of the affected Christians.”

When Muslims translate falsely
Also from the point of view of the leader of the refugee-related work group within the Central Council of Oriental Christians in Germany, Paulus Kurt (in Munich), false translations by Muslim interpreters are a problem. From the refugees whom he advises, he makes them hand over the filled hearing questionnaires after the interview date at the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees in order to verify them together with the Christian asylum seekers. Sometimes the data of religion are false there – from an Aramean Christian, for example, becomes an Arabic Muslim. The flight reasons, too, are rendered partially inaccurately and to the disadvantage of the questioned Christians. If they notice this, they file an objection within the legal deadline of two weeks. Nevertheless, many refugees did not even know the expiration date at all, and thus passed the deadlines.

Christians often have no knowledge of their rights
According to Kurt, asylum seekers also have the right for a retranslation of the questionnaire filled in German to their mother tongue. However, some interpreters did not inform the Christians about that at all. By contrast, the interpreters communicated to the coworkers of the Federal Office that the questioned one has waived the retranslation. “By that, the chance of Christians to get a long-term recognition for asylum here drops.” In the accommodations, too, the language barrier is a problem: “There, a Christian gets beaten by a Muslim, because he is eating pork in the communal kitchen – and the interpreter relays to the leadership afterwards that there was merely a general altercation about the use of the kitchen.”

What nobody realizes
According to the data by two Hessian female refugee helpers of the Central Council of Oriental Christians in Germany, it is also often about forms of discrimination in the accommodations, which go on in the background without being noticed. They name, for example, the issuance of articles of clothing. The maintainer of the accommodations provides a list with refugees who should get clothes. The slip of paper is passed to the interpreters who organize the issuance in the respective languages. At the readout, the list gets changed by them. Whoever has a Christian name, will be called at the end, and must take potluck with the rest, they say: “Nobody realizes that.”

The state assumes false preconditions
From the point of view of auditor Thomas Günster (in Fulda) engaged in refugee-related work, it is about a system error. The state assumes integration in the case of Muslim interpreters, most of them having grown up in Germany, toward the local value system, but that has not happened at all. Günster, who stands in close contact with Hessian refugee helpers and supports them at their work, says: “A sort of independence is assumed here, which is not there at all.” Rethinking must happen here.

There are positive developments in Hessen
Meanwhile, there have been positive developments, too, means Günster, who is also the chairman of the Diocesan Group Fulda of the Association of Catholic Entrepreneurs (BKU). Thus the Hessian Ministry of the Interior strives to protect religious minorities from abuses. In addition, too, the teams in the scope of security duty and interpreters should be staffed in the future with coworkers of different religious affiliations: “Minorities among the refugees must be protected and their complaints taken seriously. We must pay attention that the Christian refugees in Germany do not go to the dogs anymore.”

It looks worse in Bremen

The situation in Bremen is worse. There, the City Senate adopted a new Protection Against Violent Acts concept for refugee facilities at the end of October [2016]. In it, however, they did not go into the situation of Christian refugees. The target group of the Protection Against Violence Acts concept is girls, women, and persons who, due to their sexual or gender identity, are particularly threatened by violence. The alderwoman in the Bremen City Assembly, Sigrid Grönert (CDU) [Christian-Democratic Union, a German political party] basically welcomes the concept indeed, but already pointed out in May that beyond that, Christians also feel mobbed by Muslims over and over again.
By contrast, the Bremen City Senate stated in February that “no abuses” on religious minorities are known. Grönert: “That, unfortunately, does not correspond to reality.” According to their own data for the time frame between January 2015 and June 2016, nine cases of bodily abuses in Bremen were reported to Open Doors.

Christians do not press charges out of fear
None of the affected Syrian Christians has pressed charges – out of fear, that the situation could get worse. That abuses are not known to the authorities, simply does not mean that they do not exist, emphasizes Grönert, who is also the assistant chairman of the Evangelical Workgroup of the CDU in Bremen: “It is a pity that the issue is not being taken up over here at us, while a Federal Province like Hessen has recognized the problems. I wish that the issue were taken seriously by politics across the Federation [i.e. Germany].” She is not alone with this wish. Professor Heiner Bielefeldt, UN special rapporteur for freedom of religion and world view, incumbent till the end of October [2016], demanded at the beginning of November an honest discussion about the hints of abuses against Christian refugees in asylum accommodations. It would be a big mistake of politics to spread the cloak of silence over it, said Professor Bielefeldt.

Paul Weston, a political candidate in Britain, was arrested and charged with racism and hate crimes for reading a quote from Winston Churchill about Islam. We must start resisting this kind of fascism.

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink: https://politicalislam.com/supporting-paul-weston/
Copyright © 2014 CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com
Use as needed, just give credit and do not edit.
www.politicalislam.com

The most persecuted group in the world today is Christians. Christians in Nigeria, Egypt, Syria and other nations are murdered, raped, kidnapped, enslaved and persecuted on a daily basis. The reason for the vast majority of all of this violence is that they are Christian among Muslims.

But their abuse does not stop with the violence. The perpetrators of violence are measured in the thousands, but the greatest abuse is at the hands of those who should demand that the violence stop. The silence in the face this persecution is denial and justification. The persecutors are few, but the deniers are in the billions.

Christians are enjoined to care for all persecuted people, but in particular, they are to care for their own brothers and sisters. They manage to ignore the persecution by doing good works, such as care for the poor. Christians have compassion but no courage to face the enemy who kills them. In Nashville, TN (the buckle on the Bible belt) the favorite indoor sport for those who should be dealing with the enemy, Islam, is going to Family of Abraham events and bridge building dialogues where they dance to the tune of Muslims. There is no problem of meeting with Islam, but the rules of engagement are that nothing will be said that offends Islam.

In the parable of the Good Samaritan, an injured man is on the side of the road. Two religious leaders pass him by on the other side of the road. They don’t harm the injured man, they just ignore him. This is the same thing that Christian leaders do at dialogues such as Family of Abraham. They meet with Muslims who adhere to a doctrine that includes killing Christians. But, the leaders will not bring up the Islamic persecution to them. The Christian leadership response to murder of their brothers and sisters is silence. They pass by on the other side of the road. Their silence is consent.

But Christians are not the only deniers. Normally, Jews are quick to step forward in the area of charity and support of victims, but not so with persecuted Christians. Some of this denial may be due to a dislike of Christianity, but Jews are no quicker to help their own.

If you go to thereligionofpeace.com you will find an amazing data base of jihad attacks since 9/11. The current number of attacks is in excess of 22,000 attacks. It is very instructive to parse the data and see what are the top four nations of jihad attacks. When you put the data on a per capita basis, you get the following countries: Israel, Thailand, Philippines and India. Or by religion: Jews, Buddhists, Christians and Hindus. So Jews are the victims of violence by Islam, but the Jews of America love to go to Family of Abraham events and be as silent as the Christians.

But what about the most sensitive victim group – the black American? Victim-ology is the dogma of a myriad black “civil rights” groups with their high priests of race hustles such as Al Sharpton. The most persecuted Christians are in Africa. But the civil rights hustlers of America just love to hang with Muslims as their brothers. All of those dead Africans? Not a problem for African Americans.

It is surprising how many Buddhists are being killed in jihad, but is it a surprise that Buddhists never talk about it? And aside from a few Hindu activists, never a word is heard from the Hindu community about their deaths by jihad.

The deaths in the Philippines are Catholics and what does Pope Francis say about Islam? He says,

Faced with disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism, our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalizations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.

Oh, I see. Over 1400 years of Christian deaths at the hands of jihadists means that they were not true Muslims and that the 22,000 jihadic attacks since 9/11 are not authentic. The annihilation of Christianity in Turkey, Middle East and Africa is not the result of “proper reading of the Koran”. The Pope is the perfect candidate for magical thinking and idiot compassion. And notice the little hate speech riff: “avoid hateful generalizations”. Pope Francis, do you mean generalizations such as conclusions that result from reading the Koran, the Sunna, the Sharia and a 1400 year history of the murder of all kinds of Kafirs (non-Muslims)?

But, in his own way, Pope Francis is the leader of all Christians. He just happens to have on more elaborate clothing as he practices denial.

So, it turns out that Christians are not the most despised group of people in the world. They just happen to be the largest subgroup. The most despised group in the world is the victim of Islam. And whether it is a dead Christian congregation, a murdered apostate, a sad Muslim woman with FGM, or any other victim of jihad, no one will speak out for the victim and against the perpetrator. All leaders share in the shame of being ignorant cowards practicing idiot compassion.

How is this to stop? Well, being polite won’t help, because if polite worked, the problem would be solved. The key to our response is that we have the high moral ground. We must oppose the oppressor, Islam, and stand with the oppressed – Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and all others who are oppressed by jihad. Our opponents, the deniers, support the oppressor, Islam, and ignore and suppress the fate of the victims. The deniers are evil, period.

If you are a Christian, get some allies, and come up with a program about the persecuted church. The program could be bringing in some persecuted Christians, such as Copts, to speak to Sunday school classes or doing a long term study of the Armenian holocaust in 20th century Turkey. When you go to leadership, do not ask permission or make a request. Make demands and if those demands are not met, then some form of protest inside your church must be launched.

Stand up at services and protest, hand out brochures, do whatever it takes until “leadership” agrees to not pass by on the other side of the road and neglect the dead Christians. Point out their moral position is wrong and evil. Do not be shy. Ask them to use scripture to morally justify their denial and ignorance. Be respectful, but firm and do not stop until good prevails.

This is a moral battle and if you are not a Christian, you should do the same in other venues. A possible venue is the local media. Make demands to recognize the victims of jihad and if they are not met, make a protest. Public protest is a powerful tool for change. We must acknowledge the world’s largest human rights tragedy. Being nice is the road to civilizational annihilation.

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink: https://politicalislam.com/the-most-despised-people-in-the-world/
Copyright © 2013 CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com
Use as needed, just give credit and do not edit.
www.politicalislam.com

Some people don’t want to learn about Islam from someone who was not a Muslim, a professor or some other “approved” source of information. How can someone without a degree in Islam be an expert on it?

The question is who can we trust to tell the truth about Islam? The answer you will get by going by talking to Muslims has the advantage that if you choose the right country and the right Muslim, you will get the “right” answer. But if you ask the “wrong” Muslim (usually called an extremist or radical Muslim) you will get the answer you won’t like. Is Saudi Arabia or Turkey the right country to go to? Is a Wahabbi imam or a Islamist scholar of Islam the right person to ask? Subjective Islam is a polling problem. Who you ask determines the answer you get. Apologists for Islam ask the “expert” who gives them the answer they want—Islam is wonderful.

But there is one source of knowledge about Islam that is not subjective. If you talk to Muslims, you will find that there is one thing that they all agree on: There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger. This statement is the beginning of Islamic objective knowledge, since 100% of all Muslims believe it.

Allah is found in the Koran. When you read and understand the Koran, you find that there are 91 verses that command all Muslims to imitate Mohammed, the divine human prototype. We find out what Mohammed did and said in order to imitate him in two places – Mohammed’s biography, the Sira, and his Traditions, the Hadith. And that is all there is to know about Islamic doctrine:

• Koran
• Sira
• Hadith

Objective truth: if it is in the Koran, Sira and Hadith, it is Islam. Islam is Allah and Mohammed, no exceptions. So skip asking a Muslim, going to a Muslim country or asking a professor. For objective answers, ask Mohammed and Allah. In other words, read the Koran, Sira and Hadith. The problem is that no one reads them is because they used to be difficult. Today are available because simple scientific methods have produced versions that anybody can read. For one example, see the Trilogy Project.

Statistical methods reveal that there are two Korans, Mecca and Medina, and that there are two Mohammeds. In Mecca the Koran is religious, but only a 150 people became Muslims in 13 years time. Later in Medina, Mohammed became a politician and a jihadist, and the Koran becomes jihadic and political.

There are two Islams, two sets of facts – Mecca and Medina. Preaching the religion in Mecca was a failure. But, Mohammed averaged an event of jihad every 6 weeks for the last 9 years of his life, and by the time he died, every Arab was a Muslim. So if you want peaceful Islam go to Mecca. If you want politics and violence, go to Medina. Islam is a dualistic system where peace and jihad exist side by side. Dualism allows “experts” to get what they want, a peaceful Islam in Mecca. See, there it is in the Meccan Koran—peace. Just don’t ever mention Medina and the news is good.

However, the only trustworthy experts are Mohammed and Allah, found in Islam’s texts. They will tell you the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So, here is the rule to grade your experts: listen to those who quote Mohammed and Allah. And ask the expert: What else does Islam teach about this? Get the whole truth, the whole story.

Better yet, since the Koran, Sira and Hadith have been made readable by the average person, read the texts and become an expert yourself by quoting Allah and Mohammed. You will bring objective Islam to your world.

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink https://politicalislam.com/subjective-islam-objective-islam/
Copyright © CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com
Use as needed, just give credit and do not edit.
www.politicalislam.com

A MANUAL OF PERSUASION ABOUT ISLAM

Can We Talk? shows you how to use the doctrine of Islam in debate and persuasion. You will be shown a system of knowledge, including case studies and examples of arguments developed to allow you to persuade others about Islam. You will not only know facts, but also will be able to do something with those facts.

[pdf width=”100%” height=”850px”]https://politicalislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/CanWeTalk.pdf[/pdf]
 

Case 5: Jews
One of the biggest examples of ethical dualism in Islam is the Jews. The Meccan Koran is filled with stories about Moses, Noah, Adam, and other Jewish figures. The early Koran is very Jewish. The perception of the Jews completely changes in Medina. Every verse, story, and hadith is negative and anti-Jew. The Trilogy devotes a great deal of material to the Jews .

The Trilogy of Medina is even more negative about the Jews than Hitler’s Mein Kampf. What marks the biggest difference between Mein Kampf and the Trilogy is that Hitler did not write a first section in Mein Kampf detailing how much he admired the Jews. There is a contradiction about how the Koran treats Jews in Mecca and how they are treated in Medina. Due to dualistic reasoning, both attitudes about the Jews are true, at the same time.

Case 6: The Good in the Koran
In the face of these negative statistics, everyone knows of good verses in the Koran. Exactly how much material in the Koran is positive for Kafirs? There are 245 verses, 4,018 words, in the Koran that say something positive about Kafirs. This is about 2.6% of the total Koranic text . However, in every case, the verse is followed by another verse that contradicts the “good” verses. Also, except for 7 verses (58 words), the “good” verse is abrogated later in the same chapter. The other 7 verses are contradicted in later Suras.

The media emphasizes Islam’s positive verses about the People of the Book, the Jews and Christians. Even this turns out to be illusive. Christians and Jews receive the goodness of Islam only if they agree that their sacred texts are corrupt, the Koran is true, and that Mohammed is a prophet of the Christian and Jewish religion.

In the end there is no unmitigated good for Kafirs in the Koran. What good can be found in the 2.6% of the text is denied later.

To see the entire article in PDF, go to: https://politicalislam.com/downloads/Statistical-Islam.pdf

For the statistics go to: http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/index.html

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink https://politicalislam.com/statistical-islam-part-6-of-9/
Copyright © 2010 CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com

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