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
Of Interest
A charity for LeT jihad in Pakistan will challenge a ban to close it down.
A definition of taqiyya and kitman. An excellent example.
We know what the jihadis who terrorized Mumbai think of the Jews. Here is what some Arab clerical leaders think.
How Can We Make the Dog Bark?
In a Sherlock Holmes story, Silver Blaze, the clue to the crime was that “the dog did nothing.” The dog in question was a farm dog that would have barked had a stranger approached.
In the same way we have guard dogs that are supposed to warn us of danger: our government, intellectuals and the media. But we are finding out that our dogs never bark if the intruder is Islamic violence.
In the media reporting about Mumbai the words Islam and jihad were noticeably absent. Dhimmis always use nationality and culture to refer to Islam. The Islamic invasion of Spain was by Moors, not Muslims. The Islamic invasion of the Middle East was by Arabs, not Muslims. The invasion of Eastern Europe was by Turks, not jihadists. So it was only natural for the dhimmi media to report that Pakistanis were the murderers. Dhimmis have been avoiding the words Muslim, Islam and jihad for 1400 years. Only the most neutral words may be used to describe the jihad and the jihadists. “Gunmen”, “militant,” or some other soft word can be used, but never “jihadist”.
After the reporting with “soft” words comes the next stage-blame the victims. Surely the Hindus and the others were slaughtered for good reasons. Hindu extremists must be involved. And the Muslims are poor in comparison to Hindus. So the Muslims must be being cheated in some social ill (Muslims are never responsible for any of their own suffering-at least, according to Muslims). And there is always some failure of American foreign policy. All of those things must have caused the poor “gunmen” to kill kafirs.
The next media stage is worrying about the poor Muslims who did not play an active role in the jihad. Here is a possible headline: Dirty Bomb Explodes in LA. Muslims worried about being stared at in grocery lines.
But the Muslims need not worry. Islam does not have any corporate guilt. What one Christian does affects all Christians. Every German shared the guilt for Hitler. But what a few wild and crazy Muslims do does not affect any other Muslim. Besides, the “gunmen” were not real Muslims.
The next stage is for the victims to call for dialogue and making plans to do better by ignoring the doctrine and history of Islam. There will be calls for understanding.
Chabad has called for Jews to do a mitzvah, an act of kindness, and to adhere more to their doctrine. But, notice that Chabad does not call for any action, such as learning about Islam’s doctrine and history, which would help prevent another such attack.
And of course Islamic organizations will issue statements about how sorry they are that kafirs have been hurt and how Mohammed may have murdered all the kafirs who would not submit, but the jihad is not real Islam. Oh wait, they don’t mention Mohammed’s jihad.
But our media, intellectual and government guard dogs will never bark about Islam. Newsletters like this or any of the other articles written on the web only affect the web citizens who read this type of writing. The NY Times, CNN, the State Department or the universities are not going to change because a few stupid bigots on the web are not happy with them.
How can we make the guard dog bark? We must stop waiting for a big enough catastrophe to wake up our dogs. September 11 was not enough to wake up NBC.
We must form political units that work in unison. Our nation started with conventions. Kafirs must get together in forums, groups and conventions. Before any government goes to war against political Islam, it must be pressured to do so by its citizens. Any convention must form an intellectual basis for war. That is, it must define the enemy. It is the purpose of the enemy, Islam, to annihilate our kafir civilization. Islam’s goal is to control all public speech, education, finance, laws, art, literature, entertainment, the media and customs.
After the enemy is formally defined, then we must train our dhimmi guard dogs. We must be confrontational, since a mitzvah won’t do the job.
The only organization that seems potentially to be able to host such an event would be ACT for America. Professor Paul Eidelberg has a wonderful article on how such an event might be managed.
But our guard dogs will never bark until they are trained to do so.
Bill Warner
Permalink https://politicalislam.com/how-can-we-make-the-dog-bark/
Copyright © 2008 CBSX, LLC
Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.
Of Interest
The transcript of Zawahiri’s Message to Obama
Walid Phares on Zawahiri’s Message to Obama
Abeed al-Beit, an Insult
The media has been atwitter with Al-Qaida’s Ayman al-Zawahri’s insult of Obama by calling him the house Negro. What he actually said was abeed al-beit. Abeed is not just a slave, but a black slave. Islam’s refined doctrine of slavery includes over 40 words for slaves, including the slave’s race. If you were white, you would be a mamluk, a white slave.
Mohammed and his wife owned black slaves, along with every other kind of slave, including sex slaves. Mohammed’s favorite sexual partner at one time was a white slave, Mary, a Coptic Christian.
Zawahri’s insult was pure Islam. The Koran is filled with insults and curses by Allah. Insults and curses are part of Islamic logic. Kafir (non-Muslim) logic advances an argument by analogy, syllogisms, cause and effect–scientific logic. Islamic logic is based upon making you submit to Islam. Therefore repeated force, threats and insults are all part of the logic of simply overpowering the other. This is similar to a thug using brute force and yelling to “persuade” the vicitm.
The Koran instructs Muslims on how to use insults and curses against kafirs:
74:16 No, I [Allah] say. He is an enemy of Our revelations. I will impose a dreadful punishment on him because he plotted and planned.
74:19 Damn him! How he planned. Again, Damn him! How he planned.
And here we have the Koran insulting Jews by calling them apes (a favorite insult by Muslims about Jews):
7:156 But when they [the Jews] persisted in what they had been forbidden, We said to them, “Be as apes, despised and loathed.”
Here we have Mohammed repeating the insult when he attacked the Bin Qurayza Jews of Medina:
Ishaq note 684: Mohammed called upon his troops, and they headed for the Jews. Mohammed rode up to the forts and called out, “You brothers of apes, has Allah disgraced you and brought His vengeance upon you?”
Mohammed and Allah repeatedly insulted others who didn’t agree with Mohammed. The worst insult is kafir. Most Korans translate this word as unbeliever, but that is a neutral term. The Koran goes further to say that Allah hates kafirs and plots against them. Over half of the Koran is written about kafirs and it is uniformly negative. Kafirs may be murdered, tortured, enslave, raped, robbed, insulted and deceived with impunity.
Zawahri’s insult of Obama is an insult by a person. However, it is not a person, but Allah, the creator of the universe and the sole deity that says that I am a kafir. That is not a personal insult, but a universal, omnipotent, sacred insult. Kafirs are lower than animals.
So when a Muslim comes home from work and says to his wife that he met a nice kafir today, the insult is so deeply ingrained, that he does not even think about it. After all, both Mohammed and Allah say that those who do not believe in Mohammed are kafirs, “the lowest of the low.”
But what is interesting is how Zawahri’s insult does not rub off on Islam. After all, Zawahri is called a radical Muslim, not a “real” Muslim. Therefore, what he says does not trouble people about Islam. Zawahri is not a radical Muslim, but one who follows the Islam of Medina, the violent Islam. He is a moderate Muslim of the Medinan sort, a 100% Muslim.
What if a white Christian Republican said the same thing? The media would not be atwitter, but in full outrage. This would be headline, long-lasting news. Not only would the white Christian speaker be condemned, but all white people and all Christians. Not only would the speaker have personal guilt, but also every group he was a member of would share in corporate guilt. But no Muslims will be condemned because of Zawahri’s slur. Muslims do not share in corporate guilt.
Another oddity is that some Obama supporters may think that since he has been insulted by a Muslim it proves that he is not in the Islamic camp. Such thinking ignores the fact that the person most apt to insult a Muslim is another Muslim. In the same way, a Muslim is much more apt to be killed by another Muslim than by a kafir. Once you get into the insult, curse and kill business, it is hard to limit it to kafirs.
There is some good news for Obama’s supporters. He may have been called “house Negro” (and actually the N-word is a better translation for abeed than Negro) but at least he was not called Hussein.
Bill Warner
Permalink https://politicalislam.com/obama-the-house-negro/
Copyright © 2008 CBSX, LLC
Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.
Of Interest
“The Authority of the Prophet and his Sunnah”
“Following the Messenger of Allah is a Must”
“The Sunnah”
“Adhering to the Sunnah of the Prophet”
You Only Need to Kill One
A Democratic congressman was at a public meeting that included a military officer. The question was asked: What is the most important function of the military today? The officer replied that fighting Islamic militants was the most important mission. The congressman quickly replied that it was not a problem and besides, we could not fight 1.5 billion Muslims.
The congressman shares a worldview with George Bush. George Bush made a critical mistake after the attack on September 11th; a mistake that created the presidency of Barack Obama. Bush could not name the enemy-political Islam. Then in the Iraq war he was only effective at the military war. Churchill and Roosevelt were great war leaders because they were able to conduct a military war and a propaganda war at the same time. A political leader’s task in war is as an ideological leader. The generals cannot do this job.
As a result, Bush won the military war and lost the propaganda war. Those who hated the Iraq war were drawn to Obama. This is how Bush created Obama’s success.
Bush is incapable of being an ideological leader. On September 12th he should have declared political Islam to be the enemy of all kafir civilization. In doing so, he would have only repeated what was in the Koran and the Sunna of Mohammed. Instead, his blindness made him create a logical impossibility-a war without an enemy.
Islam is the perfect war machine. It has both a military strategy, found in the Sira and the Hadith, and a brilliant war ideology. This perfect war machine has worked flawlessly for 1400 years and is working brilliantly today. November 4 th was a greater victory for political Islam than September 11th.
But no university teaches anything about Islamic war doctrine. West Point does not teach a single course on Islamic war doctrine or history. West Point’s Middle East professors are as dhimmized as Harvard’s professors (which is where West Point gets their teachers). Remember that Bush went to exclusive schools and received a good education. As a result he knows nothing about political Islam, any more than any of his classmates do.
Is it impossible to kill 1.5 billion Muslims? It is a military possibility, but kafirs do not have the political will for such a task. Besides, it is not necessary to kill Muslims. You just need to kill Mohammed. In short, we need to launch an ideological war to respond to Islam’s jihad doctrine.
And what would an ideological war look like? How about open debate without the usual politically correct, multicultural narrow-mindedness? How about a leader, such as a congressman, being able to speak about Islam’s jihad doctrine. (Of course, few of our so-called political leaders would ever speak against a potential voter. A notable exception to this is Sue Myrick of North Carolina who has formed an Anti-Terrorism Caucus.
An ideological war would include our schools, particularly state schools, teaching about the Koran and the Sunna. History courses that would include the Tears of Jihad, the killing of 270 million kafirs. Women’s studies that would include Sharia law. Religion courses that would teach the death of Christianity in Turkey, the Middle East and Africa. Military history that would include the great battles of Islam. Courses on slavery that would go beyond the standard-issue West Africa/white man on wooden ships.
An ideological war would include a media that actually used critical reasoning and connected the dots in the Islamic violence that wracks the world with 12,221 attacks since September 11th in 39 countries.
So, we don’t need to kill 1.5 billion Muslims, but we do need to kill Mohammed if we are not to go the way of Christianity in Turkey, which is now 99.7% Muslim. We will either fight an ideological war or die as a kafir civilization.
Bill Warner
Permalink https://politicalislam.com/you-only-need-to-kill-one/
Copyright © 2008 CBSX, LLC
Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.
Statistics and the Meaning of Islam
What is the “real” Islam? Is it the Islam of the nice Muslim at work? Or is it the Islam of Osama bin Laden?
To get a logical answer, we must have a logical basis. What sources are available to answer the question? We can toss out the media and all of its answers since they generally quote apologist “experts”. But is there an expert we can trust? Yes, there is. Mohammed.
The most fundamental statement that can be made about Islam is: there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is His prophet. This is the bedrock of Islam and points us directly to the only sure source of Islam-Allah and Mohammed. But where are Allah and Mohammed found? The Trilogy of Koran, Sira and Hadith. Allah is found in the Koran and Mohammed is found in the Sira (his biography) and the Hadith (his traditions of small stories and sayings). There is a special name for the sum of the Sira and the Hadith, the Sunna.
The Koran and Sunna are the only sure and certain basis of Islam. All of Islam is based upon the Trilogy.
The foundational texts of Islam –the Trilogy–suffer from being deliberately difficult. It is clear to anyone who reads these texts that every effort has been made to make the material obscure and difficult. There are two reasons for this obscurity. First, difficult texts make for a secure job for the priestly caste, the imams and scholars. If the text is clear in meaning, then no help is needed to understand it. The second reason is that the texts contain horrible and contradictory messages for the world buried under the obscurity.
The usual response to this difficulty is to skip the editing and offer up some verses from the Koran. But “verse” is a biased word in that it invokes a religious overtone. In almost every case, a verse is nothing more than a sentence. There is no other field of study in which individual sentences are given so much weight.
“Verse picking”, to use a statistical term, is a very poor sampling method. What we want is the meaning, and it is impossible to learn the complete meaning from a sentence. What we need to concern ourselves with are ideas and concepts, not simply a sentence.
Let us be clear here that the very best way to obtain the complete meaning is to edit (edit does not mean change the meaning, but to order, rearrange and collect) the texts and then proceed from the edited text. The Koran is famously difficult. However, if the necessary editing is done, the Koran is a very straightforward document. The first editing steps are to put the Koran in order with respect to time. In this way when you turn the page, you advance in time, just as you would in a history book. This time line order has been known since the first days of Islam. The next step is to collect all of the variations of the same story. As an example, the story of Moses and the Pharaoh is told 39 times. If they are all collected under one category, then the Koran is easier to read and less boring.
The next step is to take the Sira and weave it into the Koran to give the Koran a context. For example, there is a verse that says that it was proper to burn the palm trees. For someone who reads this verse, a question arises: what palm trees are being talked about? The Koran gives no context. But in the day of its creation, everyone who heard the verse knew that the previous week, Mohammed had attacked some Jews who were date farmers and had destroyed their date palm trees in violation of Arabic war customs. When the story of Mohammed (from the Sira) is woven into the Koran, then the context of the attack on the Jews is clear.
A Koran that is in the proper time order, categorized, and includes Mohammed’s life is a straightforward book that is easily understood. CSPI has published two Korans that have been edited this way- A Simple Koran and an Abridged Koran.
But we still have a problem. We need to be able to discuss the Koran with those who do not have access to edited Korans or who would not read them anyway. We need to be able make meaningful summary statements. Picking your favorite verse is not the way to make a summary statement.
We need a method of macro-analysis, not micro-analysis. We need to be able to talk about the big picture, the complete meaning of Islam. But there is a problem in trying to summarize Islam as it is filled with contradictory statements. So how do we deal with the contradictions while looking at the big picture?
The answer to these questions is to use a statistical measure of the texts. Don’t let the word statistics scare you. The only statistics needed is counting how many items are in a category.
Take for example the idea of the importance of the Koran. The most commonly belief about Islam is that it is based upon the Koran and is a religion. Neither of these ideas is true.
How important is the Koran? It contains about 153,000 words. The Sira (by Ibn Ishaq) contains about 292,000 words, and the Hadith has 646,000 words (using the Bukhari text). So Allah is about 14% of the total of the Trilogy and the Sunna (Mohammed’s words and deeds) is 86% of the total. These are only a quantitative measure, but still, it points out how important Mohammed is compared to Allah, based upon the amount of text.
This is born out further by noticing that the Koran does not contain enough information to practice even one of the Five Pillars of Islam. Only the Sunna (primarily the Hadith for religious practice) tells the Muslim how to worship. So the statistical measure shows that Islam is also Mohammedism.
Once the Koran is rearranged in the right time order, categorized and Mohammed’s life is woven back into it, another fact leaps from the page. Very little of the Koran is devoted to how to be a Muslim, the religion of Islam. Instead, the majority of the Koran is about kafirs, non-Muslims. Kafirs are the worst of the creation. Allah hates kafirs and plots against them. Kafirs can be tortured, murdered, robbed, raped and enslaved. The Koran is fixated on kafirs, as was Mohammed.
To measure the Koranic fixation on kafirs, let us measure the fixation by counting the amount of text devoted to them. In Mecca an astounding 68% of the text is devoted to the kafir. In Medina 57% was about kafirs. The amount of text in the entire Koran devoted to kafirs is 51%.
As an aside, Islam excludes kafirs in every way from its religious practice. Since the kafir is outside of Islam, the term political Islam is used to describe the doctrine of Islam as it is applied to the “others”, the kafirs. So 51% of the Koran is about political Islam, not religious Islam. (KS Lal gives the figure of 63% in Theory and Practice of Muslim State in India, Aditya Prakashan, 1999, N. Delhi, pg. 4).
The Sira shows the importance of Islam’s political nature. Mohammed preached the religion of Islam for 13 years in Mecca and only gained 150 followers. He moved to Medina where he became a politician and warrior. After 10 years of violence he became ruler of all Arabia without a single enemy left standing. He was involved in an event of violence every 6 weeks for the last 9 years of his life. Statistical conclusion-Islam’s success came from war and politics, not religion.
Another statistical conclusion: Islam is primarily a political doctrine, not a religion.
Simple statistics also reveal the true nature of the political/religious idea of jihad. When the word jihad is used, Muslims say that there are two kinds of jihad. There is the religious jihad, the greater jihad–the inner struggle against personal problems. The war jihad is the lesser jihad.
The Hadith of Bukhari gives all of the tactical details of jihad. A simple counting method shows that 3% of the hadiths are about the inner struggle, whereas, 97% of the hadiths are about jihad as war. So is jihad the inner struggle? Yes, 3%. Is jihad the war against kafirs? Yes, 97%.
This leads to a very important concept. Islam is based upon contradictory statements. How do we sort them out to get the complete meaning? We measure the amount of text devoted to each side of the dichotomy. That is what we did with the question of which jihad is the real jihad. It gives a complete statistical answer.
There is nothing new here. Only single value state ideas can be measured by one number. Multi-state ideas must be evaluated by statistics that measure every state of the variable. If an idea has different manifestations, then instead of arguing which is the right manifestation, just measure all of the manifestations.
There is an exact analogy to the measurement of the state of the electron in an atom. Quantum physics does not give a single answer about the energy and position, but gives us the statistical probabilities of each possible state. The same is true about Islam. We need to know its total state, not something about one category.
In conclusion, statistics is a superior way to gain complete knowledge of the texts of Islam. Statistics allows us to explore Islam in its totality. Remember the old story of the blind men feeling the elephant? One said the elephant was like a rope, another a tree, a wall and so forth. Was each man right? Were any of them wrong? No. But none of them were completely right. Statistical analysis cannot tell us the qualitative story but it allows us to remove the blinders of only looking at one category and forces us to look at the total picture.
Notice that this approach also effectively tells us how to evaluate the “experts” that get trotted out to buttress a favorite position. This is the iron rule of Islam-only Mohammed defines the truth of Islam. If what an expert says agrees with Mohammed, then the he is right, but he is redundant. If what the expert says contradicts Mohammed, then the expert is wrong. So experts are either redundant or wrong. Only Mohammed tells us the truth about Islam and he is never wrong or redundant. Skip the experts and move straight to Mohammed. The statistical approach does just that.
Bill Warner
Permalink https://politicalislam.com/statistics-and-the-meaning-of-islam/
Copyright © 2008 CBSX, LLC
Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.
Of Interest
Jihad is jihad.
The hadith are as important to Islam as the Koran.
Muslims and USA politics
Terminology of Islam-Naming
Naming, nomenclature or terminology is a first step in knowledge. Words shape how we think and reflect our concepts. With new words we can think new thoughts. Equally important is that without the right words it is hard to have the right thoughts. One of the marks of any expert is their command of the “trade talk”.
Islam is a complete civilization and as such has its own highly technical and precise language. From the multi-cultural point-of-view it is bigoted not to use Islam’s language and substitute a non-Islamic language.
There is one, and only one, correct basis for the terms and names to be used in describing anything Islamic. That basis is the doctrine of Islam, which is only found in the Koran and the Sunna of Mohammed. The Sunna (what Mohammed did and said) is found in the Sira (Mohammed’s biography) and the Hadith (Mohammed’s traditions). All religious and political Islamic doctrine is found in the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith. The definitive Sira is by Ibn Ishaq. There are six collections of Hadith, but the most authoritative is Bukhari. Everything is found in Koran, Sira and Hadith-three books. Upon close examination that amounts to all of Islam is Mohammed (remember, he is the only one who ever heard the words of Allah).
Let us address the other source of information about Islam-experts. There are two kinds of experts-Muslim and kafir (non-Muslims). But in either case, if the expert agrees with Mohammed, the expert is right, but he is redundant. If the expert disagrees with Mohammed, the expert is wrong. So experts are either redundant or wrong. The only expert that can be trusted to be 100% correct in every case is Mohammed. So why bother with any other expert?
It is the doctrine of Islam that is the true source of names and terminology.
Let’s take an example-the “moderate Muslim”. Most kafirs use the term moderate to mean someone who seems reasonable and nice. But that definition is not Islamic. A moderate Muslim is someone who follows the doctrine of Islam. Anyone who follows the example of Mohammed is moderate in terms of the doctrine of Islam.
But, Islam has two doctrines-the early Islam of Mecca and the later Islam of Medina. As a result there are two forms of moderation-dualism. In Mecca Mohammed was generally religious and achieved little success. He only garnered 150 followers in 13 years. Then in Medina he became a warrior and political leader and achieved complete success in 10 years. The Koran, the Sira and the Hadith all document these two different Sunnas.
So, a Muslim who follows the Koran of Mecca is a moderate. But a Muslim who follows the Sunna of jihad is also a moderate. Osama bin Laden is a moderate Muslim. He follows the Sunna and Koran of Medina. Jihad is one form of moderation.
In the same light, an extremist Muslim is one who does not follow the Sunna. So an apostate, one who leaves Islam, is an extremist, whereas Mohammed Atta was a moderate Muslim.
The kafir failure of naming
Kafirs have always failed at the right names for Islam. When Islam exploded out of Arabia, kafirs called them Arabs. When Islam invaded Eastern Europe, they were referred to as Turks. When Islam invaded Spain, kafirs called the invaders, Moors.
The jihad of Umar burst out of Arabia and crushed the Christian world of Syria, Egypt, and the rest of the Middle East. The Christians recorded it as an Arabic war. When Islam invaded Europe, Europeans called it a Turkish invasion. The jihad against Christian Spain was an invasion by the Moors. The Muslims called these events jihad.
In the early nineteenth century America sent the Navy and Marines to war against the Barbary pirates on the Berber coast in North Africa. For centuries the Islamic Barbary pirates had raided Europe and taken nearly a million white slaves, and their shipping raids in the Mediterranean had taken a great toll. But the Muslims never called their naval raiders “Barbary pirates.” They called them ghazis, sacred raiders. A raid led by Mohammed against the kafirs’ caravans was called a ghazwah. The Muslims were clear that naval raids by the “Barbary pirates” were actually jihad by the army of Mohammed. Naming them “pirates” showed that the kafirs had no idea about the doctrine and history of Islam. Today we call the jihadists off the coast of Somalia who are attacking ships, pirates.
Look at the news today. The media report an intifada, uprising, by the Palestinians against the Israelis. But the terms intifada, Palestinian, and Israeli are misnomers. The real terms are jihad, Muslim and infidel, if we follow the Koran, and the doctrine of political Islam clearly states that jihad is to be waged by all Muslims against all Jews and other “kafirs.” Today is no different from 1400 years ago in Islam.
9/11 is recorded in the West as a terrorist attack by terrorists. Mohammed Atta, the leader of the 9/11 attack, was a pious Muslim. He left a letter clearly stating his intentions: 9/11 was pure jihad. An attack is a single event, but jihad is a 1400-year continuous process. Therefore, a terrorist attack is not the same as jihad. Terrorism does not have the same meaning as jihad.
Kafirs called them the “Paris riots.” Muslims called the burnings and theft the “Great Ramadan Offensive,” which connects them to Mohammed’s first jihad in the sacred month of Ramadan. The name “Paris riots” evokes different thoughts, insights, and points of view from the “Great Ramadan Offensive.”
The naming of these events by kafirs does not convey the right meaning. Muslims’ names for themselves and their actions connect events and people with Islamic history and doctrine and show a continuing process. Kafir names are temporary, do not connect events, and show no historic process.
The only correct terms are those of Islam. The naming by the kafirs is wrong because the naming is a projection of Western culture. Correct naming leads to correct thinking.
Why are we talking about naming?
One of the marks of a dhimmi (a kafir who is an apologist for Islam) under the fourth caliph, Umar, was that a dhimmi was forbidden to study the Koran. The chief mark of dhimmitude today is ignorance of the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith. The ignorance of kafir intellectuals about Islam is profound.
University Islamic studies never mention the political doctrine in the Trilogy (Koran, Sira and Hadith). The media discusses Islam in terms of political correctness, and multiculturalism. History courses don’t teach about the civilizational annihilation due to jihad. Black history doesn’t refer to the 100 million Africans destroyed over 1400 years of jihadic predation that fed the slave trade up to today. Religious leaders placate imams in public gatherings and have no knowledge what the imam actually thinks of them. Political thinkers do not even know Islam as a political force.
The problem with this ignorance is that our intellectuals are unable to help us. They do not understand that Islam is a civilization based upon the ideal of dualism, whereas our civilization is based upon the ideal of unitary ethics. Our intellectuals cannot explain what this difference has meant in the past or what it will mean for our future.
As a result, kafirs have no intellectual leadership who can speak in terms of Islamic doctrine.
There are four types of jihad (according to Mohammed)-sword, pen, mouth and money. When we listen to Muslim experts try to get kafirs to use “moderate” names, we are submitting to the jihad of the pen and the mouth.
There is only one source of correct terminology-the doctrine of Islam. Use it.
Bill Warner
Permalink https://politicalislam.com/terminology-of-islam-naming
Copyright © 2008 CBSX, LLC
Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.
Of Interest
1,000 Christian Families Flee North Iraqi City: Governor
Houses Blown Up As Christians Flee Iraq’s Mosul
500 Christian Families Flee Iraq’s Mosul: Official
Muslim Threats Force Assyrians to Flee From Mosul
Iraqi Group Urges End of Campaign Against Christians in Mosul
Violence in Mosul Forces Iraqi Christians to Flee
They Are Killing Christians. Who Cares?
In Mosul, Iraq, the Muslims are threatening and killing Christians. Now this is under the occupation of America. Have you noticed the Christian George Bush and any other leader being outraged and speaking out? Our leaders have no basis to speak from. The political dogma about Islam is to never study its history, so every event about Islam comes without a historical reference. The historical dots are never connected; hence, leadership wakes up every morning in a new world without any memory.
The ignorance is profound–
The Rev. Bolis Jacob, of Mosul’s Mar Afram Church, told AP he couldn’t understand the attacks.
“We respect the Islamic religion and the Muslim clerics,” he said. “We don’t know under what religion’s pretexts these terrorists work.”
This Christian lives in Iraq, a Christian nation 1400 years ago, one of the oldest Christian communities in the world. Today Iraq is about 2% Christian. Even a modern political or religious leader can tell a drop from 100% to 2%. The drop is called annihilation. How far will it go? Let’s look at another annihilation in Iraq.
The oldest Jewish community in the world is in Iraq. The Jews of Iraq go back to the Babylonian captivity. Today there are fewer than 20 Jews in Iraq. They are old and have no children. In about 10 years there will be no Jews in Iraq.
Political Islam is a ratchet; its power increases and never falls back. Translation: there will never be an increase in the numbers of Jews or Christians in Iraq. Their numbers will only get smaller until total annihilation.
So that is the political history that is behind the killing of Christians in Mosul. The beauty of Islam is how completely its history (actions) and doctrine align. Political Islam is the world’s most logical political system. It adapts, but never varies its grand strategy—annihilation of all kafir civilizations.
But let’s go back to the quote: “We don’t know under what religion’s pretexts these terrorists work.” Hmm. Islam has been annihilating Christianity for 1400 years and this man does not have clue about the political doctrine of Islam. He does not even know how to distinguish politics from religion.
On that basis he is not much of a Christian. When Christ was asked about whether a religious person should pay taxes: “And he said to them, Render therefore to Caesar the things which be Caesar’s, and to God the things which be God’s.” Luke 20:25. Hello, what does that imply? That a Christian should be able to distinguish between religion and politics. Unfortunately, this Iraqi is a member of the great majority of humanity. Not one person in a thousand even thinks of Islam of being a political system.
Notice that he even seems to be denying that the annihilation process is even Islamic. If a kafir even bothers to remark on the killings he will say, “That is not Islam.”
It is pure Islam.
Mr. Jacob is the perfect dhimmi (a kafir who submits to Islam). Even in the face of 1400 years of persecution, he is totally ignorant of Islamic doctrine with regards to Christians. When you see his deliberate ignorance, you can understand a little more the grotesque ignorance of our religious and political leaders.
But in short, here is Islam’s doctrine towards Christians. It starts off with how Islam and Christians are brothers in the religion of Abraham. (That is as much as a normal religious leader can understand.) Then it progresses to say that Christians must be politically inferior, pay a special tax to be protected from harm by Muslims and they must be humiliated. In short, Christians must politically submit to Islam.
Now comes the religious demands. If you believe in the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, the death and resurrection of Jesus, then you are not a Christian. Only Christians who believe that Jesus was a prophet of Allah, there is no Trinity and Christ was not resurrected are true Christians.
So it turns out there are no real Christians in Iraq (or America or any other country) at all. But Mr. Jacobs does not know this. Dhimmis know nothing about the doctrine of Islam.
Here is a question: has anyone heard this prosecution of Christians condemned by any pastor or political leader in any setting? Let us know.
It is not that Islam is so strong; it is that kafirs are ignorant, fearful and weak. Islam has a plan—make kafirs submit. Dhimmis have a plan—be nice.
Bill Warner
Permalink https://politicalislam.com/they-are-killing-christians-who-cares/
Copyright © 2008 CBSX, LLC
Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.
Of Interest:
Somali pirates kidnap four Germans.
Somali pirates hijack a Greek ship and a Ukranian ship.
Somali pirates free Japanese tanker
There Ain’t No Stinkin’ Pirates
If you have any way to follow the news that is not “main stream media”, aka, “no news, but lots of opinion”, then you might find items like this:
US: 4 failed Somali pirate attacks in 24 hours; By MOHAMED OLAD HASSAN, Associated Press Writer
MOGADISHU, Somalia – There have been four failed pirate attacks in the last 24 hours off the lawless Somali coast despite the presence of six American warships guarding a hijacked ship full of weapons, a U.S. navy spokeswoman said Saturday.
So the military, the media, and the US state department are talking about pirates. If we go back in history to the late 1700s and the Mediterranean we find the same talk. In those days they were called the Barbary pirates (off the Barbary coast, North Africa). Only those were not pirates either. Well, they were pirates, but they were involved in al-jihad fil-bahr, the holy war at sea. They were jihadists and that is what the Somalis are.
What is in a name? A pirate is a criminal with guns and a boat. A pirate has the same ideology as the Mafia, wealth by theft-easy money. But a jihadist on the sea has another motive-advancing Islam by hurting the kafirs and taking their money. It is Sunna-the way of Mohammed. The only difference is that Mohammed’s jihad involved camels, dust and swords, whereas, the oceanic jihadists use boats, water and guns. The result is the same-kafirs losing their lives and money.
What have we learned in the last 200 years? Not a thing. Why is it that a civilization that can send a man to the moon cannot learn a simple word-jihadist? There are two answers-we are not intelligent or we are too afraid to learn. The right answer is that we are too afraid. If we were to face the fact that there are no pirates off the Somali coast, but only jihad, we would be connecting the dots, seeing the pattern.
If the pirates are only jihadists, then the terrorists might only be jihadists. It might be Islam. Under no circumstances must we ever connect the dots. There “ain’t no Islam” that connects the dots. We insist that there is no connection between the attack on the World Trade Center and Sharia law being implemented in England. There is no connection between the videos showing the beheading of kafirs on the Web and Muslims at a university shouting down a lecturer about Islam. Under no circumstances must we connect anything to the deaths of 270 million kafirs over the last 1400 years. In 2007 there were 2324 attacks, 12,073 killed, and 24,292 injured in 39 countries-all by Muslims. Any connections? No, not a single connection. Ain’t no Islam connections.
We kafirs are all about never connecting the dots. If we don’t see any pattern to the violence around the world, then we will never see that we have a major problem. Oh, well, some Muslims cause a little trouble, but, hey, there are Christians who cause trouble also. No, move along, there is no problem here. There is no universal, eternal jihad. A thousand times no.
Of course, if there were actually a problem with systemic Islamic violence, we would learn about it in our schools. See, there is nothing bad about Islam in the school curriculum, so there is no problem. If there were a problem then our media would tell us. See, no problemo. Go back to sleep.
This essay has an ironic, sarcastic tone. Another choice of tone would be outrage at our stupidity, but since George Bush is the only American who can be called stupid, that option is closed.
Irony and sarcasm are an appropriate response to systemic we-never-learn, we don’t care; we don’t bother. We just try harder to never connect the dots.
How about them Pirates? Looks like they are going to have a great season.
Bill Warner
Permalink https://politicalislam.com/there-aint-no-stinkin-pirates/
Copyright © 2008 CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.
Of Interest:
“I only obey Allah and his Messenger,” says Sheikh Omar Bakri who left Britain with its kafir man-made laws.
A Salafi Muslim writes that as a member of the ummah, they owe allegiance only to the state of Islam, Mohammed and his god Allah.
The Pakistani press on Barack Obama’s Pakistani friends and his visit there in 1981.
The Doctrine of Ignorance
Once you understand the doctrine of political Islam, there is a question that naturally arises. Why doesn’t everyone know about this? It’s simple. But, first let’s take a look at the actual state of ignorance.
· The media never refers to the actual doctrine of political Islam.
· No university teaches the doctrine and history of Islamic slavery or about the dhimmi.
· No divinity or rabbinical school teaches the doctrine and history of Islam and the Christians and Jews.
Since schools don’t teach about Islam, is it any wonder that kafirs are ignorant?
So there is a doctrine of ignorance about Islam. It is not only that we don’t know, we have also developed a systemic social theory of why we will not learn. This guarantees the stability of ignorance. W are ignorant and we will remain ignorant.
The doctrine of ignorance is based upon fear, but it manifests many different ways.
INERTIA
The biggest part of any doctrine of ignorance is inertia. Most people never do anything to buck any system, no matter what the system is. These are the sheep, the sheeple. But this does not explain why leaders and intellectuals do not want learn about Islam. Leaders are supposed to be able to go against the tide.
WHAT WILL WE HAVE TO DO?
This is a big worry by kafirs. There is a sneaky suspicion that Islam is the equivalent of cancer, and if we have cancer, we have to do something. And that something may be drastic. Besides, Islam is so huge, that we can’t afford to do anything, so it is better to do nothing.
What is tragic about this concern for “what to do” is that it ignores the true nature of planning, strategy and execution. Don’t worry about what to do until you know what the problem is.
Not learning because you don’t want to think about what to do is like not getting the biopsy test because you might not like the results and have to deal with the possible cancer results. The smart thing, of course, is to get the data taken.
I KNOW THIS MUSLIM AND HE IS NICE
The defense here is that I don’t need to know about the doctrine or the history since Ahmed at work is so nice. Since Ahmed is nice, Islam is nice. That is all I need to know.
Of course, this means that you have to avoid ever wondering why so much violence around the world involves Islam and some Muslims are jihadists. Because if you thought that, you might have doubts about Islam is not so nice.
AFRAID OF BEING CALLED A BIGOT
If the doctrine is bad, then Muslims are bad. If I learn bad things about Islam, I will be called a bigot.
ISLAM CANNOT BE WORSE THAN CHRISTIANITY, SO WHY LEARN?
This belief is that nothing is worse than Christian religious violence. So no matter how bad Islam is it can’t be as bad as the Christians. Conclusion-there is no need to know about Islam, I can go back to sleep.
The only thing worse than religious violence in the 20th century was the violence of atheism. Mao of China was an atheist and caused the deaths of 77 million. Stalin of Russia were fervent atheists and killed 77 million and 62 million each. Hitler killed about 21 million and was not an atheist, but he despised Christianity and admired Islam. He said that Christians are wimps and Muslims are killers.
Hitler was right. Islam has killed about 270 million over 1400 years. Maybe, it would be a good thing to know how and why it happened.
IT’S TOO HARD/NON-MUSLIMS CANNOT KNOW ISLAM
This is one of the most common reasons to stay ignorant. One manifestation of this “too hard” idea is that only Muslims can understand the Koran.
This is a natural response because our educational systems have taught us nothing about Islam except its glorious triumphs (where no one suffered) and a vague Golden Age.
What is ironic here is that to understand political Islam, you only need to study Mohammed. How hard can that be? And now the Koran has been made easy to understand-A Simple Koran.
FEAR
When you examine these ideas, they can all be summarized by one word-fear. Those who can function in the presence of fear are heroes. So you must be a little bit of a hero to learn about political Islam.
The next time you are speaking with someone about Islam and they have no facts about the doctrine or history, ask them: What is your reason for not learning about political Islam? Why are you afraid of this knowledge?
Bill Warner
Permalink https://politicalislam.com/the-doctrine-of-ignorance/
Copyright © 2008 CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.
Of Interest:
Apostasy in Islam is a dangerous decision.
Islam’s Advance: Huge surprise here. Saudi textbooks teach hate!
Islam and Democracy
It is election season in America and time to look at one the of the dhimmis‘ favorite myths-the democratization of Islam. Great blood and treasure have been spent in Iraq to bring democracy to Islam.
But it makes no difference how much blood and treasure are spent; Islam is no more compatible with democracy than pigs are with flight. Islam has an entire doctrine of politics and government that was laid out by Mohammed. And just like pigs were not made for flight, Islamic political doctrine was not made for democracy.
The reason for this is the perfect example of Mohammed. Mohammed achieved success only when he became a politician and warrior. We may have politicians who invoke religion as part of their political persona, but we do not have any politicians who actually speak for god. Mohammed spoke for god. All Muslims did what they were told. Mohammed did not operate any kind of primal democracy; Mohammed and Allah ruled absolutely down to the smallest detail.
It is at this stage of the argument that Muslims like to invoke the idea of Mohammed’s consulting with his Companions as a model for democracy. At the battle of Badr, one of the men asked Mohammed if his battle orders were from Allah? Mohammed said that it was his own opinion, not Allah’s. The man pointed out that if the troops were placed in front of the well, it would be to Islam’s advantage and Mohammed followed his advice.
The argument is that Mohammed listened to the voters. Hence, Islam is democratic. But when you read the entire Sira (the biography of Mohammed) and the Hadith, such “votes” by the Companions are extremely rare.
Here is an example of how non-democratic Islam is.
Abu Muslim Book 020, Number 4573:
[…] Shouldn’t we overthrow them [the worst of rulers] with the help of the sword? Mohammed said, “No, as long as they establish prayer among you. If you then find anything detestable in them you should hate their administration, but do not withdraw yourselves from their obedience.”
In short, as long as a leader is a Muslim, obey him, even if he is a tyrant. Does that sound like a democratic view? What if the tyrant is Sadam Hussein? Obey him.
But this is not the real reason that Islam cannot ever have democracy. The real reason is found in the word-kafir, a political word. The Muslim is superior to the kafir in politics and culture and the kafir must submit to the will of Islam in public affairs. Democracy is based upon the idea of the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule leads to equality in law and politics. But a Muslim and a kafir are not equal in political Islam. Votes are equal. We have a contradiction and democracy submits to Islam and tyranny.
There is a third reason why Islam is not capable of being democratic. Democracies are the source of the idea of human rights. Islam does not grant human rights to kafirs.
Christians are 3% of the population in Iraq and are 30% of those fleeing Iraq. Why? Persecution by political Islam. About 1300 years ago Iraq was Christian. Soon it will be 0% Christian. The tragedy is that this is of no importance in the media or houses of worship.
But we digress. The point is that Islam only gives full rights to Muslims. Kafirs, Christian and otherwise are second-class citizens, basically semi-slaves. This inequality is built into the doctrine of Islam and is fully supported by the example. If Mohammed wanted democracy he would have practiced democracy as a sacred example. But his sacred example was supreme, unquestioned ruler.
Islam is perfect, universal, complete and eternal. It does not have a reform option. Democracy is a kafir form of politics and is anti-Islamic.
Bill Warner
Permalink https://politicalislam.com/islam-and-democracy/
Copyright © 2008 CBSX, LLC
Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.
Of Interest
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 https://politicalislam.com/a-vicitim-at-the-democratic-convention/
Copyright © CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.
Of Interest:
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 https://politicalislam.com/islam-kafirs-and-slaves/
Copyright © 2008 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.
Of Interest:
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: https://politicalislam.com/a-criminal-modus-operandi/
Of Interest:
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: https://politicalislam.com/the-doctrine-of-deceit/
Of Interest
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: https://politicalislam.com/debating-about-islam-part-2/