An Education on Political Islam with Bill Warner: The Crusades and Jihad
Обучение политическому исламу с Биллом Уорнером: крестовые походы и джихад

Самая большая проблема возникает тогда, когда речь заходит об исламской истории и идеологии, в которых мы проявляем глубокое и профессиональное невежество. Просто поразительно, как много об этом неизвестно, ни в университетах, ни в церквях.
Всем привет! С вами Apostate Prophet.
Сегодня я пригласил очень важного человека, которого давно ждал. Доктор Билл Уорнер, который в этом году проделал очень большую работу, связанную с исламом, особенно, в области, которую он называет «Политическим исламом»
У него также есть отдельная работа, посвященная теме «Крестоносцы против джихада», о чем я тоже хочу поговорить с ним сегодня.
Позвольте мне сейчас прямо обратиться к нему, чтобы он мог представиться и начать разговор.
Здравствуйте, доктор Билл, как поживаете?
Bill Warner. Очень хорошо и счастлив быть здесь, с Вами. Позвольте мне сделать личное заявление. По моему мнению самые великие герои на земле — это те, кто покинул ислам, а потом обратился к людям, и вы как раз один из таких героев.
Apostate Prophet. Спасибо большое, я это очень ценю. Я бы хотел перейти непосредственно к вашей биографии, что является самым важным для понимания. Вы относитесь к научным кругам. Вы — доктор наук. Расскажите нам подробнее о Вашей биографии.
Bill Warner. Ну, для этого нам необходимо вернуться ко времени моего детства. Я воспитывался в глубоко религиозной семье, где христианство, которое мы практиковали, было основано на буквальном понимании текстов, за что нас окрестили «проповедниками». Так что с самого раннего возраста я изучал Ветхий и Новый Заветы. Когда я покинул родительский дом, одним из моих самых больших интересов был мистицизм. Так что первый мой контакт с исламом произошел через суфизм, который я изучал около года. Однако во всем этом были какие-то темные углы, о которых никто не говорил. Позже я понял, что это были шариат и джихад, поэтому я ушел.
Много позже в моей жизни, уже став профессором, я имел множество студентов-мусульман. Я понимал, что для того, чтобы по-настоящему понять кого-то, надо знать религию, поскольку религия формирует характер, личность, мораль, даже историю и культуру.
Так что я засел за чтение Корана, который я хоть и читал раньше, но фрагментарно и урывками, и прочитал его от корки до корки. А потом, прочитав о жизни Мухаммеда, я воскликнул: «Ой, да у нас проблема!»
Таким образом, 9/11 2001, когда я увидел, как второй самолет врезался во вторую башню, я сказал: «Это джихад, ислам уже здесь». И то, что я решил сделать, это посвятить свою жизнь тому, чтобы идеология ислама стала легко понятной отчасти потому, что я ученый, и отчасти потому, что люблю преподавать, опираясь на фундаментальные факты по данному вопросу, и это заставило меня начать.
Apostate Prophet. Это все очень интересно. Я не знал о суфизме, так как не рассказывал Вам о своем прошлом, но, когда я был мусульманином, я был членом суфийского ордена.
Bill Warner. Неужели!
Apostate Prophet. Да.
Bill Warner. Кто бы мог подумать, что у нас это общее!
Apostate Prophet. Я о Вас этого не знал. Я был членом ордена почти 3 или 4 года, решив в него вступить. Я был так влюблен в него. Потом я осознал, что в нем было так много ошибочного, и он мало, чем отличался… почти совсем не отличался от того, что мы называем «фундаментализмом» в современном исламе. Просто методы разные.
Bill Warner. Совершенно, верно.
Apostate Prophet. Однако верования, в частности, вера в джихад и насилие, как и легальность исламского фундаментализма, присутствуют также и в самом суфизме. Это не только о том, чтобы любить и быть приятным.
Bill Warner. И это я тоже обнаружил.
Apostate Prophet. Дело не в том, чем вы заняты профессионально, а в том, что придает вам энтузиазма вступить в это, сохранить титул и просвещать мир относительно ислама?
Bill Warner. Ну, поскольку я сначала прочитал Коран, я прочитал также хадисы и Сиру. Я понял, что для многих эти книги были непроницаемы, и их даже не собирались изучать. Тогда я решил попытаться свести всю доктрину ислама — Коран, Сиру и хадисы в единое целое, так, чтобы любой мог ее понять. Я пишу для… подростки в средней школе — моя воображаемая аудитория, поскольку я собирался сделать вещи простыми и легкими для понимания. Для меня, сделать Коран понятным, было неким интеллектуальным проектом, подобным гигантскому пазлу, и я был решительно настроен, как я сам себе говорил, сломать код, чтобы сделать его легким для понимания, что я и сделал.
Таким образом, я увидел всю идеологию ислама как нечто достойное интеллектуального решения, в частности, мне как ученому. То, что было необычным для меня, — это такие вещи, как, скажем, 89 стихов Корана, в которых говорится, что Мухаммад — идеальный образец для всех людей, с которого надо строить свою жизнь, что составило 51% всего этого… Я говорю о суммарной процентности, поскольку я пишу для западной аудитории. Моей задачей было сделать это все очень простым для понимания.
И позвольте мне сказать после проведения, не знаю, сколько времени в университетах, что средний профессор пишет не для того, чтобы быть простым для понимания. Он пишет для того, чтобы вы могли оценить, насколько он умен, а потому говорит с людьми, пришедшими сюда поговорить друг с другом, тогда как мне интересно иметь дело с обычными людьми. Так что моей интеллектуальной задачей было упростить предмет, который прежде был сложным.
Apostate Prophet. Такая затея мне очень нравится. Я делаю то же самое или близко к этому на Ютубе, где стараюсь делать все легко понимаемым и сжатым. Я считаю, что в настоящее время это лучший путь информировать людей по поводу ислама. Нет никакого смысла использовать в разговоре громкие слова, вдаваться в пространные объяснения вещей, которые люди не понимают. Так, что я это очень ценю.
Я хочу коснуться того различия, которое вы делаете между исламом, мусульманами и политическим исламом. Вы часто подчеркиваете, что говорите о политическом исламе. Можете ли Вы разъяснить это нам?
Bill Warner. Ну после того, как я прочитал исламские священные тексты — Коран, Сиру и хадисы, я был кое-чем впечатлен. К этому времени я уже изучил буддизм, провел полтора года, изучая Тору в ортодоксальной синагоге. Что меня поразило в исламе по мере того, как я читал, что это как, если бы вы читали буддистские сутры. Там написано, как быть лучшим буддистом и описывается буддистский взгляд на мир, а когда вы читаете исламскую доктрину, то большая ее часть касается меня как неверного, кафира.
Так что я сказал себе, что, если я вне религии, то я никак не могу быть замешан с религией ислам, но ислам замешан со мной, так что я это назвал интерфейсом между исламом и политическим исламом неверных, поскольку это не религиозный ислам, это закон. Я рассматриваю религиозный ислам как практики, которые приводят мусульманина в рай, помогая избежать ада.
Apostate Prophet. Я бы хотел подойти к кое-чему специфическому, что Вы делали прежде, и о чем я упоминал в начале этого видео. Это Крестоносцы против джихада. Я хочу, чтобы мы это очень быстро рассмотрели вместе.
Bill Warner. Когда бы вы ни имели дело с апологетом ислама или даже мусульманином, и ни затрагивали тему джихада, вам сразу кидают: «А что насчет этих ужасных крестоносцев? А что, для джихада есть моральное оправдание. Я имею в виду, что мы такие же плохие, как и они, так что давайте не будем говорить о джихаде, ладно? Давайте лучше поговорим о крестоносцах».
Ладно, о чем бы мы ни хотели говорить, существуют факты, и оказывается, после того как я сел и собрал некоторые работы, я создал базу данных из 548 баталий, которые вел Ислам — джихадистских баталий против классических цивилизаций. И это даже не все баталии: там нет ничего об Африке или Индии, Афганистане и пр.
Это, прежде всего, баталии, которые велись против классической цивилизации Рима и Греции.
Я создал нечто, что я назвал «динамичной военной картой», на которой вы видите Средиземноморье, и белая точка обозначает новую битву за период в 20 лет. То есть, каждая смена кадра — это двадцатилетний период.
И вот здесь начало…
Ислам вырывается из Аравийского полуострова и немедленно начинает нападения на Ближний Восток.
И заметьте, им не потребовалось много времени, чтобы пересечь Средиземное море и напасть на южную Францию и Испанию.
Когда большинство людей думают об исламе, они думают об арабах, думают об арабах, думают о пустынях, и вот мы уже видим, что ислам распространил свою власть по всему Средиземноморью. Обратите внимание, каким ударам подверглись мелкие острова Средиземного моря.
Исламский флот подвергал нападениям прибрежные города, убивая, грабя, насилуя и забирая рабов. По мере того, как разворачивается эта карта баталий, вы видите захват рабов. Более миллиона рабов были угнаны из Европы в исламский мир.
Это то, о чем вы никогда особенно не задумывались, но это абсолютная истина.
Только в одной Испании произошло более 200 баталий, однако, мы видим на побережье Турции, что ислам стремится также прорваться в Европу.
Теперь происходит то, что в Испании борьба продолжалась на протяжении 400 лет, и христианам удалось отбросить мусульман.
Но тут случилось так, что на востоке пал Константинополь, и теперь Восточная Европа подверглась ударам. Теперь джихад пришел в Восточную Европу. Его вытеснили из Испании.
Теперь Африка полностью исламская, Ближний Восток полностью исламский. Теперь кругом джихад, неустанный джихад, и почему же он такой неустанный?
Ну, сам Мухаммед неустанно вел джихад, а эти люди хорошо изучили Ислам.
И, таким образом, он вновь и вновь направляется против кафиров.
Уже вошло в традицию, что, когда султан приходит к власти, совсем новый султан, он немедленно начинает делать попытки развязать новые войны для того, чтобы быть отмеченным в исламской истории по тому, как хорошо он воевал против кафиров.
Вот так выглядел джихад в то время. 548 баталий.
Однако имейте ввиду, что как только вы затронете тему джихада, тут же вспомнят о Крестоносцах, поэтому я приготовил динамичную военную карту наступательных набегов Крестоносцев.
Давайте на нее посмотрим и сравним. Итак, начнем…
Крестоносцы вошли на Ближний Восток, в Турцию.
Происходят баталии, но вы заметили, что их гораздо меньше, чем вы ожидали?
Вот так мы продвигаемся, происходят последние сражения, и наступает конец Крестовому походу.
А теперь, давайте поговорим о некоторых фактах. Да, Крестовые походы имели место, однако, не забывайте, что они прекратились столетия назад, тогда как джихад совершается и сегодня.
Вот уже 1400 лет, как джихад сопровождает нас. Между джихадом и Крестовыми походами не может быть сравнения, по крайней мере, морального, и не упускайте из виду, что в определенном смысле, все эти Крестовые походы носили оборонительный характер. Почему?
Ну, как мы уже успели увидеть на первых картах джихада, это ислам вышел из Аравии и завоевал Ближний Восток, христианский Ближний Восток. Так что Крестоносцы пытались освободить своих христианских братьев и сестер от джихада.
Так что, никакого морального сравнения вообще быть не может.
Мотивацией Крестоносцев было освобождение христиан, а целью джихада было поработить неверных.
В следующий раз, когда кто-то из вас услышит разговор об этих страшных Крестовых походах, а вы уже видели факты по этому делу, почему бы вам не вмешаться и не сказать: «На самом деле, вы ничего не знаете об этом деле».
Apostate Prophet: Доктор Билл, все очень просто. Когда я увидел это в первый раз, я решил, что это самое лучшее, что я видел до сих пор по поводу Крестовых походов против джихада. Все очень понятно и так хорошо видно, что даже самый плохо информированный человек сможет, посмотрев на это, правильно понять, что Вы имеете ввиду и что тогда происходило. Точно понять всю дискуссию, в общем и целом, на тему о том, что «но мы же совершили Крестовые походы», которая совершенно ошибочна. Я бы хотел поговорить немного больше об этом.
Как Вы полагаете, почему люди вбили себе в голову мысль, что Европа должна быть…, должна нести ответственность за всю крестоносную историю, хотя мир полностью игнорирует обширную историю джихада исламского мира, который начался еще до Крестоносцев и закончился, спустя долгов время после них?
Bill Warner. То, с чем мы имеем здесь дело — это отсутствие рационального мышления. Я — ученый и все что можно, основываю на фактах. Например, эти два видео были сделаны, когда я понял, что начал некое исследование, но большая работа была проделана гораздо раньше, когда я все это раскапывал.
Те 548 баталий, которые я каталогизировал, создают проблему, как показать эту информацию. Я пришел к мысли создать динамичную военную карту. Я это сделал с целью показать европейцам и христианам, почему они не могут продолжать осуждать Крестовые войны, когда есть другие вещи, которые следовало бы осудить в связи с этим. Другое дело, что на Западе есть разногласия, была война между католицизмом. и протестантизмом, и я думаю, что протестанты были одними из тех, кто принес идею крестовых походов, потому что католики … те, кто участвовал в Европе, были католиками. Однако с моей стороны, это всего лишь догадка.
Гораздо более серьезная проблема заключается в том, что, когда дело доходит до исламской истории и идеологии, мы проявляем глубокое и профессиональное невежество. Поразительно, как много неизвестно об этом в университетах и церквях. Можете придти в церковный университет и убедиться, что они там ничего не преподают относительно смерти христианства, не говоря уже о Крестовых походах. Большая часть христианства была уничтожена, а христиане не знают об этом.
Я же считаю, что ислам — это огромная тема, которая остается как следует не изученной простыми людьми.
Apostate Prophet. Из моего собственного опыта, из моих собственных знаний я бы хотел к этому добавить, поскольку я пришел из исламского мира, в котором я пробыл более 10 лет, что в нем есть коллективный дух. Исламский мир постоянно хочет объединиться, никогда не признает своих ошибок, как в случае с Израилем, например, никогда не признает своих ошибок и стремится распространить идею о том, что исламский мир всегда прав, а все остальные всегда плохие. Благодаря этому, мы можем видеть, что в исламском мире, в мире с 1400-летней кровавой историей, люди могут говорить о том, какими плохими были Крестоносцы.
Bill Warner. Одной из вещей, которые я узнал, при моем знакомстве с исламом, поскольку нам предстоит коснуться Мухаммеда, это то, что Мухаммед был всегда прав, кафиры всегда неправы, и я узнал во время обсуждений с мусульманами, что мусульмане всегда правы, а кафиры всегда неправы. И я действительно не могу понять ислам, поскольку, если бы я его понял, то был бы мусульманином. Так что то, что я не мусульманин, является доказательством того, что я не понимаю ислам.
Apostate Prophet. Ну, даже если Вы раньше понимали ислам, если Вы бывший мусульманин, как я, это внезапно превращается в «Вы по-настоящему никогда не были мусульманином, Вы по-настоящему никогда не понимали ислам, поэтому Вы его покинули».
Bill Warner. Что Вы говорите!
Apostate Prophet. Это никогда не бывает их виной, это никогда не бывает виной ислама, а всегда ваша и моя ошибка.
Bill Warner. Значит, мы сошлись во мнении.
Apostate Prophet. Да. Следующей темой, которую я хотел бы затронуть — это тема рабства. Вы ее уже затрагивали в своем видео, но мне кажется, что это очень интересная тема. На моем канале я потратил много времени, говоря об этом. На Западе мы уделяем много времени и внимания трансатлантической работорговле, тому, как белые европейцы порабощали чернокожих или даже весь мир, тогда как на самом деле, если мы заглянем в историю, если тщательно проанализируем историю, то увидим, что трансатлантическая работорговля — это нечто жалкое по сравнению с работорговлей в исламском мире, которая началась задолго до того, как возникла работорговля в христианском мире, и закончилась длительное время спустя после исчезновения рабства в христианском мире.
Bill Warner. Прежде всего, позвольте мне сказать, что университет, в котором я преподавал в течение 8 лет, был исторически колледжем для черных, и они были очень чувствительны к концепции рабства. Единственная теория рабства, которую они преподавали, был злой белый человек на деревянном корабле. Это было все, о чем разрешалось говорить относительно происхождения рабства. И снова я интуитивно чувствовал, что рабство было чем-то гораздо более эндемическим, чем просто злой белый человек на деревянном корабле. Есть, кстати, замечательная книга, написанная Джоном Азумой, африканцем, который писал о влиянии рабства…, о том, как ислам, который он называет «арабским», как арабский ислам повлиял на рабство в Африке.
Я, хоть и читал ее, не помню точного названия, однако, теперь уже есть книги, которые представляют неопровержимые факты того, что работорговцем был ислам.
Давайте теперь прямо перейдем к Сунне Мухаммеда. У него были белые рабы, черные рабы, арабские рабы, сексуальные рабы, он продавал рабов оптом, покупал и продавал их оптом, пытал… и молился, пока их пытали. У него были свои, личные рабы. Нам известно из хадиса, что некоторые рабы в его семье были чернокожими. Так что мы имеем здесь факт того, что Мухаммед был рабовладельцем, так что по Сунне ислама рабство приемлемо. Рабство существовало на северном побережье Африки, на восточном побережье Африки, одним словом, ислам глубоко присутствует в рабстве. По-моему, последний невольничий рынок, официальный невольничий рынок, был закрыт в 1962 или в 1964 в Мекке.
Кстати, интересная деталь: известно ли вам, кто был продан за самую высокую цену на невольничьем рынке в Мекке? Белая женщина. Откуда мы знаем, что она была самой желанной? Любимая сексуальная рабыня Мохаммеда, Мария, была белой и имела прекрасное телосложение. Так что Сунной Мохаммеда является, что лучшая сексуальная партнерша — это белая женщина. Таким образом, если мы хотим понять рабство в мире, нам надо понять ислам. Кстати, теперь стало больше рабов.
Ислам не несет ответственности за рабство вообще, потому что, если вы возьмете племена американских индейцев, то и у них были рабы. В каждой цивилизации была та или иная форма рабства, будь то крепостное право или что-то еще, при которой могущественные люди могли заставить бедных делать грубую тяжелую грязную работу.
Так же, как мы не знаем полной истории ислама, мы не знаем и всей истории рабства, а поэтому я считаю, что… Я нахожу запретное знание очень притягательным для себя.
Именно по этой причине я стал изучать эти вещи, которые я не предполагал раньше.
Apostate Prophet. Поскольку вы сделали прекрасные замечания об истории рабства, я хочу добавить лишь несколько вещей. Исторически зафиксировано, что в исламском мире, особенно среди арабских работорговцев проявлялось колебание относительно необходимости обращения этих «рабских наций» в ислам, потому что в исламе вы можете взять кого-то в качестве раба, или согласно исламским правилам, согласно исламскому закону, вы можете взять кого-то в качестве раба, если он не мусульманин, но, если он становится мусульманином, то тогда он получает право на быструю эмансипацию. Работорговцы все время знали об этом, и исторически зафиксировано, что по этой причине они всегда препятствовали тому, чтобы так называемые “рабские нации”, черные африканцы, принимали ислам.
И это показывает нам, что что-то не так не только с рабством в исламском мире, но и с самим исламом, который вызвал весь этот бардак с рабством.
Еще один момент, который я хочу добавить, что он также исторически зафиксировано, и я думаю, что вы можете это подтвердить, — это то, что исламский мир также был широко вовлечен в трансатлантическую работорговля, в которой сегодня мы обвиняем только европейцев.
Отсюда я хочу перескочить к другой теме, которую вы сейчас очень любите. Как мы там оказались? Почему вся критика ислама демонизируется, почему человек-не мусульманин, который не был раньше мусульманином и критикует ислам, считается ярым фанатиком, расистом, ксенофобом, ненавистным человеком? Как пример можно указать, что вы причислены Южным центром по правам бедных к внутреннему кругу антимусульманских фанатиков, хотя, когда смотришь на вашу работу, вы в основном даете просто презентации об исламе. Как мы попали в это?
Bill Warner. Я не знаю, я на самом деле очень осторожен. Давайте проверим наше обсуждение, которое мы провели здесь сегодня. Сказал ли я что-нибудь плохое об исламе или Мухаммеде? Нет, я только сказал то-то и то-то, что, на самом деле является фактическим материалом, который можно установить. Он доступен каждому. Я думаю о причине такого использования: когда я был маленьким, мои родители внушали мне, что навешивание ярлыков — это самая низкая форма аргумента, и, как правило, к этому аргументу прибегал человек, у которого не было более веских аргументов. Я думаю, что одной из причин, по которой левые называют таких людей, как я, расистами, ненавистниками, фанатичными исламофобами, является то, что они не могут победить меня в логической аргументации, потому что они вообще не знают никаких фактов об исламе. Я знал левых, которые энергично защищали ислам, а затем разворачивались и горько с ненавистью говорили о христианстве или иудаизме. Здесь есть некая странность, в которой мусульманин всегда считается конечной жертвой, а такие люди, как я, которые просто говорят, что есть доктрина, которой они следуют… Я плохой человек, и в этом причина.
Так что, если хотите, Южный центр по правам бедных является конечным навешивателем ярлыков. Им не надо обращаться к моей логике, они не говорят «знаешь, Билл, то, что ты говоришь, неправда». Все, что они говорят, что я расист.
Кстати, как бывший мусульманин, можете ли вы сказать, потеряли ли вы свою расу, покинув ислам?
Apostate Prophet Нет.
Bill Warner. Он изменился?
Apostate Prophet. Нет.
Bill Warner. Нет. Но для меня это большая трагедия.
Позвольте мне объяснить вам, почему это трагично. Наша цивилизация имеет два краеугольных камня: один из них — этический: поступать с другими, как вы бы хотели, чтобы поступали с вами. Это то, что я называю унитарной этикой, в которой со всеми людьми обращаются по одному и тому же коду. Наш интеллектуальный краеугольный камень — это критическое, рациональное мышление, основанное на фактах. Я вижу, что мы теряем наше основанное на фактах мышление, а вместо этого, прибегаем к самой низкой форме логики — силе, крику и навешиванию ярлыков. Боюсь, что Антифа — это новая интеллектуальная модель.
Если мы не согласимся на рассуждение на основе фактов, на то, чтобы не перебивать друг друга, не кричать, а просто вести себя, как взрослые люди, это может стать нормой поведения. То, что мы здесь видим, — это детское поведение интеллектуалов, а самое худшее происходит в университетах.
Ну, я просто продолжаю бороться.
Apostate Prophet. Я тоже. Я только начал.
Каким будет ваш совет, личный совет, с вашей работой, для мусульманской общины, для мусульман, которые вас слушают, для мусульман, которые натолкнулись на это видео?
Bill Warner. Учите свою историю на основе фактов, а затем узнайте, кем на самом деле был Мухаммед, узнайте, чем на самом деле является его Сунна, и затем поймите противоречия в Коране.
Ну, то, что я говорю всем, независимо от того являетесь ли вы мусульманином или нет: вам надо узнать больше об Исламе, вам надо больше узнать об Аллахе и Мухаммеде. Я — учитель, а потому отстаиваю знание как лекарство от невежества.
Apostate Prophet. Большое спасибо, доктор Билл.
В конце я хочу поговорить о ваших книгах.
Вы написали много книг об исламе, в основном — очень кратких, которые мне очень понравились, потому что это именно то, что я ищу для обучения людей. Не могли бы вы дать нам краткий обзор ваших книг, о чем они?
Bill Warner. Ну, в основном все мои книги об исламе, и имеют три различных направления. Я опубликовал два разных Корана, две биографии Мухаммеда, и они различаются только размером. Мой простой Коран примерно такой толщины, а двухчасовой Коран примерно вот такой толщины. Я обнаружил, что люди запуганы исламом и считают: «Ну, я не могу его понять», но, если вы дадите им крошечную книгу, они скажут: «Ну, это я понять могу». Я не критикую ислам, я не критикую Мухаммеда, я просто говорю о том, что он делал и что говорил. Я не критикую Коран, я просто говорю о том, что он говорит, и о противоречиях, которые в нем есть.
Итак, я говорю мусульманам, вам нужно больше знать о самих себе, Мухаммеде, нужно больше знать об Аллахе, и я говорю кафирам, вам нужно больше знать о Мухаммеде и больше — об Аллахе. У меня однородный план.
Apostate Prophet. Я это люблю.
Наконец, доктор Билл, не скажете ли вы несколько слов моей аудитории? Моими последними словами на моем канале всегда являются: «Держитесь подальше от ислама», но это только я.
Bill Warner. Я бы сказал нашей аудитории, что мы живем в опасные времена. Происходят большие сдвиги, и нам нужно разобраться с фактами и с этим, если мы будем говорить об иммиграции вместо того, чтобы иметь размягченные мозги и нежные сердца. Нам нужно посмотреть на факты по этому вопросу. Я ученый и верю в суждения, основанные на фактах. Я призываю всех делать то же самое. Кроме того, это забавно.
Apostate Prophet. Согласен. Большое спасибо, доктор Билл. Мне очень понравился этот разговор. Большое спасибо, что присоединились ко мне, и …
Bill Warner. Спасибо!
Я оцениваю интервью по тому, насколько они приятны, и думаю, что в данном случае, оно было хорошим, потому что оно мне понравилось. Моя теория состоит в том, что, если мы довольны собой, публика будет довольна нами.
Что ж, спасибо вам! Вы замечательный человек.
Apostate Prophet. Моей аудитории от меня: держитесь подальше от ислама.

When Bill Warner was in Toronto, Canada, Robert Vaughn of Just Right Media did an interview about political Islam and posted it on YouTube.

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

While I was in Toronto for a series of talks, I did an 8 minute inteview about Political Islam on Sun News.

http://en.video.canoe.tv/archive/no-islamic-golden-rule/1993362077001

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink: https://politicalislam.com/what-is-the-truth-about-american-muslims-part-2-3/
Copyright © 2012 CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com
Use as needed, just give credit and do not edit.
www.politicalislam.com

Posted By Mark Tapson On January 16, 2012

In the years after the 9/11 attacks, more non-Muslims than ever before have studied Islam to understand the religious motives of those who had declared war on us. And yet non-believers who are alarmed at what they have found in the foundational texts of Islam are always told by apologists that we don’t understand the true Koran, that we labor under misconceptions about the Religion of Peace, that we don’t understand the complexities of sharia, that our objections and criticisms stem from racism (even though Islam is not a race) and an irrational fear of Islam and its adherents. The problem always seems to lie with us. What is the truth and how can we get to it behind the contradictions and the mystification?

Bill Warner has the answer. The founder and director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI), he holds a PhD in physics and math. He has been a university professor, a businessman, and an applied physicist. But Dr. Warner has also had a lifelong interest in religion and its impact on history, and so the day after 9/11 he decided to make the source texts of Islam available for the average person who wants to know more.

As part of that effort, Mr. Warner has produced a dozen books, including a Koran, a biography of Mohammed and a summary of the political traditions of Mohammed. He writes articles and produces news bulletins that record the suffering of the victims of political Islam. And he has spoken nationally and internationally about Islamic political doctrine.

Mark Tapson: Mr. Warner, your background is in physics and mathematics. How did you come to devote yourself to the study of religion and to feel compelled to share your insights on political Islam? How did the field of statistics shape your perspective on Islam?

Bill Warner: I was raised in a very religious family and read the Bible a great deal. I studied physics and math, but my interest in religion expanded to the effects of religion on history. After graduate school I was attracted to mysticism and Eastern religions. So, forty years ago, I looked into Sufism, mystical Islam. I went to Sufi dances, learned zikr (a Sufi devotional practice), met Sufi masters and read Sufi literature. But, there was always this jarring background noise of the history of Islam. So, I left my study of Sufism.

Twenty years later as a professor I had Muslims in my classes and they sparked my interest in the Koran. It was a tough read, but I read it cover to cover. The text was literally a puzzle, but I set it aside until 9/11.

On 9/11 as soon as the second plane hit the second tower, I knew it was an act of jihad. I stood up, turned off the TV and I haven’t watched it since. In that moment it came to me that the rest of my life would be spent explaining the meaning of Islamic texts.

I sat down and reread the Koran, read the Sira (Ishaq and Al Tabari), read the Hadith (Bukhari and Muslim). These are the absolute foundational texts of Islam, the source code, the DNA. I was following Sun Tzu’s advice; know your enemy and attack your enemy’s strategy.

My attack was to reveal the Koran, Sira and Hadith in a rational form that was easy to read. This became the Trilogy Project. I assembled a team of volunteers and paid writers and editors. From the beginning, I knew that it was the political aspect of Islam that offered the only chance of success. The religious aspect has too much misunderstood protection of the First Amendment.

MT: What is the Trilogy Project?

BW: The approach to the Trilogy was new and unorthodox, and its only chance of success lay in a scientific approach to the texts. Every paragraph can be verified by going back to the source texts. These books are not opinion, but give us the facts of the sources. For this reason, nearly every paragraph has an index number that allows it to be verified.

The greatest fun was solving the Koran puzzle. The Koran must be the most famous book that is not read or understood. The first step, which is not unique to me, is to lay out the Koran in the correct time sequence. The bookstore Koran is arranged by chapter length, and is not in the right time order. It was created by Uthman, the third caliph. The bookstore Koran is Uthman’s Koran.

If you take the life of Mohammed, the Sira, and lay it out alongside the Koran in the right time order, it is like matching a key to a lock. What is happening to Mohammed is reflected directly in the Koran. So if you integrate the life of Mohammed into the same text as the Koran and use separate fonts, so there is no confusion, you get a recreation of the Koran of Mohammed, the historical Koran. The Koran becomes an epic story that begins with a hymn to god and ends with the triumph over the world—the annihilation of all other civilization.

In 2006, I published the complete foundational doctrine of political Islam in three volumes. The Trilogy Project was finished. Now anyone can read and understand the Koran, Sira and Hadith. You can know Allah and Mohammed from the source texts.

This system of knowledge integrates the entire body of Islam into one view. If it is in the Trilogy, it is Islam. If it is Islam, it must be in the Trilogy.

Once the Trilogy was assembled, there was a bonus prize. Part of making the texts readable included sorting and reordering of the ideas. Once the work was all correlated, concepts leapt off the page. The ideas of Islamic ideology stood out. The simple statistical method of counting the words devoted to ideas clearly showed the themes of the doctrine.

The biggest statistical surprise was the dualistic nature of Islamic doctrine. Islam holds contradictory ideas that are simultaneously true. Now this confounds all Western logic, but this gives Islam its great strength. Islam is peace. Islam is jihad. Islam is a brother to Christianity and Judaism. Islam annihilates Christianity and Judaism.

I find it revealing that 64% of the Koran deals with Kafirs (non-Muslims), not Muslims. The Trilogy has a greater textual devotion to Jew hatred, 9% more than Mein Kampf. We are led to believe that there are just a few verses about jihad in the Koran, but 24% of the Koran written in Medina is about jihad.

My work is from the view point of the Kafir, the non-Muslim. The Kafir is the victim in nearly every verse by Allah and in most actions by Mohammed. The grandest lie of Islam is that Muslims have the correct view of Islam. But dualism demands that there are two correct views that contradict each other and cannot be logically aligned. Hence, there is the Kafir-centric view of Islam that is equally valid as the Muslim-centric view. Islam, the universities, and the apologists all insist that only the Muslim view is the true view. This is an error that is not supported by facts.

We can now hold fact-based discussions about Islam. There is no longer any need for “experts”, since we have the supreme experts in our hand — Mohammed and Allah.

MT: You’re speaking in Los Angeles on “A Taste of Islam.” Why is it necessary to appreciate “the full menu” of Islam in order to understand it?

BW: It is impossible to understand Islam based on just the Koran, but it is simple to understand when you look at the entire picture, both of Allah and Mohammed.

Muslims and their apologists want us to look at Islam one verse at a time. But this is like trying to understand a jigsaw puzzle by looking at it one piece at a time. If we put all the pieces together, as a system, the picture is obvious.

MT: Pointing out the theological motivation of Islamic fundamentalists always brings the politically correct objection that they constitute a “tiny minority of extremists” who have “hijacked” a religion of peace and interfaith tolerance. How are we to answer that objection?

BW: The use of the term “extreme” implies that something is being measured, and it is off the chart. There is one and only one measure of Islam and that is its doctrine as found in the Trilogy. For example, Mohammed preached the religion of Islam for thirteen years and made only 150 converts. But when he turned to jihad, ten years after he died, he was the ruler of Arabia and every Arab was a Muslim. Conclusion: jihad is normal, not extreme. But notice that since Islam is dualistic, Muslims can claim that it is peaceful.

As to the claim that the jihadists are few in number, look at war statistics. During WW II only 10% of our population was in the military. Did that mean we were not at war? No. In war only a few are doing the actual work, the rest of the country backs them with labor, money and morale.

There are four ways to be a jihadist – sword, pen, speech and money. Jihad is incumbent on ALL Muslims; therefore, it is the sixth pillar of Islam.

MT: Especially in the wake of the Arab Spring, the Obama administration wants us to draw a distinction between the terrorists and the “moderate” Islamists we can work with. How do you respond to that?

BW: First, a terrorist is a jihadist, modeled after Mohammed, the supreme jihadist. A moderate Muslim can be one who is not observant or it can be a Muslim who is following the Koran of Mecca, the religious Koran.

The apologists always want to talk about people, Muslims, not doctrine. Remember: when a Muslim is talking to a Kafir, there are twelve verses of the Koran that state that a Muslim is not the friend of a Kafir. Also, Mohammed repeatedly told Muslims to deceive the Kafir if it would advance Islam. There is one Muslim who will tell us the complete truth about Islam and that man is Mohammed.

The iron rule of Islamic doctrine is: if someone is talking about Islam and does not mention Mohammed or Allah (Koran) they are only building castles in the air.

An Islamist wants Sharia. Sharia destroys human rights and Kafir civilization. Why would we want to cooperate with someone who wants Sharia?

We don’t need politicians, religious leaders or academics to explain Islam, we now have Mohammed and Allah. Forget the opinions of experts. For the first time in history, the common man can read the facts of the Trilogy and find out all of the answers without the “experts.”

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/01/16/a-taste-of-islam-an-interview-with-bill-warner/

Copyright © 2009 FrontPage Magazine. All rights reserved.

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink https://politicalislam.com/the-black-hole-of-history/
Copyright © 2012 CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com

Vijay Kumar is running for Congress in Tennessee. Here is his website, Kumar For Congress. Vijay, who was born in India and is now a citizen of the United States, is a good friend and ally and a superb political analyst. Here is an interview with him at Ali Sina’s FaithFreedom website. Please read it all and ponder his words.

An Interview with Vijay Kumar

Great men are born in the midst of despair, when ignorance has filled the world and evil reigns. This is indeed one such time for mankind. Islam is on the rise, Islamic terrorism is destroying countless lives throughout the world and it is threatening our freedom, our countries and our civilization. Meanwhile ignorance has blinded mankind to its peril. Humanity is walking blindfolded to its doom.

Vijay Kumar is one of the few people who understand the nature of this peril. Vijay is not a politician. He does not speak the language of politicians. He speaks the truth. Truth and politics often don’t mix. In Netherlands, the Dutch court is prosecuting a member of their parliament for speaking the truth. His prosecutor has said before the trial, “It is irrelevant whether Wilders’s witnesses might prove Wilders’s observations to be correct, what’s relevant is that his observations are illegal”.

In the USA, speaking the truth is not illegal yet, but it is politically incorrect. You will not be prosecuted yet, but you’ll face vilification, will be called racist, fascist and maligned. The US is not far behind the Europe. Things are changing rapidly and all the freedoms that the Americans had enjoyed can be lost overnight. Politicians are fast asleep.

Despite that Kumar is running for the Congress. It is now up to the voters of Tennessee to decide whether they want to send another politician to the Congress or a man who dares to speak the truth.

Faithfreedom.org is honored for this exclusive interview with Vijay Kumar, one of the few people who understands the real threat that the USA and the world is facing and has the courage to tell it like it is.

The future of America and the world depends on men and women who have the wisdom to discern the truth and the courage to defend it. This is one interview you want to read. Vijay is a man you want to know. His words of wisdom must be spread. If America is to survive as a democracy, it would be because of people like Vijay Kumar.

Ali Sina

FAITHFREEDOM: Thank you for accepting to do this interview for Faithfreedom International. It is an honor to have you with us.

You are running for the United States Congress from the 5th Congressional District of the state of Tennessee. Obviously, as a conservative you are concerned about the deficit, the takeover of industry by the government, health care and other issues that concern every patriotic American. However, you have said that stopping the Islamization of America is your priority. I know only of one politician with a similar platform: Geert Wilders, the founder of Freedom Party in Holland. Why do you think Islamization of America should be the primary concern for Americans? What dangers are you sensing that Islam poses to America?

VIJAY KUMAR: Thank for the opportunity to be with Faith Freedom. It is indeed an honor for me. Yes, I am very interested in and concerned about the economy, the takeover of industry by the government, state-regulated healthcare, and the right to life. My website at www.kumarforcongress.com/issues contains my position on those and other important issues facing the American people.

The reason I believe that the Islamization of America should be the primary concern of Americans is that Islamic imperialism poses an existential threat to the United States, and, really, to all mankind.

America was conceived as a free constitutional republic that is of the people, by the people, and for the people. Islam was conceived as a totalitarian theocracy that is of Islam, by Islam, and for Islam. The Quran is the antithesis of the United States Constitution. They are polar opposites. They are diametrically opposed. I don’t say that as some Hegelian abstraction: I mean that these two documents are ideological opposites of each other in their most basic purposes and goals.

The purpose of our Constitution is to secure and guarantee to all people the greatest possible freedom. The purpose of Islam is for all people to submit to Islam, and only Islam-not just spiritually, but politically and secularly, in every aspect of law and life.

These two purposes could not possibly be in greater opposition.

Our constitutional republic is built upon the foundation of separation of church and state, with a representative form of government that derives all of its power from the will of the people, framed by a Constitution that is the supreme law of the land.

Islam is built on a foundation of church and state being one, an inseparable autocratic form of government that derives all of its power solely from the will of Allah, framed exclusively by Islamic law-which Islam holds to be divine, supreme, and immutable.

So the danger that Islam poses to America is that Islam, at its core, is ideologically at war with our Constitution. It is a declared war against everything our Constitution stands for. This is a war of polarized ideologies, and they are irreconcilable.

Every conflict we have with Muslims and Islamic nations everywhere around the world arises from that one very simple fact. All other “explanations” are wrong, and so lead to no solutions, only endless turmoil.

The idea that somehow the United States antagonized the current conflicts with Islamic nations and Muslim terrorists is specious. The very existence of our Constitution is what antagonizes Islam. It stands in stark opposition to Islam’s worldwide goal of domination over all mankind. We could be doing absolutely nothing anywhere in the world, and still would be an object of Islam’s contempt and aggression for the sole reason that we do not submit ourselves to Islamic law, and we further have the gall to proclaim in our Constitution that people have the right to choose a religion other than Islam-or no religion at all.

One cannot serve two masters. One cannot to be loyal to the United States Constitution and to the Quran at the same time.

Muslims and non-Muslims alike, need to face up to this incontrovertible fact: Islam’s ultimate goal is world domination by Islamic rule, and America stands as the single greatest barrier to the realization of that ultimate goal. That is the exact simple statement of the problem.

For that reason, Islam, at its core, requires the overthrow of the American government, the destruction of our Constitution, and the cancellation of all of our laws as its ultimate goal in America, so that all of those can be replaced with the Quran and Sharia law.

Islam, at its core, also demands the suppression and ultimate eradication of every other church and religion in the world: Protestant, Catholic, Coptic, Judaic, Buddhist, Mormon, Hindu, Zoroastrian-none are exempt. All paths to spiritual enlightenment and sacred belief known to man that are not Islam-and even materialism, agnosticism, and atheism-are branded by the Quran as inferior, and not really worthy of existence.

Islam, at its core, also mandates inequality under Islamic law, using a double standard specifically designed to oppress to any “non- believer.” It enforces Sharia law and its inherent discrimination with draconian penalties, including selective taxes, dismemberment, and execution.

Islam, at its core, also commands complete and inescapable submission of the mind and spirit to its scripture as supreme and divine law that overrides and supersedes all the human rights and freedoms that we, as Americans, hold sacred-including, ironically, freedom of religion. The Quran and Sharia law suppress all dissent, and call for the destruction of all opposition to Islamic supremacy. To leave Islam, or even to criticize it, is punishable by death. Comedy Central thought that was a joke.

They’re now finding out that perhaps it’s not so funny after all.

These goals and purposes of Islam I’ve stated are not “Radical Islam;” they are Literal Islam. These are the fundamental canonical goals of Islam’s most holy scripture, spelled out quite clearly in the Quran and Hadith, and being put into force right this minute in nations around the world.

The Islamic theologian Syed Abul A’ala Maududi left no doubt about Islam’s ultimate goals when he said: “Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and program.”

Given that the ideology of Islam itself is opposed to human rights and freedom, that automatically, by reversal, makes every liberal democracy on Earth “opposed to the ideology and program of Islam”-as Maududi put it, typically accusing those in favor of freedom as being the offenders.

I realize that reciting these goals of Islam is not popular or “politically correct” in our culture today, exactly because of the flood of propaganda insisting that Islam is merely “another religion” and “a religion of peace.”

But Islam, at its core, is a faith-based political theocracy whose most basic tenets and goals are a nullification of our Constitution, and, as such, it is the single greatest threat that America-and, indeed, the entire free world-has ever faced. It is a consummate totalitarianism against which every other totalitarianism should be measured. Expressly because of its religious component, Islamic imperialism is far more dangerous than Nazism and Communism combined.

Hitler came to power in 1939, and World War II ended in 1945 with the defeat of Nazi Germany. Hitler was in power for about 15 years. The Communist Soviet Union lasted longer, for about 74 years. The Soviet Union and Soviet sponsored Communism died of their own internal contradictions.

Yet today, Islam’s Universal Jihad has gained control of over 50 countries in the world, according to the CIA’s own World Fact Book. That’s more than Nazism and Soviet Communism combined. And Islam is well on its way to demographic control in over a dozen other countries. . . .

To continue reading this excellent interview, go HERE.

Permalink
Copyright © 2010 CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com

When I read MA Khan’s new book, Islamic Jihad, I was struck by two things, the high quality of his scholarship and an emerging historical trend.

Khan is firmly in the Foundationalist School of scholarship. He does not indulge opinion, but bases his work on the Islamic doctrine of jihad and its historical effects on civilization, with a focus on the destruction of India. He investigates and documents two little known areas–the Sufis and the enslavement of the Hindus.

The excellence of his book is part of an historic pattern. When Islam attacked us on September 11, 2001 we were unprepared for war. Our intellectuals were spineless dhimmis who have been bought and paid for by the Saudis and the Muslim Brotherhood, and as a result, were apologists and not able to defend our civilization.

However, in one of the more remarkable intellectual events in history, a new type of intellectual was drawn into the study of Islam. Trained critical and scientific thinkers who were amateurs in the field of Islam applied their critical reasoning to this subject and produced a wealth of excellent books and articles. The new Islamic scholarship was fact-driven and took up Islam’s challenge of war.

Khan’s Islamic Jihad is an excellent intellectual weapon.

BW: Welcome Mr. Khan. Tell us about your motivation behind writing this book.

Khan: Thank you Bill giving me this opportunity to share my thoughts on the kind of danger the progressive world faces from an Islamic resurgence and how we deal with it.

What we are witnessing today in Muslim countries-namely in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and Sudan etc-is the Talibanization or Saudization of the society, i.e., the establishment of Sharia in all spheres of life and society. In other Muslim countries, the demand for the same is solidifying; in a few decades, the face of the entire Islamic world will dramatically change.

The Islamic world is heading toward that which it embraces: Islam as a complete code of life, as believed by every Muslim. This transformation seems inescapable at this moment. But our major concern now is the infidel world, particularly the West. The native population in Europe is declining from low birthrate, while Muslims are procreating at unbridled rates. In the UK, Muslim population is increasing 10 times faster than the rest; the trend should be similar in other Western European countries. And where does this lead? By the middle of this century, Muslims will become the largest religious group in Europe.

And what will happen under that circumstance? We can easily make a guess. Take the example of Pakistan: in elections, only 10% of Pakistanis support parties that seek to institute Sharia rule. Now look at Britain: some 40% of the Muslims support Sharia rule, with only 37% opposed. This figure, I believe, is skewed to a good extent as Muslims don’t speak the truth. Nonetheless, what these figures mean is that a much greater proportion of Muslims living in the West are Sharia-loving or Taliban minded as compared to those living in Islamic countries like Pakistan or Afghanistan. Therefore, unless the mentality of Western Muslims changes drastically in coming decades, which is unlikely, the Talibanization of Europe would become an inescapable reality by the middle of this century, undoubtedly spreading to North America, Australia, Russia and India.

We know what Sharia means to civilized humanity. We witness it in Saudi Arabia; we witness it in Afghanistan under the Taliban; we witness it in Talibanized areas of Pakistan. We clearly know that the plight of women-Muslim or not-would become worse. Treatment of non-Muslims is horrible and extremely degrading under Sharia rule: it is happening in Taliban-occupied regions in Pakistan. The Hindus and Sikhs are being subjected to humiliating jizya, which is an exorbitant discriminatory tax for the security of the life and property of non-Muslims in Islamic state (see Quran 9:29). The Taliban attacked the Sikh community in Orakzai for failing to pay the demanded jizya, slayed the men, took possession of their homes and properties, and enslaved the women and children, in accordance with the Quranic commands (33:26) and Muhammad’s example of dealing with the Jewish tribe of Banu Quraiza [M.A. Khan, Islamic Jihad, p47-49]. Thousands of Hindus have already relocated to India in recent months in order to escape the Taliban oppression.

What is at stake today is obviously the Talibanization of globe-that is, the establishment of the governance of the Quran and Sunnah (i.e. Sharia) globally-which is a central demand of the Quran (2:193, 8:39), and the ultimate goal of Islam. And that will be the worst disaster ever to befall humankind. Therefore, averting this Talibanization of the world, which seems inescapable at this moment unless something drastic happens, should be the central concern for the civilized humanity as I see it. My book is an effort to make the world, both Muslim and non-Muslim, understand what Jihad, the scourge of our time, truly means for our future and take real measures to defeat it.

BW: How do you think we must fight battle?

Khan: In recent years, many ingenious measures have been tried and are being tried: the global war on terror, regime change in Afghanistan and Iraq for spreading freedom, democracy and modernity, and efforts to engage and work with the so-called moderate Muslims for winning the hearts and minds of the wider Muslim community etc. But nothing is working; since the 9/11 attacks in the U.S., the number of Jihadis, in the form of numerous radical Islamic groups around the world, are increasing exponentially. The overall Muslim mindset is also becoming increasingly radicalized everywhere, including the West.

There are also many initiatives amongst the so-called moderate Muslims to reform Islam. Many of these Muslims are also making rewarding careers in the guise of their phony reform campaigns. But attempts at reformation as occurred in Christianity, which was basically going back to the root, the originality of the religion, makes things worse in the case of Islam. A genuine and successful effort by the brilliant Saudi scholar Abdul Wahhab (1703-91) to reform Islam, in the mold of reformation of Christianity by Martin Luther (1483-1546), gave birth to Wahhabism, the Islamic scourge that we are confronting today. Efforts to reform Islam away from orthodoxy, i.e., along a rational and humanistic line, have been tried by some powerful Islamic rulers, namely the Baghdad caliphs, al-Mamun, al-Mutassim and al-Wathik (813-847), as well as Akbar the Great in India. They were the greatest monarchs in the world of their time and ruthlessly dictatorial. While they effected some positive changes during their rule, soon after their departure, it was all overturned. Islamic orthodoxy struck back with greater brutality and horror in every instance.

Thus, efforts at reformation have worsened the situation or failed. Any new attempt at reforming Islam is meaningless today because Muslims are becoming well-educated and can read the Quran, which has been translated in all major languages, by themselves. They are no less intelligent than the “reformers” and can understand what the verses of the Quran truly mean. Reformation in the age of modern education is a meaningless exercise and is destined to failure.

What might work, something that has not been tried, is what I personally call ‘shaming the Muslims out of Islam’. Islam is a horrible and shameful ideology, unfit for the civilized world. But most Muslims, who are average human beings, do not know what is actually in the Quran and Sunnah, or, they have never analyzed the contents of Islam’s fundamental texts critically. They have no idea what it means to be a true Muslim and how shameful it is in the modern civilized conscience. If they are made aware of the true nature of Islam, they will leave this barbaric and dehumanizing cult in large numbers. Islam will be condemned to the dustbin of history where it always belonged.

This is the only measure that has not been tried. And I have been trying exactly that in my Website, islam-watch.org http://www.islam-watch.org/iw-new/index.php (founded November 2005): “Telling the Truth about Islam”. And my book, Islamic Jihad, is also an extension of that effort. I have convincing evidence that it will work.

BW: Would you elaborate on the shaming of Muslims and how it would work?

Khan: If you look closely at the history of Islam, you would realize that Islamic orthodoxy, with its violent underpinnings of Jihad, has tremendous resilience. As elaborated already, every attempt to reform it from within was followed by its resurgence with greater ferocity. From the 19th century onward, the European colonial powers did effect significant changes in the Islamic world like the equality of religions, liberation of slaves, and the ideas of secularism, progressiveness and modernity. But after colonial withdrawal, these positive changes are all being over turned. Humanity is now being threatened by Islamic orthodoxy and its Jihadis, on a scale unprecedented in history.

What these factors tell us is that attempt to reform and secularize Islam is not only doomed to failure, but its survival in any form will turn calamitous to humanity. So those, who care for our progressive and modernist civilization, particularly those in position of power, must understand this critical factor while dealing with Islam. We probably have time, this time round, to save humanity from the ongoing scourge of Islam, albeit sustaining damages of whatsoever scale it may be, we will be left with no such option if Islam has another opportunity to strike.

So the need of the hour is to break the back of Islam once and for all. And here comes into play the idea of ‘shaming the Muslims out of Islam’. What we need is to discredit Islam root and branch, to the level of cells and atoms. This is not difficult to achieve. Simply telling the truth about Islam will do.

I have already mentioned: ‘Islam is a horrible and shameful ideology, unfit for the civilized world.’ The thing is, most Muslims have little idea of what Islam truly is, what it means to be a true Muslim. Most of them, particularly outside the Arab world, are ignorant about Islam; very few of them read the basic texts of Islam with a proper understanding. They know about Islam mainly from hearsay as part of their growing up. And when it comes to living their life, they are under tremendous influence of the kafir world from their surrounding, through the media, through all the goodies the kafir world bring to them.

At the same time, they also remain indoctrinated rather subconsciously with the cardinal thoughts in Islam, namely:
1. Islam is a complete code of life,
2. Islam is the perfect religion and Muhammad was the ideal man for all time; therefore, both are beyond questioning or criticism,
3. Only Muslims are destined to receive God’s succor, and
4. Islam will eventually dominate the world, i.e. all people will become Muslim some day.

This subconscious indoctrination of the so-called moderate or liberal majority of Muslims easily plays into the hands of the extremists. When the extremists make noise on the ground that the prophet has been defamed or blasphemed or that Islam has been insulted, both being perfect and beyond finger-pointing in their subconscious mind, they too join the orgasmic frenzy with the extremists. We have seen this in the controversy over Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses, and more recently, over the printing of Prophet Muhammad’s cartoons in a Danish paper or Pope Benedict’s comment on Muhammad.

I think that this so-called moderate variety of Muslims can easily be dissociated from Islam. What we need to do is to say the truth that Islam is not a “religion of peace” as goes the popular discourse, but a barbaric, inhuman and uncivilized cult; that Muhammad was not a noble, a perfect man for all time, but he was a brutal plunderer and mass-murderer lusting for power, wealth and sex; that he was a sex-maniac with a pedophilic urge for a kid as young as six when he was in his 50s and not far from death; that Islam, as initiated by Prophet Muhammad, is a barbaric institution of imperialism, forced conversion, and slavery and sex-concubinage. Islam, as depicted in its sacred texts, is more horrifying than this.

What we need is to hold the pages of the Quran, prophetic traditions and biographies, and Islamic history bare to Muslims and to the world. This will be enough to shame the Muslims out of Islam.

Why would this work? Let me start with my own example. I was one such liberal/moderate Muslim. When 9/11 occurred, I felt that the attack was rather justified because of the United States’ unjust policies toward the Palestinians. I was lucky, I should say, that I was already involved in some internet groups that were critical of Islam. But after the 9/11 attacks, as critical analysis of Islam, the Quran and hadiths flourished dramatically, I became a defender of Islam for quite some time. I continued to resist looking into the basic texts of Islam, the Quran, Sunnah and Muhammad’s biographies for 2-3 years. But I eventually read them, and I was shattered and frustrated with myself. I was ashamed because the Quran reads like a manual of unconditional war against non-Muslims, Muhammad was one of the most horrible, if not the worst, human being in the history of mankind. And I had believed that Islam was the most perfect and peaceful religion, a perfect code to human life, for 35+ years of my life.

For a Muslim, living Islam is the most difficult thing in the world, and this was the case with me. Only when I read the basic text of Islam and understood its truth was I able to leave Islam with ease. If I hadn’t read these texts, I couldn’t have mastered the courage to leave Islam despite the horrible things Muslim Jihadis continued to perpetrate, or howsoever hard the critics would criticize those fanatics.

Similarly, after reading my website, islam-watch.org, and faithfreedom.org etc.-websites that focus on the criticisms of Islam based on its foundations: the Quran, the Sunnah, and Prophet Muhammad-many Muslims are leaving Islam, even some potential suicide-bombers and mosque imams amongst them. I have testimonies from Muslims, who considered themselves “Muslims for life” just a couple of months ago, that they would never leave the most fulfilling creed of Islam. But after reading my book, which basically expose the true nature of Jihad against the popular discourse that it is a peaceful struggle with the self, against vice, for eradication of poverty, for human rights and women’s rights etc., they found their whole life, based on a lie, was shattered. Their faith in Islam was shattered.

So the challenge in front of us is to bare the foundation of the Islamic creed in front of these so-called moderate/liberal Muslims and to make them read the foundational texts of Islam. Once they do that, a majority of them will find their faith in Islam shattered. And there it begins: the collapse of Islam like a castle of sands. Humanity will be rescued from its lasting horrors once and for all.

BW: There has been a good deal of truth-telling about Islam since the 9/11. But it is not working so far; we are not winning the battle. What do you think is need to be done?

Khan: That’s absolutely true. A lot of literature has been produced, particularly in the form of books, telling the truth about Islam. But you must also take into account that a much greater volume of literature has been produced, selling the lies of Islam. Let me emphasize that for ‘shaming the Muslims out of Islam’, we need books and literature focusing the Quran, Sunnah and Islamic history, books like Ibn Warraq’s Why I Am Not A Muslim, Andrew Bostom’s Legacy of Jihad, Dr. Ali Sina’s Understanding Muhammad, and probably my Islamic Jihad. Very few penetrative books of this type, except those of Ibn Warraq and Bostom, have been successful. Most books of this type are not picked up by reputed publishers, fearing Muslim backlash; they are often being self-published published and receive little attention. Most important factor of all is that very few Muslims, who in general have a very poor book-buying and reading habit, buy books like these.

Therefore, those books, telling the truth about Islam, have very little impact on Muslims, our prime target. On the other hand, books telling the lies about Islam, which are produced in much larger volumes and the media is eager to promote, are the books that most Muslims and non-Muslims buy. So we have, on the whole, a nullification of the impact of truth-telling books by the lies-telling ones.

And when it comes to the news media, which Muslims read to a large extent: there the truth-telling is largely absent; lies-telling is overwhelmingly prevalent. Our mainstream media (MSM) is based on lies, on falsehood, when it comes to the coverage of Islam. And whatever little truth-telling is done, very little of it is focused on the foundational texts and doctrines of Islam.

The MSM is the biggest culprit, the biggest accomplice, in the success of radical Islam. They are most eager to circulate the messages-audio-tapes and videos etc.-of Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and other top al-Qaeda and radical Islamic leaders and ideologues as such. And getting these messages to Muslim audience, harboring potential recruits, is crucial to the success, with which the radical Islamic agenda is progressing. At the same time, the MSM rigorously filter out the few voices that are trying to focus their criticism on the foundations of Islam, criticism that will matter in enlightening both Muslims and non-Muslims about Islam and in shaming the Muslims out of it.

The same goes with the internet. It has played tremendous role in the success of al-Qaeda and like-minded radical Islamic groups in spreading their messages, which is the linchpin of their tremendous success in popularizing their violent mission and recruiting cadres. While the truth-tellers have some success there, where they can spread their messages with relative freedom, but there are only few such websites with limited readership against a deluge of pro-Islam and militant Islamic websites. And most of all, the truth-telling websites are banned in most Islamic countries, and even in the West. For example, most educational institutions in Australia have banned all truth-telling websites, namely faithfreedom.org, thereligionofpeace.com, jihadwatch.org, islam-watch.org and islammonior.org amongst others categorizing them as hate-sites.

So, it will become clear why we are not making significant ground in our truth-telling efforts. The outcome of this battle, I think, will be determined by the media. We must recognize that the investment of hundreds of billions of dollars annually in strengthening intelligence apparatus, tightening security and the war of terror is going waste. Some of these measures are also working counter to their intended objectives, by helping the radicalization of the Muslim mind on various grievances, howsoever unjustified they may be. And of course, it is causing loss of lives in large numbers on both sides.

In the media, we can kill this menace with a small fraction of the investment and with much less loss in life and properties. The battle can be won with ease. Muslims can ignore the noise made by truth-tellers, often discredited as fringe Muslim-hating Islamophobes, in a negligible few and little-known websites, but they cannot ignore the Mainstream Media. When the truth-tellers get the opportunity to bare the fundamental sacred texts of Islam in the pages of the MSM to show how horrible and barbaric the cult of Islam is, Muslims at all levels would be forced to defend their creed by looking into those texts. Every attempt to defend Islam would lead to their enlightenment about the filth and inhumanity that lies at its heart.

We have more than convincing evidence to affirm that the so-called peaceful majority of moderate/liberal Muslims, ashamed, frustrated, and angered of what they have unwittingly believed for their whole life, would start leaving Islam en masse. The West’s problem would be solved in a decade or two with the collapse of Islam; I can challenge you on that. From there, the remedy to the Islamic problem in the rest of the world, including Muslim countries, would soon begin.

The fact is that the Islamists have tremendous advantages against the truth-tellers in every aspect of this battle. The truth-tellers are fighting this battle against mountainous odds: their opponents have annual investment of billions of dollars against zero on their own side; the Islamists have almost all the ground in the MSM, the decisive battleground of this struggle.

I realize that there is little chance of this changing at all. The future of this battle remains hugely tilted toward the Islamist side as of now. The Talibanization of the globe remain an inescapable possibility unless circumstances changes drastically, possibly horribly.

BW: Thank you for enlightening us, Mr. Khan.

Bill Warner
Permalink
Copyright © 2009 CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.

By Jamie Glazov

FrontPageMagazine.com | 3/12/2009 Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Bill Warner, the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam(CSPI).

FP: Bill Warner, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Warner: Thank you, Jamie, and Frontpage Magazine for having me.

FP: I would like to talk to you today about your view that the end ofcritical thought has arrived. First let me ask you, what exactly do you mean by critical thought?

Warner: Critical thought also can be called analytic thoughtor scientific analysis. A key element is that all sides of an idea areto be analyzed. There are no forbidden questions in critical thought.There is an appeal to logic and reason. Critical thought is not aboutfeelings, but freedom of ideas.

Critical thought is the opposite of authoritative thought that isdelivered fully developed by an “authority.” Authoritative thought isthe use of power by controlling thought and ideas. Medievalscholasticism and Communist propaganda are examples of authoritativethought where there is no room in the public forum to disagree with theauthority and if you do, you will be punished in some way.Authoritarian thought is the thought process of slavery. Freedom ofthought is not allowed.

Two characteristics of critical reasoning are skepticism and humor.Skepticism means that all assumptions can be questioned. Everything ison the table. It may seem odd to have humor as part of criticalthinking, but humor comes about as part of skepticism. Skepticismencourages humor because you are able to poke fun at any idea. Onereason for the Mohammed cartoon riots was that Islam does not allow anyskepticism or critical thought. There are no known Mohammed jokes inthe Muslim world. We have jokes about God, Jesus, St. Peter, Moses,Satan and Adam. We can make a little joke at anybody’s expense becausewe can have freedom of thought. Humor stops at Mohammed’s door, becausecritical thought stops at Mohammed’s door.

FP: Why is critical thought being abandoned?

Warner: It stands in the way of the power of what I call(with a hat tip to George Orwell) the Newstate. We now live in a worldthat has brought together the government, universities and the mediainto one political system. The Newstate power determines what will betaught in schools, put into the news, and what can be discussed atforums and meetings. For instance, the Newstate prohibits our militaryfrom studying Islamic war doctrine. The State Department can only usestandard political science methods to discuss Middle East and Asianpolicy.

The Newstate prohibits the study of political Islam in the Universities. The role of Islam in the history of slavery, the dhimmi (unbelievers living under Islamic rule) history, and the annihilation of kafir(unbeliever) civilizations is forbidden. The curriculum of theUniversities only includes small samples from the Koran, the Sira(Mohammed’s biography) and the Hadith (his traditions). You can get adegree in Middle East Studies without ever reading the texts of thecore doctrine of Islam.

At the Rotary Club or the universities, you can have a speaker who presents dawahor Islamic missionary propaganda, but no one can present a criticalanalysis of Islam. Any rational/critical/analytic study of theirideology is not given room at the table. Those who know about Islam arecalled bigots if they try to speak from knowledge. Only Muslims andthose who are ignorant about Islam (the dhimmis) are allowed to speak.Ignorance has become the only acceptable point-of-view.

The next goal of the Newstate will be to declare critical thought tobe hate-speech. Islam cannot sustain critical examination, so criticalthought will be made immoral and evil by our dhimmi Newstate.

FP: Why is critical thought so vital in the study of Islam?

Warner: Up until 9/11, almost all thought in the Universitiessaw things from the viewpoint of Islam, not from the viewpoint ofkafirs. Around 270 million people have died in jihad over the last 1400years. Yet, according to the universities, Islam just expanded, therewas no suffering. That is the Islamic view, not the kafir view.Mohammed laughed when kafir heads were thrown at his feet, but nouniversity professor calls it barbaric.

On 9/11 our universities, who are supposed to be bastions ofcritical thought, were found to be dishing out Islamic propaganda forour culture, instead of facts. Our leaders—political, religious, andcultural—had all been educated about Islam. What did they learn? Islamwas one of the great religions; the Islamic Golden Age was the highpoint of history and preserved European culture; the Crusades were anexercise in ignorance and bigotry, blah, blah… That was the universitypropaganda that had infected our civilization. We were blindsided byour own scholars.

The intellectual vacuum created a new breed of scholars—Bat Ye’or,Andrew Bostom, Robert Spencer, Serge Trifkovic, and a host of otherswho were not trained about Islam in college, but who used criticalanalysis to tackle the most pressing questions of the day: What isIslam? What does it mean to kafirs? This is the most important questionto ask.

FP: Why is the kafir viewpoint so important?

Warner: The only thing that matters to the kafir about Islamis how it treats the kafir. What does it matter to a kafir if a Muslimtries to use the bathroom following the way of Mohammed? What do I carehow a Muslim prays? Prayer and bathrooms do not concern me. I careabout how Mohammed treated kafirs and that was horrible, terrible andthe perfect example of how Muslims are to treat kafirs. Notice thatthis view is in contrast to how a Muslim sees Mohammed—that is theMuslim-centric view. They are never the same view.

The post-9/11 scholars viewed Islam from the standpoint of thevictims—the kafirs and the dhimmis. The new scholars used criticalthinking to define a new viewpoint of Islam—kafir-centric.

The answers from kafir-centric scholars about Islam all agree onwhat Islam and its history is. The kafir-centric thinkers agree as towhat the current political situation means. This is remarkable. Notethat they do not agree on what to do about it, but they all agree onthe nature of the problem and not one of them agrees with theuniversity/media/government, the Newstate, position on Islam.

Every critical thinker reaches the same conclusions. Why should thisbe a surprise? The very essence of critical thinking is beingobjective. The result does not depend upon the person. It is not anopinion, but an exercise in logic. Any person who performs theexperiments can prove the truth or falseness of, say, Newton’s laws ofmotion.

It is the same with Islam. Anyone can start with the Koran, the Sira(the life of Mohammed) and the Hadith (his traditions) and they willarrive at the same conclusions as long as they use logic and analysis.Part of the analysis is whether you analyze the doctrine from thestandpoint of a Muslim or a kafir. For instance, on the day thatMohammed killed 800 Jews in Medina it was a good thing from thestandpoint of a believer, but a terrible day for the kafir Jews. Goodfrom one point of view, but very bad from a kafir point of view.

There is a third view of Islamic scholarship—the dhimmi view.Dhimmis are kafirs that serve Islam. Dhimmis write about the doctrineof Islam just like the Muslims, but without the devotional overtones.The Newstate holds the dhimmi-centric view and wants to outlaw thekafir-centric school of thought.

FP: Why do you think they want to outlaw the kafir-centric school of thought?

Warner: Kafir-centric scholars can kick anybody’s butt in anyargument or discussion about Islam. We are atop a mountain of facts andunderstand the mind of Islam. We can answer all of the questions withauthority. We hold the high moral ground and yet, we are called bigotsfor our knowledge and labors. We are denied a forum in the public. Onlythe voice of the authority of the Newstate can speak about Islam.

Notice that when someone who is from the Newstate speaks, they neveractual talk about any facts about Islam. Or if they do quote some fact,like George Bush with his half of a Koran verse, or Obama with hisGolden Rule spin on one hadith, it is no more than a sentence theyparse out of the doctrine.

Since the kafir-centric thinkers can overpower any of the dronesfrom the Newstate, the main goal of the Newstate is to see that we donot get a forum. We are never invited to the party at the universitywhen a dhimmi or Muslim speaks. If there is a multicultural “dialogue”we are never allowed to ask difficult questions. Our voices are notheard in the State department, the Pentagon or FBI. During Mumbai, wewere never given any airtime. Face-time with anygovernment/media/university official will not happen, because it cannothappen. At all times the Newstate tries to keep a Muslim brotherhoodtype around to be a Praetorian guard if they suspect anyone whoactually knows Islam might show up.

When the Center for the Study of Political Islam was started, thebasic assumption was that once the doctrine of political Islam was laidout in a clear language, kafirs would flock to it. But most of thepopulation is filled with the Newstate platitudes and talks aboutmoderate Muslims, etc. They are desperately ignorant and refuse toengage logical analysis.

I have seen religious leaders grow angry at a lecture about whatMohammed did to other religions. They were desperate not to know, andthey remained arrogantly ignorant. So they will tell others about Islambased upon their ignorance. Ignorance is an acceptable point-of-viewabout Islam. Any dhimmi or Muslim can get a forum at any time;kafir-centric scholars are condemned as bigots and troublemakers anddenied a place at the table.

FP: How are the Kafirs doing in the ideological battle?

Warner: We have to face the facts. Kafirs are losing on everyfront. We now live in a Christian-Muslim nation according to ourcommander-in-chief-dhimmi. Priests, professors, preachers, politicians,pundits and rabbis all line up in obedience to Mohammed. If placedanywhere near the doctrinal/historical facts about political Islam,they grow tense and tell you about the “nice Muslim” they have met. Itseems as though every city has a “nice Muslim” that is passed fromdhimmi leader to dhimmi leader, so they can all say they know one.

Actual knowledge about the true history and doctrine of politicalIslam is not only nil, but the desire to know more is nonexistent.Responses about Islam are denials about what Islam is and what it does.Liberal preachers and rabbis, for instance, are political Islam’ssupporters and mouth tales about how well Islam and Judaism co-existedin the Middle Ages and how Jews and Muslims were fellow scholars. Theyrefuse to engage in any sort of rational/critical/analytic discussionabout Islam. The rest have different excuses, but they remain in thedhimmi camp.

Critical thinking is being abandoned as fast as Klan robes at anACLU meeting. One thing is very clear—the enemy is no longer politicalIslam. The enemy of critical thought is the dhimmi. It is the dhimmiswho carry water for Islam and do great damage to our civilization.

FP: Why are the dhimmis desperate not to know about Islam?

Warner: Money is the motivation of one set of dhimmis—theprofessors. Islam pours a great deal of money into the universitysystem. It is very easy to purchase a professor and a department.Everything from building funds, professorships, trips, and grantspurchase the loyalty of dhimmi universities. You don’t bite the handthat feeds you. We must also include the dhimmi political types beingbribed by the Saudis.

The other answer is laziness and fear, with fear in the lead.Everyone starts off at less than zero. The universities taught us thatIslam was good, Golden Age, yada, yada or at worst—benign. The Newstateloves Islam just like they love illegal immigrants. Just watch CNN,read the NY Times and listen to the President. Islamic life is good,and where it is not good, it is our fault—colonialism and Bush. So ifyou float downstream, why would you want to learn anything?

The Newstate making the learning process difficult also helpslaziness. Islam deliberately made the Koran, the Sira and the Hadithhard to understand and the professors went along with the Islam-is-hardpropaganda. The Koran is notorious for never being read, much lessunderstood. Why? The universities did not want to make it simple.

But we come to the big one—fear. Everyone has a clue that Islam’sdualistic nature contains unlimited violence, but that clue remains inthe background. Saying you are afraid of Islam is like a white womansaying she is afraid of black males. Expressing your fear is proof ofyour racism and bigotry.

There is a larger fear—what if the boogieman really is underneaththe bed? What will we do? People are desperately ignorant. Otherwiseintelligent people believe the most contradictory things, but wind upwith—Islam must be good, it just has to be good, because if it is notgood, I cannot imagine what we will do. There is fear. Desperate fear.

What if the preacher or rabbi who attended the interfaith dialogsfinds out that the imam was a liar? His congregation does not want tohear it. What if the politician finds out about the true nature ofIslam? The media and the Moslem voters rule him. The media is sointellectually corrupt that they are past discussion.

If you don’t know, you don’t have to deal with it. Ignorance isgood. All the leaders are ignorant, they are rich and powerful, and sothey must be right. Turn off your mind and float downstream. Dhimmisare floaters.

FP: How can we educate these dhimmis and change their point of view?

Warner: It turns out that there is one aspect of Islam thateven dhimmis will pay attention to—the history of the victim, inparticular, their own victims. Our Tears of Jihad project teaches about just that—the history of the victims of jihad.

Based upon victim history, we have created a new idea innewsletters. The idea is not to present any facts about Islam. Factsabout Islam produce panic, denial and fear. We decided to present thesuffering of a group without the doctrine that causes it. Our goal isto show religious leadership and individuals what suffering is visitedupon their group.

The first one of these was the Bulletin of Jew Hatred (the term “Jew hatred” comes from Bostom’s wonderful Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism). We have added the Bulletin of Christian Persecution and the Bulletin of the Oppression of Women. The Bulletin of Cultural Annihilation and the Bulletin of Asian Annihilationare in the works. The Bulletins give a summary with a link to theoriginal article. We only report actual events, not blogs, editorialsor comments. The Bulletin has the motto: Facts without comments—wecollect the dots; you connect them.

Each Bulletin gives a very short summary of each of the actualevents—who, what, when, where, but no why. The no “why” makes it easyfor everybody to read, even the left, since all comments that relate tothe actual doctrine or history of political Islam are called right wingor conservative. It is peculiar, but to have knowledge about the actualdoctrine and history of political Islam is being conservative. Thatleaves ignorance to be the official policy of theprogressives/liberals/left. Knowledge is considered to be the basis ofbigotry, ignorance is considered to be virtue, according to the ethicsof the Newstate.

The Bulletins come out weekly. It is like a drumbeat—each week theevents roll on and the steady stream of news tells another story thatis not told by the Newstate media.

FP: How has the Bulletin of Jew Hatred been received?

Warner: I have been told by one of the first readers of JewHatred that she thought herself to be well informed, but every event inthe Bulletin was new to her. A reader of the Christian Bulletin saidthat he never knew that this was happening to Christians. This is thestory that the Newstate refuses to tell. It is the story you have todecide not to see and not to report.

We are finding that people are receptive. Since we don’t have anycomments, this means that they can’t throw up the barrier of partisanpolitics or those comments are bigoted opinions. A liberal rabbi saidthat he liked the no comment, just the facts.

So, we have created a stealth weapon that flies under the PC,multicultural radar. But in designing it, we realized that criticalanalysis was not a good general approach. People don’t want to hearanything bad about Islam, but they will examine their own battlecausalities.

The key word is here is their “own.” This is the reason we have aBulletin for every group. Hopefully, this idea will educate andilluminate the problem with political Islam. If you are interested inour newsletter or Bulletins, go to politicalislam.com and sign up.

I’d like to take this time if I could to make a pitch for help. We are looking for an editor for the Hindu bulletin.

We need bird dogs, people who can help get the Bulletins to relevantorganizations and groups. Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, women,intellectuals, artists, pagans, gays, free people everywhere—thebulletins document your suffering on a weekly basis. Help us educategroups that directly influence these people.

If you want to participate in any way with the Bulletins, please email me at: [email protected].

FP: Bill Warner, thank you for joining us.

Warner: Thank you Jamie for this opportunity to speak to your readers.

The Study of Political Islam

• Dec 8 2008 | by Bill Warner

The Study of Political Islam

By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | 2/5/2007

Front Page Interview’s guest today is Bill Warner, the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI). CSPI’s goal is to teach the doctrine of political Islam through its books and it has produced a series on its focus. Mr. Warner did not write the CSPI series, but he acts as the agent for a group of scholars who are the authors.

FP: Bill Warner, welcome to FrontPage Interview.

Warner: Thank you Jamie for this opportunity.

FP: Tell us a bit about the Center for the Study of Political Islam.

Warner: The Center for the Study of Political Islam is a group of scholars who are devoted to the scientific study of the foundational texts of Islam—Koran, Sira (life of Mohammed) and Hadith (traditions of Mohammed). There are two areas to study in Islam, its doctrine and history, or as CSPI sees it—the theory and its results. We study the history to see the practical or experimental results of the doctrine.

CSPI seems to be the first group to use statistics to study the doctrine. Previous scientific studies of the Koran are primarily devoted to Arabic language studies.

Our first principle is that Koran, Sira and Hadith must be taken as a whole. We call them the Islamic Trilogy to emphasize the unity of the texts.

Our major intellectual breakthrough is to see that dualism is the foundation and key to understanding Islam. Everything about Islam comes in twos,  starting with its foundational declaration: (1) there is no god but Allah and (2) Mohammed is His prophet. Therefore, Islam is Allah (Koran) and the Sunna (words and deeds of Mohammed found in the Siraand Hadith).

Endless ink has been wasted on trying to answer the question of what is Islam?

Is Islam the religion of peace?

Or is the true Islam a radical ideology?

Is a moderate Muslim the real Muslim?

This reminds a scientist of the old arguments about light. Is light aparticle or is light a wave? The arguments went back and forth. Quantum mechanics gave us the answer. Light is dualistic; it is both a particle and a wave. It depends upon the circumstances as to which quality manifests.  Islam functions in the same manner.

Our first clue about the dualism is in the Koran, which is actually two books, the Koran of Mecca (early) and the Koran of Medina (later). The insight into the logic of the Koran comes from the large numbers of contradictions in it. On the surface, Islam resolves these contradictions by resorting to “abrogation”. This means that the verse written later supersedes the earlier verse. But in fact, since the Koran is considered by Muslims to be the perfect word of Allah, both verses are sacred and true. The later verse is “better,” but the earlier verse cannot be wrong, since Allah is perfect. This is the foundation of dualism. Both verses are “right.”  Both sides of the contradiction are true in dualistic logic. The circumstances govern which verse is used.

For example:

(Koran of Mecca) 73:10: Listen to what they [unbelievers] say with patience, and leave them with dignity.

From tolerance we move to the ultimate intolerance, not even the Lord of the Universe can stand the unbelievers:

(Koran of Medina) 8:12: Then your Lord spoke to His angels and said, “I will be with you. Give strength to the believers. I will send terror into the unbelievers’ hearts, cut off their heads and even the tips of their fingers!”

All of Western logic is based upon the law of contradiction—if two things contradict, then at least one of them is false. But Islamic logic is dualistic;  two things can contradict each other and both are true.

No dualistic system may be measured by one answer. This is the reason that the arguments about what constitutes the “real” Islam go on and on and are never resolved.  A single right answer does not exist.

Dualistic systems can only be measured by statistics. It is futile to argue one side of the dualism is true. As an analogy, quantum mechanics always gives a statistical answer to all questions.

For an example of using statistics, look at the question: what is the real jihad, the jihad of inner, spiritual struggle, or the jihad of war? Let’s turn to Bukhari (the Hadith) for the answer, as he repeatedly speaks of jihad. In Bukhari 97% of the jihad references are about war and 3% are about the inner struggle. So the statistical answer is that jihad is 97% war and 3% inner struggle. Is jihad war? Yes—97%. Is jihad inner struggle? Yes—3%. So if you are writing an article, you can make a case for either. But in truth, almost every argument about Islam can be answered by all of the above. Both sides of the duality are right.

FP: Why, in your view, is there so much ignorance about the history and doctrine of political Islam in the West?

Warner: First, let’s see how ignorant we are about the history of political Islam.

How many Christians can tell you how Turkey or Egypt became Islamic?

What happened to the Seven Churches of Asia mentioned in Paul’s letters?

Find a Jew who can tell you the Jewish history of dhimmitude (second class citizens who serve Islam).

What European knows that white women were the highest priced slaves in Mecca?

Everyone knows how many Jews Hitler killed, but find an unbeliever whocan tell you how many died in jihad over the last 1400 years.

We are just as ignorant about the doctrine of Islam. An FBI agent gets two hours of training on Islam and most of that is how not to offend the imam. We are fighting in Iraq. Who utilizes the political, military doctrine of Islam to plan strategy?  Who can find a single rabbi or minister who has read the Koran, Sira and Hadith? What governor, senator, congressmen or military leader displays a  knowledge of the political doctrine of Islam? Try to find a course available in a college about Islamic political doctrine and ethics. Graduates are schooled in Islamic art, architecture, poetry, Sufism, and a glorious history that ignores the suffering of the innocent unbelievers. Graduates read comments about the Koran and Hadith, but do not read the actual doctrine.

FP: So why this ignorance?

Warner: Let’s start at the beginning. When Islam burst out of Arabia into a decaying Byzantine world, the unbelievers recorded it as an Arabic invasion. Similarly, the invasion of Eastern Europe was by Turks, the invasion of Spain was by Moors. Our scholars were incapable of even naming the invaders.

Mohammed killed every single intellectual or artist who opposed him.

It was fear that drove the vast majority of the media not to reprint the Mohammed cartoons, not some imagined sensitivity. Fear is a fabulous basis for ignorance, but that is not enough to explain it all.

What accounts for the almost psychotic aversion to knowledge about Islam? Beyond fear is the realization that political Islam is profoundly foreign to us.

Let’s examine the ethical basis of our civilization. All of our politics and ethics are based upon a unitary ethic that is best formulated in the Golden Rule:

Treat others as you would be treated.

The basis of this rule is the recognition that at one level, we are all the same.

We are not all equal. Any game of sports will show that we do not have equal abilities. But everyone wants to be treated as a human being. In particular, we all want to be equal under the law and be treated as social equals.

On the basis of the Golden Rule—the equality of human beings—we have created democracy, ended slavery and treat women and men as political equals. So the Golden Rule is a unitary ethic. All people are to be treated the same.

All religions have some version of the Golden Rule except Islam.

FP: So how is Islam different in this context?

Warner: The term “human being” has no meaning inside of Islam.

There is no such thing as humanity, only the duality of the believer and unbeliever. Look at the ethical statements found in the Hadith. A Muslim should not lie, cheat, kill or steal from other Muslims. But a Muslim may lie, deceive or kill an unbeliever if it advances Islam.

There is no such thing as a universal statement of ethics in Islam. Muslims are to be treated one way and unbelievers another way.

The closest Islam comes to a universal statement of ethics is that the entire world must submit to Islam. After Mohammed became a prophet, he never treated an unbeliever the same as a Muslim. Islam denies the truth of the Golden Rule.

By the way, this dualistic ethic is the basis for jihad. The ethical system sets up the unbeliever as less than human and therefore, it is easy to kill, harm or deceive the unbeliever.

Now mind you, unbelievers have frequently failed at applying the Golden Rule, but we can be judged and condemned on its basis. We do fall short, but it is our ideal.

There have been other dualistic cultures. The KKK comes to mind, but the KKK is a simplistic dualism. The KKK member hates all black people at all times; there is only one choice. This is very straightforward and easy to see.

The dualism of Islam is more deceitful and offers two choices on how to treat the unbeliever. The unbeliever can be treated nicely in the same way a farmer treats his cattle well. So Islam can be “nice”, but in no case is the unbeliever a “brother” or a friend. In fact, there are some 14 verses of the Koran that are emphatic—a Muslim is never a friend to the unbeliever. A Muslim may be “friendly,” but he is never an actual friend. And the degree to which a Muslim is actually a true friend is the degree to which he is not a Muslim, but a hypocrite.

FP: You mentioned earlier how logic is another point of profound difference. Can you touch on that?

Warner: To reiterate, all of science is based upon the law of contradiction. If two things contradict each other, then at least one of them has to be false. But inside of Islamic logic, two contradictory statements can both be true. Islam uses dualistic logic and we use unitary scientific logic.

Since Islam has a dualistic logic and dualistic ethics, it is completely foreign to us. Muslims think differently from us and feel differently from us. So our aversion is based upon fear and a rejection of Islamic ethics and logic. This aversion causes us to avoid learning about Islam so we are ignorant, and stay ignorant.

Another part of the aversion is the realization that there is no compromise with dualistic ethics. There is no halfway place between unitary ethics and dualistic ethics. If you are in a business deal with someone who is a liar and a cheat, there is no way to avoid getting cheated. No matter how nice you are to a con man, he will take advantage of you. There is no compromise with dualistic ethics. In short, Islamic politics, ethics and logic cannot be part of our civilization. Islam does not assimilate, it dominates.

There is never any “getting along” with Islam. Its demands never cease and the demands must be met on Islam’s terms:  submission.

The last reason for our aversion to the history of political Islam is our shame. Islam put over a million Europeans into slavery. Since Muslims can’t be enslaved, it was a white Christian who was the Turkish sultan’s sex slave. These are things that we do not want to face.

Jews don’t want to acknowledge the history of political Islam, because they were dhimmis – second class citizens or semi-slaves, just like the Christians. Jews like to recall how they were advisors and physicians to powerful Muslims, but no matter what the Jew did or what position he held, he was still a dhimmi. There is no compromise between being equal and being a dhimmi

Why should a Hindu want to recall the shame of slavery and the destruction of their temples and cities? After Hindu craftsmen built the Taj Mahal, the Muslim ruler had their right hands cut off so that they could not build anything as beautiful for anyone else. The practice of suttee, the widow throwing herself on the husband’s funeral pyre, came about as a response to the rape and brutality of the Islamic jihad as it  sweep over ancient Hindustan.

Blacks don’t want to face the fact that it was a Muslim who rounded up their ancestors in Africa to wholesale to the white slave trader. The Arab is the true master of the African. Blacks can’t accept the common bond they share with whites:  that both Europeans and Africans were slaves under Islam.

Blacks like to imagine Islam is their counterweight to white power, not that Islam has ruled them for 1400 years.

Dualistic logic.  Dualistic ethics.  Fear.  Shame. There is no compromise. These are the reasons we don’t want to know about Islam’s political history, doctrine or ethics.

FP: So is there such a thing as non-political Islam?

Warner: Non-political Islam is religious Islam. Religious Islam is what a Muslim does to avoid Hell and go to Paradise.

These are the Five Pillars—prayer, charity to Muslims, pilgrimage to Mecca, fasting and declaring Mohammed to be the final prophet.

But the Trilogy is clear about the doctrine. At least 75% of the Sira (life of Mohammed) is about jihad. About 67% of the Koran written in Mecca is about the unbelievers, or politics.  Of the Koran of Medina, 51% is devoted to the unbelievers. About 20% of Bukhari’s Hadith is abou tjihad and politics. Religion is the smallest part of Islamic foundational texts.

Political Islam’s most famous duality is the division of the world into believers, dar al Islam, and unbelievers, dar al harb. The largest part of the Trilogy relates to treatment of the unbelievers, kafirs. Even Hell is political. There are 146 references to Hell in the Koran.Only 6% of those in Hell are there for moral failings—murder, theft, etc.

The other 94% of the reasons for being in Hell are for the intellectual sin of disagreeing with Mohammed, a political crime. Hence, Islamic Hell is a political prison for those who speak against Islam.

Mohammed preached his religion for 13 years and garnered only 150 followers. But when he turned to politics and war, in 10 years time he became the first ruler of Arabia by averaging an event of violence every 7 weeks for 9 years.

His success did not come as a religious leader, but as a political leader.

In short, political Islam defines how the unbelievers are to be dealt with and treated.

FP: Can you touch briefly on the history of political Islam?

Warner: The history of political Islam starts with Mohammed’s immigration to Medina. From that point on, Islam’s appeal to the world has always had the dualistic option of joining a glorious religion or being the subject of political pressure and violence. After the immigration to Medina, Islam became violent when persuasion failed. Jihad entered the world.

After Mohammed’s death, Abu Bakr, the second caliph, settled the theological arguments of those who wished to leave Islam with the political action of death by the sword.

The jihad of Umar (the second caliph, a pope-king) exploded into the world of the unbelievers.

Jihad destroyed a Christian Middle East and a Christian North Africa. Soon it was the fate of the Persian Zoroastrian and the Hindu to be the victims of jihad. The history of political Islam is the destruction of Christianity in the Middle East, Egypt, Turkey and North Africa. Half of Christianity was lost. Before Islam, North Africa was the southern part of Europe (part of the Roman Empire). Around 60 million Christians were slaughtered during the jihadic conquest.

Half of the glorious Hindu civilization was annihilated and 80 million Hindus killed.

The first Western Buddhists were the Greeks descended from Alexander the Great’s army in what is now Afghanistan. Jihad destroyed all of Buddhism along the silk route. About 10 million Buddhists died. The conquest of Buddhism is the practical result of pacifism.

Zoarasterianism was eliminated from Persia.

The Jews became permanent dhimmis throughout Islam.

In Africa over 120 million Christians and animists have died over the last 1400 years of jihad.

Approximately 270 million nonbelievers died over the last 1400 years for the glory of political Islam.

These are the Tears of Jihad which are not taught in any school.

FP: How have our intellectuals responded to Islam?

Warner: The basis of all the unbeliever’s thought has collapsed in the face of Islamic political thought, ethics and logic. We have already mentioned how our first intellectuals could not even name the invaders as Muslims. We have no method of analysis of Islam. We can’t agree on what Islam is and have no knowledge about our suffering as the victims of a 1400-year jihad.

Look at how Christians, Jews, blacks, intellectuals and artists have dealt with Islamic doctrine and history. In every case their primary ideas fail.

Christians believe that “love conquers all.” Well, love does not conquer Islam. Christians have a difficult time seeing Islam as a political doctrine, not a religion. The sectarian nature of Christian thought means that the average non-Orthodox Christian has no knowledge or sympathy about the Orthodox Christian’s suffering.

Jews have a theology that posts a unique relationship between Jews and the creator-god of the universe. But Islam sees the Jews as apes who  corrupted the Old Testament. Jews see no connection between Islam’s political doctrine and Israel.

Black intellectuals have based their ideas on the slave/victim status and how wrong it was for white Christians to make them slaves. Islam has never acknowledged any of the pain and suffering it has caused in Africa with its 1400-year-old slave trade. But blacks make no attempt to get an apology from Muslims and are silent in the presence of Islam.

Why? Is it because Arabs are their masters?

Multiculturalism is bankrupt against Islam’s demand for every civilization to submit.

The culture of tolerance collapses in the face of the sacred intolerance of dualistic ethics. Intellectuals respond by ignoring the failure.

Our intellectuals and artists have been abused for 1400 years. Indeed, the psychology of our intellectuals is exactly like the psychology of the abused wife, the sexually abused child or rape victim. Look at the parallels between the response of abuse victims and our intellectuals. See how violence has caused denial.

The victims deny that the abuse took place: Our media never reports the majority of jihad around the world.

Our intellectuals don’t talk about how all of the violence is connected to a political doctrine.

The abuser uses fear to control the victim: What was the reason that newspapers would not publish the Mohammed cartoon? Salman Rushdie still has a death sentence for his novel. What “cutting edge” artist creates any artistic statement about Islam? Fear rules our intellectuals and artists.

The victims find ways to blame themselves: We are to blame for the attacks on September 11, 2001. If we try harder Muslims will act nicer. We have to accommodate their needs.

The victim is humiliated: White people will not talk about how their ancestors were enslaved by Islam. No one wants to claim the victims of jihad. Why won’t we claim the suffering of our ancestors? Why don’t we cry about the loss of cultures and peoples? We are too ashamed to care.

The victim feels helpless.:“What are we going to do?” “We can’t kill 1.3 billion people.” No one has any understanding or optimism. No one has an idea of what to try.

The only plan is to “be nicer.”

The victim turns the anger inward: What is the most divisive issue in today’s politics? Iraq. And what is Iraq really about? Political  Islam. The Web has a video about how the CIA and Bush planned and executed September 11. Cultural self-loathing is the watchword of our intellectuals and artists.

We hate ourselves because we are mentally molested and abused. Our intellectuals and artists have responded to the abuse of jihad just as a sexually abused child or a rape victim would respond. We are quite intellectually ill and are failing at our job of clear thinking. We can’t look at our denial.

FP: So summarize for us why it is so crucial for us to learn the doctrine of political Islam.

Warner: Political Islam has annihilated every culture it has invaded or immigrated to.

The total time for annihilation takes centuries, but once Islam is ascendant it never fails. The host culture disappears and becomes extinct.

We must learn the doctrine of political Islam to survive. The doctrine is very clear that all forms of force and persuasion may and must be used to conquer us. Islam is a self-declared enemy of all unbelievers.

The brilliant Chinese philosopher of war,  Sun Tsu, had the dictum—know the enemy. We must know the doctrine of our enemy or be annihilated.

Or put another way: if we do not learn the doctrine of political Islam, our civilization will be annihilated just as Egypt’s Coptic civilization was annihilated.

Since unbelievers must know the doctrine of political Islam to survive, CSPI has written all of its books in simple English. Our books are scholarly, but easy to read.

As an example, anyone who can read a newspaper can pick up A Simple Koran and read and understand it. It is not “dumbed down” and contains every single word of the original.

Not only is the language simple, but logic has been used to sort and categorize. Context and chronology have been restored. The result is a Koran that is an epic story ending in triumph over all enemies of Allah. All of our books and philosophy may be found at our center’s website.

Islam declares that we are the enemies of Allah.

If we do not learn the political doctrine of Islam we will end up just like the first victims of Islam—the tolerant, polytheist Arabs of Saudi Arabia who became the Wahabbis (a very strict branch of Islam) of today, the most intolerant culture on the face of the earth.

FP: Bill Warner, thank you for joining us today.

Warner: Jamie, thank you for your kindness and efforts.

Radio Interview with Bill Warner

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

From the Bookshelf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Warner

Signup for our weekly newletter.

Copyright © 2008, CBSX, Inc. dba politicalislam.com

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

Permalink: https://politicalislam.com/last-night-of-a-damned-soul/

Symposium: A New Koran?

By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | 4/18/2008

The organization Muslims Against Sharia is creating a new Koran with the violent verses removed. How legitimate and wise is this action? There is an effort in Turkey, for instance, to also revise Islamic texts. What real hope can these acts offer to bring Islam into the modern and democratic world? To discuss this issue with us today, Frontpage Symposium has assembled a distinguished panel. Our guests are:

Khalim Massoud, the president of Muslims Against Sharia, an Islamic reform movement.

Edip Yuksel, a Kurdish-Turkish-American author and progressive activist who spent four years in Turkish prisons in the 1980’s for his political writings and activities promoting an Islamic revolution in Turkey. He experienced a paradigm change in 1986 transforming him from a Sunni Muslim leader to a reformed Muslim or rational monotheist.

Thomas Haidon, a Muslim commentator on human rights, counter-terrorism and Islamic affairs. He is active in the Qur’anist movement and works with a number of Islamic reform organisations as an advisor. He has provided guidance to several governments on counter-terrorism issues and his works have been published in legal periodicals, and other media. Mr. Haidon has also provided advice to and worked for United Nations agencies in Sudan and Indonesia.

Abul Kasem, an ex-Muslim who is the author of hundreds of articles and several books on Islam including, Women in Islam. He was a contributor to the book Leaving Islam – Apostates Speak Out as well as to Beyond Jihad: Critical Views From Inside Islam.

[No pic available
for security reasons]

Robert Spencer, a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of seven books, eight monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including the New York Times Bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is Religion of Peace?

and

Bill Warner, the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI) and spokesman for politicalislam.com. CSPI’s goal is to teach the doctrine of political Islam through its books and it has produced an eleven book series on political Islam. Mr. Warner did not write the CSPI series, but he acts as the agent for a group of scholars who are the authors. The Center’s latest book is The Submission of Women and Slaves, Islamic Duality.

FP: Khalim Massoud, Abul Kasem, Edip Yuksel, Thomas Haidon, Bill Warner and Robert Spencer, welcome to Frontpage Symposium.

Khalim Massoud, let’s begin with you.

Your group Muslims Against Sharia is creating a new Koran with the violent verses removed. Tell us about this effort and what you hope to achieve and how realistic you think it is.

Massoud: Thank you Jamie.

We don’t look at it as a new Koran, but rather a reversion to the original. We base it on three premises:

* God is infallible

* God is the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate

* The Koran contains contradictory verses

We believe that unless you are a fundamentalist Muslim, a pagan or an atheist (and there is nothing wrong with being a pagan or an atheist), you would agree with all three premises.

If two verses in the Koran contradict each other, then at least one of them could not have possibly come from God because it would contradict the doctrine of God’s infallibility. And because God is the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate, the peaceful verse could come from God and the violent could not.

If you are a Muslim and you follow our logic, you would agree with us. So what we are trying to achieve is to educate Muslims that the doctrine of Islamic supremacy is not divine, but rather a perversion put in the Koran by nefarious people to fit their agendas. Once we get rid of Islamic superiority doctrine, which is the cornerstone of all evil in Islam, Islam once again could become peaceful, loving, enlightened religion as we believe God has intended.

As to how realistic it is, it really depends on how many Muslims we can reach and on the position, which will be taken by non-Muslims. Unfortunately Western governments and media chose to embrace Western Muslim establishment, which overwhelmingly comprised of Islamists masquerading as moderates, thereby ignoring true moderates by default. It is beyond me why most of the Westerners ignore Islamists’ terrorist ties and believe their words that clearly contradict their actions. The latest example of this madness is URJ-ISNA alliance. If this is the direction the West is heading, no matter what we do will fail.

FP: Sorry, with all due respect, I am a bit confused about the business of humans moulding God into their own image. Who says that contradictory messages can’t come from God? Who says that peaceful verses have to come form God and not the violent ones? What human is the arbiter of these things? What’s the process here? You leaf through the Koran and on your own whim say: “No God could have possibly said that, so I’ll just strike that out.” etc.?

And if God is only peaceful in your view, and therefore incapable of making violent commands, then how do you explain the life of Muhammad? Are you going to strike the proven facts of Muhammad’s life out of the historical record like you are doing with the verses of the Koran?

I ask the panel, and our readers, to look at the historical records outlined by Bill Warner and Abul Kasem about Muhammad’s life. I would like you, Mr. Massoud, and then the rest of the panel, to explain how this fits with reversing the Koran to its “original” — or to the reality of a peaceful Allah. If the Koran was intended to be peaceful from the very beginning, then how do we explain these aspects of Muhammad’s life?

Massoud: Contradictory messages cannot come from God (the God, not a God), because God is infallible. If we assume that God is fallible, then he ceases to be a Supreme Being.

We believe that God is a loving God, that’s why we believe that only peaceful verses can come from him. Jihadis believe that violent verses come from him. That’s the difference between us and Jihadis. We love our God and they are terrified of theirs.

In regards to proven historical facts about Prophet Muhammad’s life, let’s consider this. We all know, or at least we think we do, that Muhammad was illiterate, therefore he did not write anything himself. The Koran, the Sira, and the Ahadith were written by people, most of whom weren’t even Muhammad’s contemporaries. So we are talking about oral tradition that went from one person to another for dozens, and in some cases hundreds of years before it was actually put in writing. Then, there was more than a millennium for those writings to be changed.

Now, let’s consider the events of September 11, the most documented event in the history of humanity. Just several years after the events, it is quite easy to find many different “historical” versions of what “really” happened, including some versions that are diametrically opposed to each other. So the statement like “proven historical facts” is at the very least a stretch. Having said that, I would like to emphasize that we believe that Muhammad was God’s messenger, which does not make him a perfect human being. It is quite possible that he did all the things that he is accused of. We also need to consider that norms of today’s society are very different from the norms of many centuries ago. Slavery, polygamy, pedophilia, gender discrimination, etc., are not unique to the Seventh century Arabia. We can find all of that in the religious texts preceding the Koran.

FP: I don’t know, perhaps maybe I am missing something here, but I don’t understand how people can arrogate the authority to themselves to explain who God is, what he is and how he behaves and how he thinks. Contradictory messages cannot come from God? Really? Who decides this exactly? What happens if they can and they do? What happens if our minds are so tiny that we interpret something to be a contradiction which in God’s grand design is not a contradiction at all?

In terms of Muhammad, I don’t get it either: so now Islam’s prophet may have very well engaged in slavery, polygamy, pedophilia, gender discrimination, murder, rape etc., as the historical record suggests he did, but it’s ok because such acts were not in conflict with the norms back then? So there’s not a timeless and universal morality? I thought the idea was that God disapproves of that kind of behavior because he is peaceful and just and incapable of contradiction? Therefore his prophet wouldn’t engage in those acts right? Or is there some kind of thinking that since the prophet is a messenger and not a perfect human being, it is ok that he engaged in all of those acts? Or, as it appears to be also implied by you Mr. Massoud, since it all happened so long ago, and we can’t really trust any accounts about anything, we can just attribute to Muhammad any and every quality we simply wish him to have?

In any case, Thomas Haidon go ahead.

Haidon: Thank you for inviting me to partake in this discussion Jamie.

At the outset, I will categorically state that I find Mr. Massoud’s approach to “Islamic reform” to be ludicrous. While I accept that he may be a progressive/or moderate Muslim, I find his thesis, which lacks any clear rationale or methodology, to be disingenuous. If Mr. Massoud were basing his arguments in a similar fashion to the late reformer Mohammed Taha, who argued from a historical and theological perspective that the Meccan verses of the Qur’an should effectively be removed, I would be more attentive. Not only has Mr. Massoud failed to provide any intellectually persuasive arguments (so far) in this symposium, he has failed miserably to do so on his own website, which sets out his organisation’s ideas and mission statement. Ideas that are bereft of any substance are meaningless, and potentially harmful. We must support our arguments with ideas, and not merely emotions.

Mr. Massoud correctly points out the dangers of Islamists masquerading as moderates. I would further state that Muslims who make incomplete and incompetent arguments for reform also do harm, particularly when non-Muslims are lulled into a false sense of security and hope. “True moderates” (the term that Mr. Massoud uses) must not only talk about Islam’s problems, but must develop responses that are rooted in Islam, and have some probability of success.

While I am supportive of attempts to modernise and contextualise the hermeneutics of the Qur’an, I am opposed to the removal of parts of the Qur’an. In other words, I am supportive of a new understanding of the Qur’an, not a new Qur’an itself. There is no debate among Muslims that the Qur’an is the “Criterion”, and represents the culmination of Allah’s revelations to Muhammad. The Qur’an, on a number of occasions, affirms its primacy and completeness (Qur’an, 6:114-116, 16:89 39:23, et al.). To argue therefore, that parts of the Qur’an should simply be removed is fatally flawed. Mr. Massoud offers no insight into how he would address this core issue. This is the primary doctrinal obstacle, and there are others as well. From a practical perspective, I think it is relatively clear that Muslims will never accept, on any level, removal of parts of the Qur’an. There is virtually no internal debate or discourse on the whether the Qur’an is complete or “perfect”.

I am conscious that this symposium, given the topic, could shift to a discussion on the fundamental question of Islamic reform, or whether there is any capacity for this to happen within Islam. I suspect we will find little consensus between the Muslims and non-Muslim panelists. However, in response to Mr. Massoud’s ill-conceived approach I will say that the key to reforming Islam is not abandoning the Qur’an, but returning to a modern, contextual understanding of it, and rejecting man made traditions that are a primary source for what Islam has become.

Mr. Massoud apparently assumes that the Qur’an is only capable of being interpreted as ulaema have traditionally interpreted it. Mr. Massoud uncritically accepts the concept of abrogation in the Qur’an, and the historical record of Muhammad. I find this perplexing. My colleague on this panel, Edip Yuksel, has authored (along with other scholars) a modern, contextual interpretation and translation of the Qur’an which seeks to confront the very verses that Mr. Massoud wishes to toss out. I will leave it to Mr. Yuksel to further address the fallacy of Mr. Massoud’s approach from this perspective.

In summary, Mr. Massoud’s “Islamic reform movement” is not a movement at all. Mr. Massoud’s thesis is intellectually bankrupt and lacks any methodology or substance, and has no prospects of being accepted on any scale among Muslims. I suspect that Mr. Spencer and Abul Kasem will agree with me, albeit for contrasting reasons.

The public debate on Islam and its role in terrorism, human rights abuses and oppression, suffers significantly from political correctness, disinformation and obfuscation. We need to strip down this discourse to its bare bones and ugliness, in order to move forward. Genuine reformers have an obligation to contribute to this through open discussion, and practical solutions. We cannot distil and whitewash the Islamic record, we must confront it, especially the unattractive elements. Genuine reformers also need to contribute to this debate by not raising expectations. Wide-scale reform unfortunately aspirational, and while yes, there is some good work being done, we have not scratched the surface.

FP: Bill Warner?

Warner: Thank you Jamie for this opportunity to discuss the reform of Islam.

First, let me establish the basis for my logic with regards to Islam. To Mr. Massoud, I say: I have no interest in whether there is no god, one god or a million gods. I also have no interest in whether the texts of Islam-Koran, Sira and Hadith (the Islamic Trilogy)-are accurate or false. For over a billion Muslims, the Trilogy is the basis of the doctrine of their life, politics and civilization. They believe the Trilogy to be true and live their lives by it.

The Koran, the Sira and the Hadith are of one cloth. They form an integrated and complete ideology. The logical perfection of the Trilogy is the reason that it has lasted so long.

The other basis for my logic is that the reform be comprehensive and logical. We must have principles, not beautiful opinions.

One of those opinions was stated by Mr. Massoud, “God is a loving God.” I don’t know anything about Allah, but I do know what the Koran says. While there are over 300 references in the Koran to Allah and fear, there are 49 references to love. Of these love references, 39 are negative such as the 14 negative references to love of money, power, other gods and status.

Three verses command humanity to love Allah and 2 verses are about how Allah loves a believer. There are 25 verses about how Allah does not love kafirs.

This leaves 5 verses about love. Of these 5, 3 are about loving kin or a Muslim brother. One verse commands a Muslim to give for the love of Allah. This leaves only one quasi-universal verse about love: give what you love to charity and even this is contaminated by dualism since Muslim charity only goes to other Muslims.

So much for love. Fear is what Allah demands.

Mr. Haidon says, “…we need to strip this discourse down to its bare bones and ugliness.” I agree and the ugliest parts of Islam are the concepts of the kafir, political submission and duality.

My only concern is how Islam treats me and my people, the kafirs. How Islam views and deals with the kafir is political Islam. The Trilogy determines the political doctrine and practice of relating to the kafir. The Koran says that the kafir may be murdered, tortured, plotted against, enslaved, robbed, insulted, beheaded, demeaned, mocked and so forth. The Hadith and Sira agree. That’s ugly.

The Trilogy establishes the fundamental principles of Islam-political submission and duality–the basis of dualistic ethics. The Trilogy advances one set of ethics for the Muslims and another for the kafirs. A Muslim is not to lie to another Muslim; a Muslim may lie to a kafir, or not. A Muslim is not to kill another Muslim; a Muslim may kill a kafir, or not. And so forth.

The word “kafir” is pure dualism.

The Trilogy also establishes a dualistic logic. The early (Meccan) Koran and the later (Medinan) Koran frequently contradict each other, but since they are both the words of Allah, both sides of the contradiction are true. It is just that the later Koran is better and can “abrogate” the earlier Koran. Western logic says that if two things contradict, then one of them is false-a unitary logic. Dualism is the heart of the Trilogy’s logic.

Dualism explains the two types of Muslims and which one is the “real” Muslim. The “nice” Muslim and the Taliban-type Muslim both follow a dualistic Koran and are both “real” Muslims. Dualism gives the “nice” Muslim plausible deniability. They can say that those jihadists are not “real” Muslims.

There can be an infinite number of reforms, but the only reform that matters to the kafir is ethical reform. That removes the principles of political submission and duality. There is a very easy way to see the problem and its solution. Go back to how the Koran defines the kafir and what can be done to them. No one wants to be insulted, raped, robbed, killed, threatened or tortured. No one wants to be treated badly. No one wants to be rejected as the “other”, the kafir.

I propose a rational reform based upon how to treat the “other”–the Golden Rule: treat others as you wish to be treated.

The Golden Rule is centered on ethics, not god, and is universal to all cultures, except Islam. Indeed, the whole Islamic Trilogy denies the truth of the Golden Rule. Therefore, the Golden Rule reform has to be applied to the Koran, Sira and Hadith. Only then will the reform be comprehensive. Mr. Haidon says, “Muslims will never accept, on any level, removal of parts of the Koran.” To just reform the Sira and the Hadith is petty change. I want ALL of the ugliness towards the kafir removed. That means that the Koran must also be subject to analysis.

The Golden Rule removes the brutality, insults and prejudice directed at the kafir. The constant attacks would disappear. The Rule is very simple and logical to apply to the texts.

What is amazing is how much the Golden Rule removes from the Trilogy. About 61% of the Koran vanishes, 75% of the Sira and 20% of the Hadith also go away. As I said, I only care about Islam treats the kafir, but the Golden Rule also removes all of the dualistic rules about women. So the reductions will be even greater when the material about the treatment of women is removed.

The Golden Rule even changes Hell. Islamic Hell is primarily political. Hell is mentioned 146 times in the Koran. Only 9 references are for moral failings-greed, lack of charity, love of worldly success. The other 137 references to Hell involve eternal torture for not agreeing that Mohammed is right. That is a political charge, not a morals failure. Thus 94% of the references to Hell are as a political prison for dissenters. The Golden Rule would empty Islam’s political prison.

The Golden Rule annihilates the cruelty of dualistic ethics. Golden Rule Islam would be a reformed Islam that the kafirs would not fear and dread. We are tired of living in fear of political Islam. We have suffered enough and would welcome an Islam that did not argue, demand, pressure, dhimmize, threaten, deceive and destroy kafirs and their civilization.

However, all of Islam’s success has been based upon political submission and dualism. Mohammed preached the religion of Islam for 13 years in Mecca and converted 150 Arabs to Islam. When he went to Medina he became a politician and a warrior. In the last 9 years of his life he conquered all of Arabia. In those 9 years Mohammed was involved with a violent event on the average of every 7 weeks. The violence destroyed the native Arab culture of tolerance. Political submission and duality triumphed.

But even if this symposium group could change the ideology of political Islam by integrating the Golden Rule, who would follow Golden Rule Islam? Islam is like the Internet; it has no central ruling body. Islam is a distributed network with the Trilogy as the operating system. An upgrade is not possible. But if Muslims want to show me to be wrong, the only reform worth anything to a kafir is an ethical reform based upon the Golden Rule.

[A technical note: I use Ishaq for the Sira and Bukhari for the Hadith. Ibn Sa’d, al Tabari, Muslim and Dawud add little additional information. The percentages stated above are not based upon verses. Analyzing the Koran only by verses amounts to analysis by sentences. Who would analyze Plato or Kant by sentences? We want to measure ideas, topics and concepts; not just sentences. See the Epilogue in A Simple Koran for details.]

FP: Mr. Yuksel?

Yuksel: This is an exciting symposium. Thank you for having me and get ready for a good fight. Mr. Warner is summarizing well the problem with the Trilogy of traditional Islam and yet at the same time he is indulging in intellectual acrobatics with jaw-opening contortions and distortions against the Quran. Meanwhile, the FP moderator is introducing the Sunni hearsay stories like the CNN news about current events, and he is promoting assumptions and false accusations like the Laws of Thermodynamics. A careful reader will notice that the entire symposium is designed to promote the “click-here and click-there” propaganda activities of a cabal. Let me first start with Mr. Massoud’s claims and then respond to the claims of Mr. Walter and his tennis partner, Mr. Glazov, FP moderator.

I nominate Khalim Massoud, whoever he is and wherever he is, for the Ignoble Prize for his theologically inconsistent, logically Swiss-cheese, practically useless, objectively insincere, substantially oldie-moldy, academically elementary, mathematically innumerate, Quranically unacceptable, and politically neo-conning project. I also acknowledge that it has some merits as Thomas Haidon indicated: it is entertaining and ludicrous.

Now let me support each of my characterizations:

It is THEOLOGICALLY INCONSISTENT, since it does not address many important theological and philosophical problems, such as Socrates’ question, “Is it good because God says so, or God says so therefore it is good?” Sure, it could be both. But Mr. Massoud is even unaware of the existence of such an important question. If the Quran is the word of God, then whom am I to “correct” or “censor” his words? Massoud thinks he has an answer for that. Whichever he dislikes, or whichever does not agree with his current culture, or whichever does not please the FrontPage, or whichever he cannot comprehend, it cannot be from God. That is so simple. Just give him a pair of scissors and he will reform the Muslim world. Archimedes needed a fulcrum to move the world; our friend just needs a pair of scissors. A sharp scissoring reform. In other words, he devolves God to his level or evolves himself to become a god. He has nothing to learn from God; to the contrary, he wishes to teach to God.

If Massoud lived in medieval times, and had a scissors in his hand, he would end up with a very different Quran that he envisions now. He would cut off verse 21:30 and 51:47 since it did not make any sense: how could the space and earth be one single body and then explode and expand? He would perhaps have problem with a round earth since he would never feel upside down wherever he traveled; so to bestow some reason and common sense to his Wise God he would cut off verses 10:24; 39:5; and 55:33. He would find the idea of egg-shaped earth ridiculous, so, he either would toss out the egg in the verse 79:30 (indeed, his contemporaries with no scissors would try to interpret the egg as a metaphor for a flat nest). He would find verses suggesting an evolutionary method of creation to be unfit to the wisdom of his Omnipotent God and would save his Quran from 7:69; 15:28-29; 24:45; 32:7-9; and 71:14-17. He would find equality of man and women bizarre and unfit to a Just God, so he would slash 3:195; 4:124; 9:71; 16:97; 33:34; 49:13; 60:12, and many other verses. He would have problem with too much freedom of expression of “evil ideas” and would like to save his Almighty God from allowing the expression of blasphemous ideas, so he would discard 2:226; 18:29; 10:99; and 88:21-22. He would find the verses promoting peace unrealistic and would chop 60:8-9; 8:60 and many others. Verses abolishing slavery (3:79; 4:3,25,92; 5:89; 8:67; 24:32-33; 58:3-4; 90:13; 2:286; 12:39-42; 79:24), verses promoting public elections and consultations (42:38; 5:12; 4:58; 58:11), verses condemning profiteering from religion and rejecting clergymen and religious intermediaries (2:48; 9:31; 9:34; 2:41,79,174; 5:44; 9:9) and hundreds of other verses promoting progressive ideas would get eliminated by Mr. Massoud.

It is LOGICALLY SWISS-CHEESE. I do not mean offence to Swiss cheese since I enjoy, but this Quran-with-a-Scissors package has too many holes in it. Mr. Massoud appears to be engaging in a logical activity. Since I teach logic and philosophy classes at college, I cannot ignore it. He asserts three premises to reach his conclusion:

(1) God is infallible

(2) God is the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate

(3) The Koran contains contradictory verses

Thus, WE need to conduct a surgery on the Koran!

What about questioning the third premise? What about modifying it this way?:

(3) It appears to me that the Koran contains contradictory verses.

Thus, I need to improve my knowledge and comprehension skills in studying the Quran, OR I need to ask those real reformists who do not distort the message of the Quran through hearsay stories. AND, IF I still see contradictions in the Quran, then I need to conduct a surgery on my Koran.

It is PRACTICALLY USELESS, since if we can subject our holy book to such a personal cut-and-discard operation, we would not need to have a leader like Massoud. In fact, any person can grab a marker and cross out the verses they do not like. Even if I lost my mind for a moment and followed the suggestion of Massoud, I would never purchase his version of the Quran, since I am not his clone. So, all what Massoud is telling people is this: “cross out the verses you think that are contradictory!” So, why anyone should follow a version published by Massoud or any other person? If I were going to write a blurb for the book, it would be the following: “This is an infidel-friendly, neoconized lite-version of the holy book with zero cholesterol. Yet, it contains plenty of turn-your-left-cheek-and-behind attitudes against imperialistic invasions and aggression. Three thumbs up Massoud & Co!”

It is OBJECTIVELY INSINCERE, since Massoud should know that no teacher would ask students to tear the pages of a text book if they thought it contains wrong or contradictory ideas. No text book would survive such a collective task of weight-reduction! And no author would like to see a reader like Massoud mobilizing others to cut the statements, paragraphs and pages off his book and republish it in his or her name! If Massoud really believes that there is an original Quran hidden inside the circulated Quran, he cannot be sincerely hoping to discover it by the votes of a particular group of unidentified people in a particular time. So, either he does not really believe the divinity of the Quran, or he has no clue about what he is saying.

It is SUBSTANTIALLY oldie-moldy, since already skeptics have done a great job in annotating the Quran, and indicating the “perceived” contradictions. Though I disagree with their (mis)understanding, but I find their work thought-provoking and very useful. Skeptics provide their critical arguments. All what Massoud suggests is to delete those arguments together with the verses they address! And for this ingenious idea he is now participating in a symposium organized by FP!

It is ACADEMICALLY ELEMENTARY, since it does not provide a methodology to accomplish the task. Since the Quran is an interconnected book, where each verse is etymologically and semantically connected to many other verses, any modification will cause the need for another series of modification. The number of combinations is enormous and so is the potential chain reaction and unintended consequences. I could give dozens of examples but I have limited room here.

It is MATHEMATICALLY INNUMERATE, since the Quran is not only a literary prose, but it is also a numerically structured book (83:7-21), it is the most interesting book in the world. For instance, 29 chapters of the Quran start with combination of numbers and letters, such as A1L30M40, or K20H5Y10A70S90, or Q50. For instance, the frequency of the word ShaHR (Month) in singular form is exactly 12, the frequency of the word YaWM (Day) is exactly 365, and there are many more interesting nu-semantic examples. For instance, the numerical structure of the Quran based on the number 19 is so extensive that it involves every element of the Quran, the count and order of letters, words, sentences, verses, and chapters. They fill volumes of books. (You may find a good summary of the Code 19 in the Appendix of the Quran: a Reformist Translation). Thus, Mr. Massoud’s project is aimed to destroy such an incredible structure that bears witness to the divine nature of the Quran.

It is QURANICALLY UNACCEPTABLE, since numerous Quranic verses reject the very same attempt. Here is a sample:

15:90 As We have sent down on the dividers.

15:91 The ones who have taken the Quran apart.

15:92 By your Lord, We will ask them all.

15:93 Regarding what they used to do.

15:94 So proclaim what you have been commanded and turn away from those who set up partners.

15:95 We will relieve you from the mockers.

15:96 Those who sat up with God another god; they will come to know.

15:97 We know that your chest is strained by what they say.

15:98 So glorify with the praise of your Lord, and be of those who prostrate.

15:99 Serve your Lord until certainty comes to you.

Most likely Massoud would chop these verses too, by an additional maxim: “Delete all the verses that rejects our deleting activities!” Ironically, Massoud is not suggesting something new. Sunnis and Shiites already disregard many verses of the Quran: they do not hear nor understand them. Furthermore, their sectarian teachings contain a rule called “abrogation” thereby they reject the decree of the many verses of the Quran, while at the same time they declare their belief in every letter of the Quran. I have discussed this issue in detail in the endnotes of the QRT.

And it is POLITICALLY NEO-CONNING, since it serves the policy of Neocon-led coalition of warmongers. I do not know whether Massoud is a hired petty officer for this agenda or just a naive person, but, it is clear that his project will only irritate and provoke Muslims who are frustrated and traumatized under cruel military invasions and occupations (such as Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Chechnya), or suffering under USA-supported oppressive regimes (such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan). When a few angry and pathetic Muslims engage in some stupid and violent action, the Western media will salivate and rush to focus their cameras on the ugly faces of “barbarians”, while the American capitalists will continue their racket by transferring billions and billions of our tax money to the accounts of war industry and its sub contractors.

IN SUMMARY, I am astounded that FP is taking this ridiculous idea serious. If we are going to take any idea published on the web seriously, then we will be volunteering for an alien abduction adventure. I feel like I am talking in a symposium organized by the flat-earth society. Sir, do you also discuss cubic meteorites with avocados in their center?

Since I do not have space for more words, I would like to say a few words about the claims of FP moderator. His depiction of Muhammad is based on unreliable hearsay stories, yet he craftily sandwiches the “proven historical facts” into his complex question. If he introduced those accusations as “according to Sunni or Shiite story books written centuries after Muhammad” then it would be an accurate depiction. I challenge the integrity of each of the story books he is peddling as “historical fact.” Where did he find those “proven historical facts”? As for brother Massoud’s response, well, there is no surprise: he is receiving a “proven” false accusation from the moderator and after putting a petty spin on it he passes it back to him: intact!

As for brother Warner, he is perhaps doing statistics on Thalmud or Old Testament. His claim is far from truth. The most repeated and most highlighted Quranic verse that opens every chapter, except one, is Bismi Allah al-Rahmani al-Rahim, which means “In the name of God, Gracious, Compassionate.” Let me give you the attributes of God most frequently mentioned in the Quran (The following list does not include the frequencies of the attributes in unnumbered 112 opening statements mentioned above). The Quran contains about 114 attributes for God. The most frequently used attributes of The God (Allah repeated 2698 times) are:

Lord/Sustainer/Nourisher (Rabb): 970

All-Knowing (Alim): 153

Loving/Caring (Rahim): 114

God (Elah): 93

Wise (Hakim): 91

Forgiving (Ghafur): 91

Honorable (Aziz): 88

Gracious (Rahman): 57

Hearer (Sami): 45

Planner (Qadir): 45

Knower (Khabir): 44

Seer (Basir): 42

These most frequent attributes of God, which are used in semantically relevant contexts, depict a very different Quran than Warner wishes us to believe. Perhaps, the Quran, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

As for Warner’s assertion about the Golden Rule removing 61% of the Quran, I am glad to hear that. This shows that the Quran is a book of reality, not a book of fairy tales. First, the so-called Golden Rule is not a realistic rule and it is very rarely used, usually among family members and close friends. In fact, experiments show that the Golden Rule promotes immorality and crimes in real life. In my ethic classes, I have repeated the experiments and reached the same conclusion. I recommend Carl Sagan’s article, titled “The Rules of the Game,” where Sagan quotes the verse of the Quran, “If the enemy inclines toward peace, do you also incline toward peace,” concluding that the best rule is not the golden rule but the golden-plated brazen rule, that is, retaliation with occasional forgiveness, which is exactly what the Quran promotes (See Quran 42:20; 17:33).

The irony is not in Warner’s lack of knowledge; the irony is in the iron. Warner is aligning with those who promote and practice the Iron Rule (pre-emptive strike), and yet he bashes Muslims for not abiding by the Golden Rule. Perhaps this is the rule of double standard in generosity: iron for us, gold for you. No my dear: I cannot enjoy gold while you have the iron.

FP: Well Mr. Yuksel, you are astounded that I am taking a “ridiculous idea serious” but nowhere did I say I am taking it seriously. As a matter of fact, all my comments so far reveal that I don’t know how it could be taken seriously. But the idea needs to be put on the table because it is one of the efforts being made right now by a Muslim reformer and his organization to try to bring Islam into the modern and democratic world – if that is at all possible.

And a discussion of an issue like this can bring a very important dialogue to the table. I find it a bit strange that you affirm that you are “astounded” that I am taking this “ridiculous idea” seriously and yet you yourself have agreed to join a panel to discuss it. Perhaps you see no point to your own contribution to this symposium, even though you have spent quite a bit of energy and time to offer it.

I also remain a bit confused as to how American “warmongers” are behind taking violent verses out of the Quran. And I am yet still to hear what you yourself think of the violent verses and the problem that jihadists point to them as their inspiration.

Also, calling me and other people names is, unfortunately, no way to delegitimize the aspects of Mohammad’s life that people like Warner, Kasem and Spencer have pointed to.

Abul Kasem, go ahead.

Kasem: I appreciate that Khalim Massoud understands there are problems with the Koran.

Khalim Massoud writes that Allah is infallible. Then he writes that the Koran contains contradictory verses. How is it possible for an infallible God (Allah) to contradict Himself? Here Massoud is playing the role of another God to correct Allah. Isn’t this quite bizarre that a human being, such as Massoud, has to correct Allah?

Massoud confounds us further when he says:

‘If two verses in the Koran contradict each other, then at least one of them could not have possibly come from God because it would contradict the doctrine of God’s infallibility. And because God is the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate, the peaceful verse could come from God and the violent could not.’

Who says Allah is always compassionate and merciful? He is certainly not, as can be demonstrated from many other verses in the Koran. Allah has peculiar temperament, to say the least. Under this circumstance why must we accept that Allah only sends the merciful verses? Who inserted those unkind, hateful, belligerent and barbaric verses? Without identifying these people, Massoud calls them nefarious. Why does he not identify these people? Could it that they were Muhammad and his coterie of power hungry people who surrounded him for a share of Islamic loot and plunder?

If we were to accept that the Koran is the absolute words of Allah, then how could Allah allow such calumny as tampering with the Koran?

Massoud says: If we assume that God is fallible, then he ceases to be a Supreme Being.

I simply do not get it. The Koran says clearly that Allah is the Supreme Being. Massoud further contradicts himself.

It appears that Massoud has accepted the truth that the Koran contains the words of humans, such as Muhammad, and possibly others. This completely breaks down Massoud’s logic that the infallible Koran is the authorship of Allah.

In this context, Thomas Haidon is correct when he says: From a practical perspective, I think it is relatively clear that Muslims will never accept, on any level, removal of parts of the Qur’an. There is virtually no internal debate or discourse on whether the Qur’an is complete or “perfect”.

I agree that the vast majority of Muslims hold the Koran as the incorruptible, unchangeable words of Allah, valid for eternity.

It is important to comprehend that Islam derives its mighty power not only from the Koran but also from ahadith and sirah. How about these important sources of Islam? Will Massoud edit these sources, especially those blood-thirsty, barbaric, inane ahadith? Will Massoud go ahead with the task of purgation of Muhammad’s sirah to remove the unsavory, cruel, and inhuman disposition of Muhammad?

One important point: if Massoud agrees that parts of the Koran are human-created, why does he not abandon the Koran itself? Why he wants to mess with the task of editing the Koran with his own hand which, will cast him as an apostate and render him liable to severe Islamic punitive measures?

It appears that Massoud has forgotten that the Koran says that none can change the words of it (6:34, 6:115, 10:64, 18:27, 27:6). Verse 10:15 clearly says even Muhammad could not change a single word in the Koran. Thus, according to the Koran, Massoud’s act will be the greatest of all Islamic crimes. Massoud should not forget the fate of Rashad Khalifa who attempted to do similar acts of revising the Koran, but paid a heavy price. Zealot Islamists murdered him while he prayed in his mosque. To day, Rashad Khalifa’s minions are known as ‘Submitters’ or the Qur’an-only Muslims. Needless to say, most of them live in the western countries, for had they expressed their views in an Islamic paradise they would be certainly killed for tampering with the Koran.

Nevertheless, I appreciate the efforts of Massoud and Thomas Haidon who sincerely want to reform Islam and bring it to conform to the current civilized world. They are genuinely appalled at the barbaric, cruel and inhuman aspects of Islam, largely emanating from the application Koran and ahadith. Unfortunately, history of Islam demonstrates that many such attempts in the past had been dismal failures, and there is very little prospect that such current attempts or future attempts will succeed. I might sound pessimistic, but Islamic history uncannily confirms that playing with Koran and ahadith is a dangerous game that is destined to failure.

I agree with Bill Warner when he says: The Koran, the Sira and the Hadith are of one cloth. They form an integrated and complete ideology.

This means if one edits the Koran he must also edit the other two sources of Islam. Is Khalim Massoud willing to do this job? Will the Muslims, by and large, will agree with Khalim Massoud’s versions of Sira and Hadith? I doubt they will.

What I disagree with Bill Warner is that, while he accepts that the Koran is reformable, I do not. I have already stated my reason/s why this is just not possible-the Koran completely forbids its reformation, and whoever attempts to do so will be murdered, Islamically.

There is only one choice left, to abandon the Koran, totally.

I find quite hilarious Edip Yuksel’s discovery of numerical miracles in the Koran. This is akin to Rashad Khalifa’s discovery of miracle of the number 19 in the Koran. I doubt if any mathematician will agree with Edip Yuksel’s discovery.

Yuksel chastises Bill Warner for exposing the Korans’ inanities and its stipulations to extirpate un-Islam by killing infidels, if need be. Unfortunately, Yuksel cannot refute Warner’s allegation that the Koran commands Muslims to kill the Kafirs. Yuksel simply avoids this important topic by alleging that Warner is resorting to word gymnastics. It is interesting that Yuksel himself indulges in the intellectual gymnastic just to avoid the truth: the Koran has barbaric provisions for those who do not accept Islam.

It is sad to note that Yuksel has hurled vitriolic attack on both Khalim Massoud and Bill Warner. Instead of refuting/and/or arguing their cases in a dignified manner, Yuksel simply resorts to personal attack and logical fallacies. He indulges in irrelevant topics, America’s foreign policies, Palestine issues and so on. This demonstrates his attempt to ‘flight’ from the burning issues of Islam and whether it is reformable.

We must appreciate that Massoud and Thomas Haidon have, at least, have plans to reform Islam-no matter how much we might disagree with their methods.

I find it very unbecoming of an Islamist scholar like Yuksel to reprimand the FP editor for opening a dialogue session with people of contrasting views.

Finally, here are a few suggestions, which, to my mind, will be of help not only to Massoud and Haidon, but to the entire world.

We need to expose Islam, the truth about it, and nothing but the truth. The world must pay heed to the fundamental messages of the Koran which is to conquer (by sword) the entire world and enforce sharia laws.

The infidel world must digest the fact that Islam wants to obliterate un-Islam, replace the western/un-Islamic civilization with Islamic/ Arabic civilization.

It is important that all infidel leaders must have a working knowledge of the Koran and Islam, and understand the language of the Islamists, which is anything but peaceful.

Spencer: Khalim Massoud is correct that the “Islamic superiority doctrine” is “the cornerstone of all evil in Islam,” or at least of the evil that some Muslims perpetrate in the name of Allah against unbelievers. Bill Warner is right: reform should eradicate Islamic supremacism and the institutionalized mistreatment of women and non-Muslims sanctioned by Islamic law. The rest is just window dressing. But how that doctrine can be removed or reformed, and whether or not it can be accomplished by a drastic re-editing of the Qur’an, as proposed by Mr. Massoud, is another question.

Thomas Haidon is clearly right when he says that “from a practical perspective, I think it is relatively clear that Muslims will never accept, on any level, removal of parts of the Qur’an.” This is true regardless of whatever logical or theological merits the plan may or may not have. Abul Kasem also raises an important conceptual question for Mr. Massoud: “If we were to accept that the Koran is the absolute words of Allah, then how could Allah allow such calumny as tampering with the Koran?”

So how, then, can it be done, if it can be done at all? It is noteworthy that Mr. Haidon says that he would be “more attentive” to Mr. Massoud’s arguments if they more closely resembled those of Mahmoud Mohammed Taha, “who argued,” says Mr. Haidon, “from a historical and theological perspective that the Meccan verses of the Qur’an should effectively be removed.” Mr. Haidon clearly has in mind the Medinan verses, which Taha actually targeted, not the Meccan ones, but the main problem here is that for his views Taha himself was executed by the Sudanese government in 1985. Abul Kasem is correct that most of the Qur’an-only Submitters “live in the western countries, for had they expressed their views in an Islamic paradise they would be certainly killed for tampering with the Koran.” Nothing is more certain than that those who attempt reform of Islamic doctrine in Muslim regions take their lives into their hands. One notorious example is that of Suliman Bashear, who “argued that Islam developed as a religion gradually rather than emerging fully formed from the mouth of the Prophet.” For this his Muslim students in the University of Nablus in the West Bank threw him out of a second-story window.

Western non-Muslim analysts need to have a steady and sober awareness of these realities. Mr. Haidon is absolutely right that “Muslims who make incomplete and incompetent arguments for reform also do harm, particularly when non-Muslims are lulled into a false sense of security and hope.” But those suffering from that false sense of security are legion. Numerous Western analysts, policymakers, and even law enforcement officials are so anxious not to appear “anti-Muslim” that they embrace any self-professed reformer, and have been gulled many times. They should bear in mind that Mr. Haidon is also correct when he says that “we cannot distil and whitewash the Islamic record, we must confront it, especially the unattractive elements,” and that “genuine reformers have an obligation to contribute to this through open discussion, and practical solutions.” But so far this has not been done, despite many loud proclamations to the contrary from many quarters.

And as an example of a Muslim who, in Mr. Haidon’s words, makes “incomplete and incompetent arguments for reform,” we have here with us Mr. Yuksel, whose bluster and abuse of other Symposium participants may be entertaining, but only exposes the bankruptcy of his arguments. He accuses Jamie Glazov of relying on “unreliable hearsay stories” for information about Muhammad, but fails to inform us that the great majority of Muslims around the world rely on those same “unreliable hearsay stories,” and offers no program for convincing those hundreds of millions of Muslims of the historical weakness of these stories.

Mr. Yuksel’s presentation likewise suffers from inaccuracies that will it extremely unlikely that it will ever be accepted by large numbers of Muslims. To take just one of many possible examples, he asserts that in the Qur’an “the frequency of the word YaWM (Day) is exactly 365.” But another Muslim writer has noted that Yuksel only arrived at this total by not counting many forms of the word, including every time it appears as “that day” rather than “the day” or “a day.” When Mr. Yuksel’s fellow Muslims so readily notice such inaccuracies in his presentation, it’s unlikely that many will accept his program for reform.

Massoud: Mr. Glazov states, “the idea was that God disapproves of that kind of behavior because he is peaceful and just … [t]herefore his prophet wouldn’t engage in those acts.”

Not necessarily. God gave people, including Prophet Muhammad, Free Will. I do not claim that evil deeds attributed to the Prophet are false. I am not justifying rape and murder as acceptable practices of medieval times. What I’m trying to do is to raise the possibility of the historical record being incorrect. We also need to consider things like polygamy in historical perspective. When the female/male ratio is roughly 1/1, polygamy is a clear form of gender discrimination. But when half of the men are killed in a war and the ratio becomes 2/1, polygamy becomes a practical solution. When life expectancy is 75, marrying a young teenager is clearly inappropriate, but what if the life expectancy is 20? All I’m saying is that the Prophet Muhammad should not be looked at from black-and-white perspectives. He was not the perfect human, but he was not pure evil either.

Mr. Haidon finds our approach disingenuous, ludicrous, and lacking any clear rationale or methodology. I believe that Mr. Haidon refuses to see what is right in front of him, i.e., the contradictions in the Koran. The question is: does Mr. Haidon believe that the Koran contains contradictions? If so, our rationale should be pretty clear, if not, how can you explain something to a person who refuses to accept reality?

Mr. Haidon is proposing a new understanding of the Koran. I find that approach disingenuous and ludicrous. Attempts to reinterpret verses like 2.191 or 9.5 are simply pathetic. It is nothing more than whitewashing of genocide.

“The Qur’an, on a number of occasions, affirms its primacy and completeness (Qur’an, 6:114-116, 16:89 39:23, et al.).”

Should I remind Mr. Haidon that the Koran also affirms Islamic supremacy on a number of occasions? If he thinks that “kill them [infidels] wherever you find them” (2.191) means something other than what it says, why “there is none who can change His words” (6.115) cannot mean something else? Or what if someone already disregarded 6.115 and added 2.191?

Mr. Haidon keeps referring to “modern, contextual understanding” of the Koran. How can one possibly interpret “slay the idolaters wherever you find them” (9.5) other than “you must kill the infidels whenever you can”? Or does Mr. Haidon’s “modern, contextual understanding” refer to simply ignoring the violent verses? If so, I believe removing the verses rather than ignoring them is a more practical approach.

“Mr. Massoud apparently assumes that the Qur’an is only capable of being interpreted as ulaema have traditionally interpreted it.”

Apparently. Every single non-Muslim layman that we discussed the Koran with interpreted the Koran exactly the same way, which leads us to believe that the problem is not with interpretation, but with the source.

Mr. Haidon states that our “thesis is intellectually bankrupt and lacks any methodology or substance, and has no prospects of being accepted on any scale among Muslims.” Neither I, nor any other member of Muslims Against Sharia (which is a movement, even if Mr. Haidon does not consider it such) claim that our proposal to reform Islam is perfect. As a matter of fact, we believe that there are no good solutions to reform Islam; there are bad and worse. We believe that our solution is most practical, and therefore, the best. Or the least bad, if you want to call it that. There are three points of view: Islam is perfect, Islam needs to be eradicated, and Islam needs to be reformed. If you believe that Islam needs to be reformed and could offer a more effective solution than ours, we’ll support you all the way.

Mr. Warner’s argument is based on his belief that “The Koran, the Sira and the Hadith … form an integrated and complete ideology.” We believe that anything except for the Koran is pure hearsay. Some of the ahadith are so vile that if there is an argument for book burning they should be prime examples together with Mein Kampf. As many Westerners, Mr. Warner fails to separate Islam, the religion, from Islamism, the political ideology. In regards to the concept of dualism, it stems from the concept of Islamic supremacy. We believe that our proposal, however ludicrous Mr. Haidon might find it, is the only one on the table that completely eliminates the doctrine of Islamic supremacy, and with it, concepts of dualism, infidel, and every other concept that Westerners and moderate Muslims find objectionable.

Mr. Warner states, “I propose a rational reform based upon how to treat the “other”–the Golden Rule: treat others as you wish to be treated.” This idea is practically identical to the paragraph in our manifesto (www.reformislam.org) titled “Equality.”

I see no reason to address Mr. Yuksel’s diatribe. Any Muslim who considers liberations of 50+ million Afghanis and Iraqis “cruel military invasions and occupations” by “Neocon-led coalition of warmongers” or believes that the Prophet or the Koran is above criticism is a radical. And I have zero interest in arguing with Islamic extremists. I wanted to address Mr. Yuksel’s hypocrisy of participating in a “ridiculous” forum, but Mr. Glazov already did that.

Next, I will address Mr. Kasem’s analysis. He writes: “Khalim Massoud writes that Allah is infallible. Then he writes that the Koran contains contradictory verses. How is it possible for an infallible God (Allah) to contradict Himself?”

It is impossible. That’s why we believe that the contradictory parts of the Koran did not come from God.

“Who says Allah is always compassionate and merciful? He is certainly not, as can be demonstrated from many other verses in the Koran. Allah has peculiar temperament, to say the least.”

Again, we believe the verses Mr. Kasem is referring to did not come from Allah.

“Who inserted those unkind, hateful, belligerent and barbaric verses? Without identifying these people, Massoud calls them nefarious. Why does he not identify these people?”

Anyone who was involved in a chain of custody of the Koran could have changed it. People who write new copies, people who kept the Koran in oral form, and maybe the Prophet himself. I wish I could give a more specific answer, but I cannot.

“How could Allah allow such calumny as tampering with the Koran?”

People have Free Will.

“Massoud says: If we assume that God is fallible, then he ceases to be a Supreme Being. I simply do not get it. The Koran says clearly that Allah is the Supreme Being. Massoud further contradicts himself.”

Let me clarify it. God is infallible. If he were fallible, he wouldn’t be God.

“It appears that Massoud has accepted the truth that the Koran contains the words of humans, such as Muhammad, and possibly others. This completely breaks down Massoud’s logic that the infallible Koran is the authorship of Allah.”

I never claimed that the Koran is infallible and that Allah is the sole author of the modern Koran.

“From a practical perspective, I think it is relatively clear that Muslims will never accept, on any level, removal of parts of the Qur’an.”

Our poll contradicts that “practical perspective.” Almost a quarter of Muslim responders either agrees with our plan or thinks that our reforms do not go far enough.

“There is virtually no internal debate or discourse on the whether the Qur’an is complete or “perfect”.”

Isn’t that the more reason to start one?

“I agree that the vast majority of Muslims hold the Koran as the incorruptible, unchangeable words of Allah valid for eternity.”

And what of those Muslims who disagree with that? Should we just kill them off?

“Will Massoud edit these sources, especially those blood-thirsty, barbarous, inane ahadith?”

I believe I addressed this earlier.

“One important point: if Massoud agrees that parts of the Koran are human created, why does he not abandon the Koran itself?”

Because if we remove the human-created parts, we’ll give the Koran back its divine nature.

“Verse 10:15 clearly says even Muhammad could not change a single word in the Koran.”

We are not trying to change the Koran, we are trying to un-change it.

There is no reason to bring up fates of some Muslim reformers. We are quite aware of the dangers.

I agree that “history of Islam demonstrates that many such [reformist] attempts in the past had been dismal failures”, but it does not mean that “there is very little prospect that such current attempts or future attempts will succeed.” Past attempts to reform Islam were made inside Islamic world when reformers were greatly outnumbered. Now we have many non-Muslims on our side.

Mr. Haidon says (and Mr. Spencer agrees) that “from a practical perspective, I think it is relatively clear that Muslims will never accept, on any level, removal of parts of the Qur’an.” I would have to disagree. Our experience shows that an average open-minded Muslims is likely to be receptive to the idea that the Koran has been corrupted and that the corrupted parts must be removed. We firmly believe that while the concept of Islamic supremacy is enshrined in the Koran, Islam cannot be reformed. Interpreting violent verses as non-violent is the same as calling terrorist acts ‘freedom fighting’ or ‘God’s will’.

Haidon: There are a number of divergent views emerging from this symposium. I think what we need to reinvigorate this discussion with a little bit of good old fashioned reality. As Muslims on this panel, I think we have an obligation to be forthright and honest about the Qur’an and potential solutions for addressing its core problems. Mr. Massoud has been forthright about identifying the problems of the traditional, literalist understanding of the Qur’an, but has provided an illogical and incoherent solution to address it. While I agree on some points with Mr. Yuksel makes about the primacy and inviolability of the Qur’an, and his identification of problems with the Muslim tradition. I strongly disagree with his characterisation of Mr. Glazov, Mr. Spencer and Mr. Warner. Mr. Glazov, Mr. Warner and Mr. Spencer are merely stating the positions of traditional Islam. Given that millions upon millions of Muslims rely on the traditions of Muhammad and associated commentaries, it is only right that our panellists point this out. I also am perplexed about his characterisation of the United States, which is locked in a battle with traditional Islamic extremists.

I stand by my strong criticism of Mr. Massoud, and his ill-conceived approach to reforming Islam. Mr. Massoud has once again missed a golden opportunity to explain the methodology of his approach to unilaterally remove parts of the Qur’an. In response to Mr. Massoud’s initial question, I do believe that there are, at face value, contrary verses in the Qur’an. I do believe however that these verses can be rationalised, when read in a contextual manner. Recent translations of the Qur’an published by Mr. Yuksel, Amina Wadud, and the Progressive Muslims provide a new framework of thinking about these verses. Mr. Massoud’s assertion that if I recognise that there are contradictions in the Qur’an, I should automatically subscribe to his approach is pure absurdity.

Mr. Massoud is welcome to consider my argument that the Qur’an must be re-interpreted, as equally ludicrous and disingenuous. Fair enough. The reality is, however, there is a body of literature, and scholarly material which supports my arguments. There is an emerging body of literature from Muslim scholars, including Ahmed Subhy Mansour, Abdulahi Na’im, Kasem Ahmed, Amina Wadud, and others who have sought to challenge classical translation and interpretation of the Qur’an. These scholars have not attempted to “whitewash genocide”, but to end genocidal understandings of the Qur’an. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Mr. Massoud. Mr. Massoud’s has expressly rejected the work of Mahmoud Mohammed Taha, leaving him with no support from Islamic literature or scholars. In other words, Mr. Massoud’s approach lacks any theological support. Further, it is over-inclusive and ignores the entire body of Qur’anist literature. This is another reason why I consider Mr. Massoud’s approach to lack any intellectual rigour. My question to Mr. Massoud is, why have you ignored this body of literature and what is your response to their arguments for re-interpreting the Qur’an differently?

Despite Mr. Massoud’s continued insistence that his approach is both logical and practical, he has failed to demonstrate the case for either. Muslims are unlikely to accept an approach that lacks no methodology, or theological basis. If Mahmoud Mohammed Taha’s well crafted and hermeneutical approach can be rejected, I suspect that Mr. Massoud’s approach will garner no support among traditional Muslims. I have to admit, I am sceptical about Mr. Massoud’s claims of support among Muslims. I would hardly consider Mr. Massoud’s “online poll” to be empirical evidence of a paradigm shift among Muslims towards acceptance of his views. For him to attempt to use the results of this poll to demonstrate his point is misguiding, and dangerous. This relates to my earlier point that pseudo-reformers can be dangerous because they tend to build false expectations, and lull non-Muslims into a false sense of security.

I do not consider Mr. Massoud’s organisation to constitute a movement. For Mr. Massoud to say so is disingenuous. I would suspect that Mr. Massoud’s organisation contains not more than a handful of actual and committed members. This is hardly enough to be considered a movement at the cusp of challenging the traditional Islamic establishment. To conclude, my apparent hostility towards Mr. Massoud’s approach does not stem from my contempt of the notion of removing parts of the Qur’an, it stems from Mr. Massoud’s ineptness in being able to articulate an adequate rationale.

Warner: I would like to thank Mr. Yuksel for restating my thesis. The “beauty of the Koran is in the eye of the beholder”. There are three kinds of eyes that look at the Koran-the kafir, the dhimmi and the believer. Restated, all scholarship in Islam is either from the viewpoint of the kafir (kafir-centric), the dhimmi (dhimmi-centric) or believer (believer-centric).

For the believer, Allah is wise, forgiving, knowing, and so forth. But for the kafir, Allah is a hater, a torturer, a plotter, a sadist, and an enemy. Allah makes us kafirs. Then he goes ahead to tell the Muslims what filthy scum we are. The word “kafir” is the worst word in the human language. No other pejorative is so cruel, demeaning, bigoted, insulting, and hateful as kafir. Why? It is not just the Muslim who believes this, but Allah, himself.

From the kafir-centric point of view, the Koran is not remotely a holy book. For the scholar, who sees the Koran as simply another old text, the Koran is a derivative work, taken from the Torah, heretical Christianity, Zoroastrianism and the aboriginal Arabic religions. The only new ideas in the Koran are jihad and that Mohammed is the “messenger” of Allah.

Mr. Yuksel calls me, “brother Warner”. But, according to some 14 verses in the Koran a Muslim is not the friend of a kafir. Therefore, I cannot be your brother. And since you agree with my thesis that Islam does not use the Golden Rule, but instead uses “retaliation” (pure submission and duality), you cannot be my friend.

This is the saddest part of Islam. Islam rejects the bond of love between humans and substitutes submission, retaliation and other forms of dominance by the “best of people”. The Koran, Sira and Hadith say that you are better than me in every way, and that I am an enemy of all Muslims. It also says that Islam must destroy my civilization over time. The Trilogy says that that if you want to be my brother and friend then you are an apostate.

I also appreciate Mr. Yuksel giving us a perfect example of Islamic logic with his insults. This is pure Islam since the Koran is filled with insults. Mohammed insulted the kafirs as well. But Mr. Yuksel goes further and gives us an example of dualism. He says that he teaches logic and philosophy, so he knows insults are an example of the “ad hominem” fallacy, attacking the person, instead of the idea. Mr. Yuksel is a Western logician who uses Islamic insults as ad hominem attacks. This is contradictory. He holds two opposite “truths” in his mind at the same time. He does not see the compartmentalization and dualism of his own mind.

The divided Koran, the Koran of Mecca and the Koran of Medina, is the foundation of dualism. The two Korans are in contradiction, but Islam considers them both to be true. Dualism creates a mental barrier that compartmentalizes the mind and allows the Muslim to never be bothered by the contradictions, such as those stated here.

Dualism affects all Muslims. It creates a lack of empathy with the suffering of the kafir and an inability to see how the Koran is filled with hate for them. Kafirs are not really humans in the eyes of Islam. This is supported by the dualistic ethics of Islam. In Islam all Muslims are brothers and sisters, but the kafir may be treated well or murdered, robbed, raped…. When these things happen to us, Muslims never really take responsibility. The closest Islam gets to acknowledges our suffering, is to say, “Well, that … is not really Islam.” This is a total lack of empathy.

The gentlemen address the contradictions in the Koran and the nature of god. But they overlook the obvious. Allah is dualistic-he contradicts himself, but he is a perfect god. Therefore, the Koran is filled with contradictions and both sides of the contradiction are true.

Here we see the foundation of the Islamic doctrine of dualistic logic. Kafir logic is based upon eliminating contradictions. A contradiction in an argument shows that the argument is false. Islamic logic is based upon accepting contradictions as truth. It is a dualistic logic.

The genius of Islam is that it defines a dualistic morality and a dualistic logic that creates a civilization that is completely outside of kafir civilization. To try to apply kafir logic to eliminate contradictions about the Koran and Mohammed is to miss the point. Islam is inherently contradictory, that is its nature. There is no compromise or resolution between the two civilizations. We live in parallel universes.

Let’s take the concept of integrity. In kafir ethics integrity is a high measure of character. It means that our words and actions are consistent at all times. Integrity is a measure of unity and lack of contradictions. You can trust a man with integrity.

But, Islamic ethics allow the Muslim to lie or tell the truth to the kafir. [Mohammed consistently told his jihadists they could lie and deceive the kafirs to advance Islam.] Islam’s ethical values do not even allow a definition of integrity, since it permits deceit. The most common Islamic deceit is to only speak of the Koran of Mecca and equivocate about the Koran of Medina. Speaking half-truths is a lack of integrity, but it is not a fault in Islam. Mohammed had no integrity with respect to the kafirs, only with Muslims.

Kafirs see a contradiction in Mohammed being such a violent man and yet being called a prophet of a loving god. Muslims see this as a bountiful generosity of ethical choices Allah sets forth. They can be violent and peaceful. Muslims can have their cake and eat it too. They can choose peace and war and both are sacred choices. Islam offers a bounty of moral choices in its dualistic ethics.

I sense a need in our Muslim scholars to try to create an Islamic integrity that would be the same as the kafir is. But there is no bridge between unitary kafir ethics and dualistic Islamic ethics.

When Mr. Kasem says that I believe that the Koran can be reformed, I think that I did not pose my argument well enough. I argue that if the Koran is to be reformed, the only reform that matters to the kafir is to remove the kafir hatred. If you reform the text this way, 61% is eliminated. Of course that destroys the Koran. My argument is to assume it can be reformed and when we see the result, it is absurd. Reform leads to absurdity. Mr. Kasem and I agree, the Koran cannot be reformed; or if it is reformed, it is no longer the Koran.

Islam is a political and religious doctrine found in three books–Koran, Sira and Hadith. Those books are posited to be complete, eternal and perfect. They are all based on the principles of submission and duality. They form a unified whole. To reform one is to reform the others. So how is the reform of Islam possible? The Mohammed of Medina cannot be thrown out. The Koran of Medina cannot be deleted. The texts cannot be altered.

And there is no mechanism for reform. Our results–good, bad or indifferent-do not make any difference. There is no body or group that could vote or agree on any change. Islam is like wild yeast. There is no way to control it. It has no center.

The only reform that matters is the reform of the dhimmis into kafirs. Only as kafirs can we survive. We are a civilization that has been dhimmified. We refuse to acknowledge the 270 million killed and the enslavement of all races of humanity for 1400 years, the Tears of Jihad. We won’t teach about the dreadful spread of Islam that annihilated kafir culture in Egypt, North Africa, Anatolia (Turkey) Iraq and the Middle East. We won’t acknowledge that Islam has always annihilated all kafir civilizations.

The very idea of needing to take the time to argue about of the reform of Islam shows how we are a dhimmi civilization. A kafir civilization would have taught the doctrine and history of political Islam to us as children. We would know with whom we were dealing and why Islam does what it does. All of the knowledge of the Tears of Jihad, the suffering of the dhimmi and the doctrine of political Islam would have come in our mother’s milk.

Since we did not get this wisdom from our ancestors, we must teach ourselves the political nature of the Koran, Sira and Hadith. We must honor our dead by learning the stories of their suffering. Our reform efforts must not be directed towards Muslims. We must reform ourselves, stop being dhimmis and become kafirs.

Instead of reasoning with believers, we should reason with our dhimmi leaders, our near enemies. We should aggressively call them out and challenge politicians, ministers, rabbis, and media types who apologize for Islam. We should use our time more productively.

As a political goal, kafirs must demand that the history of the dhimmi and the Tears of Jihad-the 270,000,000 dead and the enslavement of the European, African and Hindu-must be taught in all levels of our public schools. The survival of our civilization depends upon it.

Yuksel: I would like to thank FP moderator for reminding the contradiction in my joining a panel that I accused of taking a ridiculous project seriously. I confess my guilt for becoming an accomplice with FP in discussing a silly agenda. However, a silly agenda can become a seriously silly agenda if it receives the attention of a serious media, like Frontpage. Regardless of the degree of my fault in this, I am going to let Masoud alone with his project. So, I will focus on other issues.

Kasem’s argument has some problems. He asks, “Who inserted those unkind, hateful, belligerent and barbaric verses?” I challenge him to quote verses fitting those descriptions from the Reformist Translation of the Quran without taking them out of their context. As for removing hadith and syra, we have already a powerful theological and historical argument for that. I invite Kasem to read the Manifesto for Islamic Reform.

As for Kasem’s invitation to “reform Islam and bring it to conform to the current civilized world,” I have to defer. What does “current civilized world” refer to? If it is referring to the practices of super duper powers that are major parties of the two world wars and responsible of numerous invasions, massacres, genocides, and atrocities that have caused the death and suffering of tens of millions, then such a “civilized world” is not worth conforming. However, if he is referring to the expressed ideals and the democratic practice of the civilized world, then it is a different story. Sure, I would also correct the “reforming Islam” to “reforming Muslims” or “Islamic reform”.

Kasem continues: “Unfortunately, Yuksel cannot refute Warner’s allegation that the Koran commands Muslims to kill the Kafirs.” Well, this symposium has limitations and I cannot properly answer all the laundry lists of accusations and distortions hurled by Kasem and Warner. If he is honest in his belief in Warner’s accusations, I recommend him to see my translation of those verses and my arguments in the endnotes, especially in the endnote for verse 9:29. He will learn that the Quran justifies fighting against aggressor and violent Kafirs, that is warmongering ingrates, not peaceful ingrates like Kasem and Warner.

Let me briefly deal with Warner’s complaint about the horrible descriptions of hell, which are clearly metaphors. A dash of logic, I believe will save Warner from his nightmare. If the Quran is not word of God, then he does not need to worry, since all those consequences will never happen. However, if the Quran is the word of God, then he should either save his complaint for the Day of Judgment to God and ask for forgiveness for his wrongdoing, or he should just accept the truth and set himself free from incubating false ideas. Thus, Warner has no good reason to fear ending up in hell. Perhaps, Warner’s complaint is less philosophical: “You see me deserving hell and you masochistically enjoy it.” No sir, just to the contrary. Otherwise, I would not have invited you to study the Quran without distorting it with false ideas borrowed from fabricated Sunni liturgy.

As for the America’s militaristic foreign policies and the Jewo-fascist aggression against Palestinians being “irrelevant topics,” no sir. We cannot discuss today’s reactionary Islamist movements and their fascist and violent organizations without considering their causes, effects, ecology and their opponents.

It is simply dishonest and foolish to focus on violence committed by Muslims but ignoring the much greater violence they have been subjected to by the so-called “civilized world” that does not terrorize but “shocks and awes”, does not torture but does “water-boarding”, does not kill civilians and children but turns millions of them into “collateral damage,” does not support dictators, but supports the oppressive and corrupt Leaders, Kings and Generals. There were no suicide bombers among Muslims until the Second Intifada, which started at a time when for every 1 Israeli soldier, 25 Palestinians, mostly teenagers, were being killed before year 2000. There was no al-Qaida until Afghanistan became the battle ground of the clashing “civilized world” in 1980s. There were little prospects of the so-called Islamic Republic in Iran, until the CIA planted back its dictator, Shah Reza Pahlawi, by toppling Iran’s elected prime minister in 1950s. There was no Hamas, until the Zionist regime destroyed Palestinian cities, massacred them in their tents and towns, and treated them like animals. Sure, there are Sunni and Shiite teachings justifying violence, but there are similar and even more violent teachings (and their historic practices) in Christian and Jewish teachings. So, you cannot ask us to close our eyes to the super barbarism and violence of the “civilized world”, and give all our attention to the Muslim barbarians.

No sir; only those who sold their sense of justice will buy your double standard. If we are for a peaceful world, we should show the wisdom, the honesty and bravery to denounce all parties promoting violence and atrocities. I have yet to hear a word from you condemning the atrocities committed against Muslims by Christian and Jewish soldiers. That is telling.

And Kasem manages to sneak in the “Islamist scholar” title while describing me. I think that it is not an innocent slip of tongue; it is a calculated and pathetic threat. Why? Because I do not use a double standard in condemning all sorts of terrorism and barbarism? Because I stand for justice and peace for all humanity? The adjective Islamist is used by the media for a group of reactionary forces that is intolerant of diversity, freedom and peaceful co-existence. Kasem intends to make me the target of his “civilized world” with its invasions, destructions, carpet bombing, “harsh interrogation techniques,” Gitmos, Abu Gharibs, millions of orphans, widows, and displaced people in just last few years.

I do not believe that Kasem is using that adjective by accident, since by now, he knows that I am one of the organizers of the Celebration of Heresy Conference, I am the author of Quran: a Reformist Translation, and he knows that I have brave standing against the Islamists, and my mentor and colleague was the first victim of Islamist terrorists in the USA. Despite all these facts, he attributes to me an adjective that describes my enemies. I understand his message very well: “Edip, if you continue exposing the violence and hypocrisy of my allies, then I will brand you with a title so that our civilized world will take care of you.” My only response to Kasem is this: a monotheist is the ultimate free person and cannot be hushed by implicit or explicit threats. We will see each other in the Day of Judgment, where God will be the only judge.

Kasem continues: “He accuses Jamie Glazov of relying on ‘unreliable hearsay stories’ for information about Muhammad, but fails to inform us that the great majority of Muslims around the world rely on those same ‘unreliable hearsay stories,’ and offers no program for convincing those hundreds of millions of Muslims of the historical weakness of these stories.” Wrong, again. If you had read the Reformist Translation or Manifesto for Islamic Reform you would learn that we offer a theologically consistent and very powerful argument to trash all those hearsay stories. No wonder, with little effort our message is welcomed by many around the world.

Kasem also finds the mathematical structure of the Quran hilarious, yet he does not provide a single substantial argument for his position, except claiming that some people reject it: “To take just one of many possible examples, he asserts that in the Qur’an ‘the frequency of the word YaWM (Day) is exactly 365.’ But another Muslim writer has noted that Yuksel only arrived at this total by not counting many forms of the word, including every time it appears as ‘that day’ rather than ‘the day’ or ‘a day.’ When Mr. Yuksel’s fellow Muslims so readily notice such inaccuracies in his presentation, it’s unlikely that many will accept his program for reform.”

I am glad that he brought that up. Well, he you looked at the entire argument, which is posted at my website, he would learn that my opponents finally accepted their error. See: http://www.yuksel.org/e/religion/365days.htm

As for Massoud, I will briefly mention his distortion of the Quranic verse 2:191. To serve his agenda, he plucks and chops the verse from its context. It is a primitive and yet a very common ploy used by intellectually bankrupt warmongers who push for another holocaust, this time against Muslims. Let’s read the verse together with its context from QRT:

2:190 Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress, God does not like the aggressors.*

2:191 Kill them wherever you find them, and expel them from where they expelled you, and know that persecution is worse than being killed. Do not fight them at the Restricted Temple unless they fight you in it; if they fight you then kill them. Thus is the reward of those who do not appreciate.

2:192 If they cease, then God is Forgiving, Compassionate.

2:193 Fight them so there is no more persecution, and so that the system is God’s. If they cease, then there will be no aggression except against the wicked.*

ENDNOTES:

002:190 War is permitted only in self-defense. See 9:5; 5:32; 8:19; 60:7-9.

002:193 God’s system is based on freedom of faith and expression. God’s system recommends an egalitarian republic, and a federally secular system that allows multiple jurisdictions for different religious or non-religious groups. See 58:12 and 60:8-9.

Now let’s look at Massoud’s quotation of the verse. He shows the audacity to expunge the verse which he just distorted by plucking and chopping it!:

“kill them [infidels] wherever you find them”.

Massoud reminds me of the anecdotal would-be businessman whose brilliant plan for a glass repair company is no more than breaking the glasses of windows in the neighborhood by giving slingshots to some brats. Distort the verses of the Quran through mistranslating, chopping and slicing, and then promote your crusade to save the world from those verses. And the success is guaranteed.

Massoud does his chopping and distortion in this very symposium on my own words. Let’s see how he distorts my position. “I see no reason to address Mr. Yuksel’s diatribe. Any Muslim who considers liberations of 50+ million Afghanis and Iraqis ‘cruel military invasions and occupations’ by ‘Neocon-led coalition of warmongers’ or believes that the Prophet or the Koran is above criticism is a radical.”

I have not opposed the invasion of Afghanistan, since I believe the USA was justified to attack there. Though, its conduct of war has been harshly criticized by human rights agencies, the USA had a legitamate reason for invading Afghanistan: al-Qaida. But, the same cannot be said about Iraq, and today the majority of American public has finally came to agree with my position, that war against Iraq had nothing to do with liberating Iraqies or fighting against terrorists, but a lot to do with oil, imperialistic agenda, and profit for war industry.

Massoud, deliberately distorts my position by mixing Afghanistan with Iraq, so that his audiance will have a knee-jerk reaction to whatever I may say. Massoud must be one of the few gullible people out there still buying the “liberating Iraq” mantra. That is his choice, but he has no right to distort my position about Afghanistan. Bill Moyer, in his recent film exposed the series of lies and scams played by the Bush’s neocon administration to lead the nation to an unnecessary war. The cost of this unjust war is enourmous: 4,000 dead Americans, tens of thousands injured, one million dead Iraqies, millions more injured… About 600 billion dollars have been wasted for this attrocious destruction and annihilation.

I have also, since 1986, never claimed that the Prophet of the Quran to be above criticism. To the contrary, in my books and articles, I emphasized his human side and vulnaribility to commit errors. Only God can be immune of errors and sins. Thus, in one sentence, Massoud manages to fabricate and attribute two false ideas to me, and I am still alive. If he lived centuries ago, perhaps he would be among those narrators who fabricated numerous hadiths in the name of the Prophet Muhammed. I will leave the rest of his aruguments, since it will take too much space to correct so many factual and logical errors he is commiting. Interestingly, he managed not to address any of my criticism to his project.

Now let me finish this round with Warner. . “Then he goes ahead to tell the Muslims what filthy scum we are. The word ‘kafir’ is the worst word in the human language. No other pejorative is so cruel, demeaning, bigoted, insulting, and hateful as kafir. Why? It is not just the Muslim who believes this, but Allah, himself.”

Here is the allegory for Warner: A hiker is attacked by a dozen hungry and angry javelinas and he starts throwing rocks at them while cursing at javelinas. After javelinas escape, he hears another hiker behind him complaining: “you are a bigoted, insulting, and hateful man. I am a javelina and you hurt my feelings.” Warner is proudly volunteering for the title kafir (ingrate, unappreciative, aggressor) as it is described in the Quran, and at the same time he is complaining about its meaning! Kafirs are described by the Quran to be active opponents of monotheists who are unappreciative and aggressive, oppressive, misogynistic, racist, or hypocritical. Furthermore, there is variety of kafirs (ingrates) and each treated according to the severity of their hostility, aggression and crimes. For instance, the Quran condemns the ingrates (kafirs) for attacking weak men, women and children (4:75-76), and Warner’s feelings are hurt because we are asked to stand against those Kafirs.

No wonder Warner has blinded himself to the progressive message of the Quran and sees nothing novel in it but “Jihad and Muhammad.” I would invite him to see the list of verses in the beginning of the Reformist Translation describing Muslims, Islam and the Quran, but with this attitude he might have handicapped himself to appreciate the wisdom in the Quran.

As for me calling him “Brother Warner.” The Quran calls all humanity as the “children of Adam,” in other words, sisters and brothers. “O children of Adam enter the peace all together.” However, now learning that Warner is a hostile opponent, an ingrate activist against the message of the Quran which promotes peace, freedom and justice, I cannot call him “brother” in this context. So, his system is to him, mine is to me.

Warner complains about me insulting him through ad hominem attacks. I will leave it to the reader to compare my statements critical of Warner’s position with the definition of ad hominem. What Warner does is called projection, and I confess he is very good at it. If anyone is defaming and attacking a historical character based on selective hearsay sources, my pointing at the contradiction and dishonesty in such a tactic cannot be considered ad hominem, since it is perfectly relevant.

Warner accuses the Quran for condemning the Kafir (the unappreciative, the aggressor opponent): “Dualism affects all Muslims. It creates a lack of empathy with the suffering of the kafir and an inability to see how the Koran is filled with hate for them.” Well, I invite the readers to read all the verses that describe and define Kafirs and then ask themselves whether anyone who acts as such is worthy of empathy. According to the Quran Kafirs kill and evict people because of their beliefs, Kafirs violate the treaties, Kafirs kill children and women, Kafirs engages in slavery, Kafirs do not appreciate God’s blessings, Kafirs considers women lower than man, Kafirs do not help the poor, etc.

Warner continues his diatribes and vitriolic attacks: “But, Islamic ethics allow the Muslim to lie or tell the truth to the kafir. [Mohammed consistently told his jihadists they could lie and deceive the kafirs to advance Islam.] Islam’s ethical values do not even allow a definition of integrity, since it permits deceit.” The real deceit is committed by Warner, since he knows that I do not subscribe to hearsay stories about Muhammad, to the contrary that I reject all. He is implicitly attacking my integrity by referring to the sources that ironically neither of us trusts. I challenge him to find a single verse in the Quran permitting Muslims to lie. The Quran, however, is a realistic book and do not promote the Kantian principle of categorical imperative. For instance, if one fears of injury or death because of his opinion and conviction, that person might choose to hide his opinion to avoid harm to his or her person. If Warner is imprisoned by Taliban, perhaps he would act the same way to avoid harm to his person. Warner is so biased and hostile; he has blinded himself to hundreds of verses advising people to be honest, truthful even if it is against their interest and family members. Furthermore, the Quran advises Muslims not to defend a group of Muslims who violated the treaty between Muslims and non-Muslims, thereby putting the rule of law above religious affiliation.

Warner might defend his position by pointing at Shiite and Sunni liturgy. Then, he should also declare Christians and Jews too with lack of integrity and honesty, since the Bible and Talmud contain numerous verses encouraging deceit and double standard. If I had no integrity and honesty, as Warner suggest, I would be acting as a stooge of the powerful. But, anyone familiar with my struggle since my youth will know that Warner’s attack to my integrity and honesty is a pathetic lie. Ironically, he is the one who is attacking my person rather my position, and he is using falsehood. He is the one who is making a diabolic accusation, since his accusation is not falsifiable. Whatever I do, whatever I say, Warner’s accusation regarding my intention will remain unchallenged.

Warner is rightly critical of Muslim invasions and occupations in the past. I condemn all aggression regardless of the religion or tribe of the culprits. In my articles and books I have promoted the Quranic position clearly. However, Warner, unable to face me and my reformist theology, is resorting to punching the straw man in his pocket. Well, he does not only punch the straw man, he attempts to eat it. For instance, he puts the following words in my mouth in an accusatory tone: “We won’t acknowledge that Islam has always annihilated all kafir civilizations.” ALWAYS? Well, surprise: Though I question the Islamic identity of the empires he is alluding to, yet I accept that statement in general, since history contradicts what Warner wants us to believe.

Muslims had invaded Spain and ruled there for about five hundred years. But, for the most part, Jewish and Christian population found justice and peace in Muslim Spain. Furthermore, when Muslims were forced out from Spain, we know what they left behind: a Christian population, libraries, universities, civilization, seeds of reform and renaissance in Europe. The same with the Ottoman Empire. They invaded south eastern part of Europe for a long period of time, and we know what they left behind. Compare those two great empires, which I am fond of neither, and their evil deeds during the course of 1000 years to the destruction and atrocities of the USA-Inc led by a born-again Christian president overwhelmingly supported by evangelical Christians just in Iraq alone during the course of just 5 years. Warner has never condemned the atrocities of the USA-Inc, but I have in my writings condemned the atrocities committed by Muslim kings, caliphs, and empires numerous times. Who has honesty and integrity? I will not ask Warner from which hat has he pulled out the 270,000,000 dead, since I know if he can get the ALWAYS despite several hundreds years of exception, I am surprised that he did not get 27 billions dead.

FP: There is so much rhetoric here that I wouldn’t even know whereto start. Suffice it to say that when America liberated Iraq it freed 25 million Muslims from a Fascist dictator. The destruction and atrocities there are not the result of what the U.S is doing; they are the result of Islamist violence and Islamic sectarian violence. If the jihadists never waged war in Iraq, if they didn’t intend to build a caliphate, and the Sunnis and Shiites never massacred each other, there would have been no destruction and atrocities; there would be a building of a civil, democratic and modern society, which is what the U.S. objective is.

There were no suicide bombers among Muslims until the Second Intifada because the Palestinians had not reached the zenith of their genocidal program against Israel. The death cult had not completely manifested itself until then. And what triggered the Second Intifada? Israeli Prime Minister Barak offered the Palestinians their own state and the possibility of peace at Camp David in July 2000. It was an extraordinarily generous offer. But because the Palestinians lust to kill Jews more than to have their own state, they punished the Israelis severely for this offer and began to kill not only Jews but also themselves and their own children — by strapping them up with bombs and sending them into Israeli restaurants and cafes.

Mr. Yuksel, I am shocked at the equivalency you apply to Islamic and Judaic and Christian teachings. Surely you know that when Christians have behaved in aggressive ways, their acts were not based on Christian teachings; their acts were un-Christian. The same cannot be said for Muslims when they engage in aggression and intolerance, since such behavior is a fulfillment of their theological mandates. All the schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach that it is part of the responsibility of the umma to subjugate the non-Muslim world through jihad. There is nothing in the New or Old Testament that teaches any such thing.

Kasem: I thank Robert Spencer for pointing out the gross inanities in the arguments of Mr. Khalim Massoud and for admonishing the very angry and belligerent tone of Mr. Yuksel’s red herring fallacies. Robert Spencer has correctly identified the true problem with the Koran. Like him, I agree that the efforts of either Mr. Massoud or Mr. Yuksel to tamper with the Koran with their own version of interpretations and/or contextual relevance will be of little importance to the vast majority of the Muslims.

Mr. Massoud relapses to contradictory statements, again and again. It is difficult to proceed with dialogue with such absurd arguments and statements. For example: when I posed the question: How is it possible for an infallible God (Allah) to contradict Himself? Mr. Massoud’s answer was:

“It is impossible. That’s why we believe that the contradictory parts of the Koran did not

come from God.”

Then in other parts Mr. Massoud writes:

Let me clarify it. God is infallible. If he were fallible, he wouldn’t be God.

I never claimed that the Koran is infallible and that Allah is the sole author of the modern Koran.

There is virtually no internal debate or discourse on the whether the Qur’an is complete or “perfect”.

We are not trying to change the Koran, we are trying to un-change it.

Past attempts to reform Islam were made inside Islamic world when reformers were greatly outnumbered. Now we have many non-Muslims on our side.

Honestly, Mr. Massoud, I do not get what is the true message you want to convey to your readers. Do you want to reform the Koran with such convoluted and hard-to-understand statements?

Just like Mr. Thomas Haidon, I do not at all trust your poll. Firstly, the sample size is too small to have any statistical significance, secondly, when I added up the figures you quoted for the Muslim response it was merely 10 percent and not 25 percent that you claimed. Correct me if I am wrong in interpreting your statistics.

Mr Warner grasped the essence of Islam when he wrote:

Islam is inherently contradictory, that is its nature. There is no compromise or resolution between the two civilizations. We live in parallel universes.

It is true that there cannot be any compromise with Islam. In Islam, it is either submission or annihilation. Thus, currently, we have two worlds, confronting each other: the world of Islam and the world of un-Islam. This state of perpetual confrontation is stated in a number of verses in the Koran (such as: 4:76, 3:175, 40:51-52, 47:7, 58:19, 58:21). This state of everlasting altercation precludes any reformation of the Koran and Islam.

Mr. Warner wrote further:

If you reform the text this way, 61% is eliminated. Of course that destroys the Koran. My argument is to assume it can be reformed and when we see the result, it is absurd. Reform leads to absurdity. Mr. Kasem and I agree, the Koran cannot be reformed; or if it is reformed, it is no longer the Koran.

I thank Mr Warner for stating the reality about the futility of creating a new Koran a-la Khalid Massoud and Mr. Yuksel.

In passing, it will be interesting to note the fate of another reformist of the Koran in our time, Rashad Khalifa.

Mr. Yuksel is very fond of throwing challenges. He writes:

I challenge him to quote verses fitting those descriptions from the Reformist Translation of the Quran without taking them out of their context.

How nice of Mr. Yusel to ask me to meet his challenge by using his version of the Koran. Even the dumbest person will know the trap you have set. Why must I trust your version of the Koran when the age-old, and the most eminent translators are there? Mr. Yuksel, please tell me why must I not trust the most celebrated exegetes of the Koran, such as Jalalyn, ibn Abbas, ibn Kathir, Maududi and so on? Are you claiming they are inferior to you, or that they did not understand the Koran?-rather you are the only person who correctly understands the Koran? I could easily challenge you to prove these eminent scholars of the Koran to be wrong. But I shall refrain from this, as this will simply render me as a person bent on vengeance.

Having said this, let me provide just one example of how the Koran commands the Muslims to fight and kill the infidels.

Mr. Yuksel, I am certain you have heard about the verse of the ‘sword’. Let us read what the eminent exegetes of the Koran has to say on this verse

After the four sacred months (Rajab, Zulqad, ZulHajj, Muharram) have passed, slay (fight and kill) the pagans wherever (that is, the earth in general-ibn Kathir) they are found. (Do not wait until you find them, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in various roads and fairways and force them to Islam. If they do not embrace Islam, then kill them. This verse allowed Muslims to fight the non-Muslims until they embrace Islam. These verses allowed fighting people unless and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations. Allah mentioned the most important aspects of Islam here, including what is less important-ibn Kathir, Jalalyn, ibn Abbas. Also see 2:190, 2:194, 5:2, 8:39, 9:36) if they repent and become believers then forgive them. (Note: This verse is called the verse of the sword. This verse abrogates all verses of forgiveness to the pagans. i.e., this verse cancels about 124 verses that espouses mercy, tolerance and forgiveness to the pagans)…9:5

I am certain Mr. Yuksel will deny the tafsirs of ibn Abbas, Jalalyn, and ibn Kathir. But please tell us who understood the Koran better-those who were close to Muhammad (such as ibn Abbas), and those earlier Islamist scholars, or the 21st. century scholar such as you?

Mr. Yuksel then advises me to read his tafsir of verse 9:29. As mentioned previously, what is wrong with the tafsirs of the most eminent Islamic scholars?

Mr. Yuksel writes:

He will learn that the Quran justifies fighting against aggressor and violent Kafirs, that is warmongering ingrates, not peaceful ingrates like Kasem and Warner.

This seems fair enough. If we extend the logic of the Koran to justify war and killing against the warmongering then why should Mr. Yuksel blame the West for what it is doing? They are simply responding to the armed insurgency of the Islamist terrorists. Why is it that only Islam has the inalienable right to fight oppression and injustice and not the others? Surely, you are now caught in your own logic. Do you not think that countries such as India, Egypt, Turkey, Tunisia have the right to invade Saudi Arabia and exact reparation for what the Arab invaders did to these lands? Do you not agree that the Jews and the Christians have the right to settle in Medina, in their ancestral lands, from where they had been forcibly evicted by Caliph Umar? Be fair, and let us know.

Mr. Yuksel even issued a challenge to Mr. Warner. He wrote:

I challenge him to find a single verse in the Quran permitting Muslims to lie.

Well, Mr. Yuksel, here are a few verses for you to peruse, of course they are not your translation. If you do not trust the most eminent translators, why must we trust your translation?

Allah judges you by your innermost intentions not by your swearing by Allah (foundation of Islamic taqiyya and kitman; telling lies and adopting deception for the sake of Islam is permissible; also see 3:28, 40:28, 16:106, 66:2)…2:225

Do not take unbelievers as friends; caution is necessary to befriend the unbelievers (the foundation of Islamic taqiyya and kitman;). (Do not befriend the deniers, even if they are among the closest relatives. In case of danger, Allah allows Muslims to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. The taqiyya is allowed until the Day of Resurrection. Allah has reserved unremitting torment for those who give their support to His enemies, and those who have enmity with His friends.-ibn Kathir; it is all right to tell lies/ adopt deception (taqiyya and kitman) for the sake of Islam. Maududi 3/25: This means that it is lawful for a believer, helpless in the grip of the enemies of Islam and in imminent danger of severe wrong and persecution, to keep his faith concealed and to behave in such a manner as to create the impression that he is on the same side as his enemies. A person whose Muslim identity is discovered is permitted to adopt a friendly attitude towards the unbelievers in order to save his life. If he considers himself incapable of enduring the excesses to which he may be subjected, he may even state that he is not a believer.)…3:28

A believing man among the Pharaoh, who hid his faith (He was the paternal cousin of Pharaoh-Jalalyn), defended Moses, but Pharaoh said that he (that is, Pharoh himself) holds the supreme authority. (This believing man was an Egyptian Copt, a cousin’s son the paternal uncle of Pharaoh; only Pharaoh’s wife and this man were the believers. They concealed their faith from the Egyptians-ibn Kathir; foundation of Islamic taqiyya and kitman; telling lies and adopting deception for the sake of Islam is permissible)…40:28-29

Allah’s wrath is for the apostates; apostasy under duress is forgiven (foundation of Islamic taqiyya and kitman; telling lies and adopting deception for the sake of Islam is permissible; otherwise, there is a dreadful punishment for an apostate)…16:106-107

Muhammad (Muslims) is allowed to break oaths in certain cases (not specified) Allah is Muhammad’s protector (it meant that Muhammad is allowed to break his vows to his wives or others; foundation of Islamic taqiyya and kitman; telling lies and adopting deception for the sake of Islam is permissible.)…66:2

To duck the main issue Mr. Yuksel the resorts to America, Palestine, Afghanistan, and so on. This tactic is nothing new, whenever Islam is scrutinized, the Islamists often bring in such red herrings to divert the attention. Nevertheless, we can defeat Mr. Yuksel’s diatribe by simply saying that whatever the Americans and the non-Muslim world is doing is just to protect their interest. Why must the world be apologetic to Islam? Why does the Islamic world think that the world owes it a living, that they have the right to fight ‘injustice’ and ‘oppression’?. When America does not act to remove an Islamic despot, she is criticized for supporting a tyrant. But when America deposes a brutal dictator like Saddam, she is chastised for invading Iraq and killing innocent people.

Currently, in Iraq, the major fighting is between various factions of Islam. In Pakistan, Egypt, Thailand, Bangladesh, Indonesia, there are no American soldiers, yet what do we read in the newspapers? Amazingly, Mr Yuksel is completely coy on this.

Mr Yuksel chastises me for having called him an Islamist scholar. I have no intention to hurt you, neither do I attack you personally. Because you have such an impressive background in the knowledge of the Koran and Islam, is not this fair to call you a scholar of Islam? You even translated the Koran (in your own way). Only people who have unparallel knowledge of the Koran and Islam could do such a feat. So, is it wrong to say that you are an Islamist scholar? If you are perturbed with the epithet ‘Islamist’ then let us know what would be the best way to describe you.

Mr Yuksel wrote:

Kasem intends to make me the target of his “civilized world” with its invasions, destructions, carpet bombing, “harsh interrogation techniques,” Gitmos, Abu Gharibs, millions of orphans, widows, and displaced people in just last few years.

This is just a fib. I never issued any threat to Mr Yuksel. Please show me a single sentence where I have done this.

Mr Yuksel continues:

I do not believe that Kasem is using that adjective by accident, since by now, he knows that I am one of the organizers of the Celebration of Heresy Conference, I am the author of Quran: a Reformist Translation, and he knows that I have brave standing against the Islamists, and my mentor and colleague was the first victim of Islamist terrorists in the USA. Despite all these facts, he attributes to me an adjective that describes my enemies. I understand his message very well: “Edip, if you continue exposing the violence and hypocrisy of my allies, then I will brand you with a title so that our civilized world will take care of you.” My only response to Kasem is this: a monotheist is the ultimate free person and cannot be hushed by implicit or explicit threats. We will see each other in the Day of Judgment, where God will be the only judge.

Again, this is a very old game of playing victim. Mr Yuksel, I wish you all the best. Despite our differences, I have great respect for your scholarship and for your courage to proceed with the reformation of Islam. I have no personal enmity with you, rest assured on this.

FP: Mr. Kasem, why do you call Mr. Yuksel an “Islamist scholar”? Surely you see why he has taken offense to this. He says he is not an Islamist and he appears to be fighting Islamism and this is why he has been threatened by Islamists. Why don’t you just call him an “Islamic scholar.”? Surely you see the difference here?

Kasem: All right, if Mr Yuksel is offended by the term ‘Islamist’ then I do apologize. Yes, I have no objection in calling him an Islamic scholar.

The reason why I thought that he might be an Islamist scholar, is the manner, in which he attacked America and the non-Islamic world, holding them responsible for all the ills of the Islamic world. This is quite simlar manner in which the Islamists often attack the non-Islamic world, to justify their jihad and terrorism.

Now that Mr Yuksel has clarified himself, I would recognise him as a scholar of Islam rather than an Islamist scholar. Hope this should suffice.

FP: Thank you Mr. Kasem.

Mr. Yuksel, Mr. Kasem has a point does he not? If you are really part of the anti-Islamist agenda and are on the side of the West, why do you spend so much of your time and energy in this symposium attacking America and the non-Islamic world, blaming them for Islam’s tyranny and failures? Why do you apply moral equivalency in the terror war? Why do you attack the noble members of this panel that have the courage to point to the ingredients of Islam that fertilize Islamic terror? They have put their lives on the line to tell the truth. Surely you are aware that your words and stances on many of these realms serve the Islamist agenda, no?

And Mr. Kasem has made an apology in terms of the label “Islamist” in being applied to you, despite the doubts you put in peoples’ minds with some of your positions and attacks. You have made some attacks in the symposium as well. Do you think you owe anyone an apology of any kind?

Because this symposium has become way too long and you are getting an extra turn, kindly try to be brief.

Yuksel: Since I am asked by the FP Moderator to be brief I will not be able to respond to all the spins and distortions. I will only address briefly to a few points and will post my response in detail later at 19.org. Mr. Glazov asserts, “All the schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach that it is part of the responsibility of the umma to subjugate the non-Muslim world through jihad. There is nothing in the New or Old Testament that teaches any such thing.”

Our school of Islamic jurisprudence does not teach such a thing. To the contrary, we consider such an belief and practice to be anti-Quranic and Satanic. (I know, the modern inquisition court will continue accusing me and the Quran with the contrary).

As for FP moderator’s second assertions: The Old Testament contains numerous instructions for violence and terror, which cannot be attributed to a benevolent and just God. They are mixed and introduced together with beautiful and constructive instructions:

“Joshua and his men utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, ox, sheep and ass, with the edge of the sword.” (Joshua 6:20-21).

“Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” (1Samuel 15:3)

“Israel’s God will direct his jealous anger against Babylonians, Chaldeans, Pekod, Shoa, Koa, and the Assyrians, and they will be dealt with in fury. Their noses and ears will be cut off, and they will fall by the sword. Their sons and daughters will be taken, and those who are left will be consumed by fire.” (Ezekiel 23:25)

In the Manifesto for Islamic Reform, I have listed several dozens of Biblical verses expressing the cruel, violence, racist and misogynistic teachings of the Old Testament, which pales compared to Thalmud.

The New Testament, however, contains a different teaching. Nevertheless, since the New Testament relies on many verses of the Old Testament and there are ambiguities regarding the degree of its validity for Christians, Christians have justified many barbaric acts, atrocities, and torture by using and abusing the verses of both Old and New Testaments. For instance, see:

· Mat 5:17-19, 29-30;

· Mat 10:34;

· Mat 19:12;

· Mat 21:19;

· John 15:6 (was abused by the church and used together with Exodus 22:18 to burn witches)

· 1 Peter 2:13-14 (following this instruction, many atrocities and wars were committed by Christians)

As for Kasem’s question: “Mr. Yuksel, please tell me why must I not trust the most celebrated exegetes of the Koran, such as Jalalyn, ibn Abbas, ibn Kathir, Maududi and so on? Are you claiming they are inferior to you, or that they did not understand the Koran?”

This is a fair question, yet it also tells me that Kasem has no idea about our translation and our arguments. He is just happy to classify me with his stereotypes and criticize me with no knowledge at all. Since I have to cut this short, I will invite the reader to check my translation and find the my answer to this question, which initially sounds reasonable.

I would like to end this section with the following verses:

2:109 Many of the people of the book have wished that they could return you to being unappreciative after your acknowledgment, out of envy from themselves after the truth was made clear to them. You shall forgive them and overlook it until God brings His will. God is capable of all things

2:110 Observe the Contact prayer, and contribute towards betterment, and what you bring forth of good for yourselves, you will find it with God. God sees what you do.

Eternal Salvation is not Exclusive to a Race or Sect

2:111 They said, “None shall enter paradise except those who are Jewish or Nazarenes;” this is what they wish! say, “Bring forth your proof if you are truthful.”

2:112 No, whosoever peacefully surrenders himself to God, while being a good-doer; he will have his reward with his Lord. There will be no fear over them, nor will they grieve.

3:84 Say, “We acknowledge God and what was sent down to us and what was sent down to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, the Patriarchs, and what was given to Moses, Jesus and the prophets from their Lord. We do not discriminate between them, and to Him we peacefully surrender.”

FP: Well, Mr. Yuksel, you say, “Our school of Islamic jurisprudence does not teach such a thing.” I am a bit confused. What is the name of your madhhab (school of Islamic jurisprudence)? I have never heard of it. Who established it and when? How many adherents does it have? How do you propose to convince Muslims to forsake the traditional view and follow yours?

Again, one can find quotes in the Old Testament that are violent, but the key distinction is that there is no equivalent teaching of subjugating by force the world of the unbelievers.

The Qur’an clearly teaches that Muslims are the “best of peoples” (3:110) while the unbelievers are the “vilest of creatures” (98:6). And these vilest of creatures must be converted, killed or subjugated. There is no equivalent in Christian or Judaic teachings in terms of this theme. And that is why there are no armed Jewish or Christian groups anywhere in the world today who are committing acts of violence and justifying them by referring to any of their religious texts. And throughout history, the texts, for instance, that Mr. Yuksel has pointed to, have never been taken as divine commands that either must be or may be put into practice by believers in a new age. And this is the key: all these passages are descriptive, not prescriptive. None of these scriptures amount to any kind of marching orders for believers. They nowhere command believers to imitate any kind of described violent behavior, or to believe under any circumstances that God wishes them to act as his instruments of judgment in any situation at any time.

And this is why Jews and Christians haven’t formed terror groups around the world that quote these Scriptures to justify killing civilian non-combatants. And this is why violent jihad is a constant of Islamic history – and why violent warfare in the name of Christianity is not a constant of Christian history. There was never a consensus among Jews or Christians that their religious texts justified violence and none of their sects of any significance ever taught that they did.

In any case, it is noted that Mr. Kasem found something to apologize for, but that Mr. Yuksel did not.

Robert Spencer, your turn.

Spencer: Nothing I have read in this elephantine and contentious exchange has led me to modify my view that, as Mr. Haidon has said, “Muslims will never accept, on any level, removal of parts of the Qur’an.” Not only are large numbers of Muslims ever likely to accept a drastically edited Qur’an, but they are also unlikely ever to flock to a wholesale reevaluation of Islamic theology involving the dismissal of the Hadith and Sira as “hearsay stories.”

Mr. Warner is correct: “And there is no mechanism for reform. Our results–good, bad or indifferent-do not make any difference. There is no body or group that could vote or agree on any change.” Many strange things have happened in history and I would never say that Islamic reform is absolutely impossible, but Westerners are extraordinarily foolish when they harbor any hopes of it actually happening on a large scale. We need instead to focus on efforts to defend ourselves both militarily and culturally from the jihadist challenge, and to continue to call the bluffs of pseudo-reformers who intend ultimately only to deceive Western non-Muslims – many of whom are quite anxious to be deceived.

Because of the entrenched nature of Islamic orthodoxy, and its willingness to commit violence to enforce conformity, I am skeptical of the claims put forward by both Mr. Massoud and Mr. Yuksel to the effect that Muslims are flocking to their reform efforts.

Mr. Warner’s insight is excellent — that “all scholarship in Islam is either from the viewpoint of the kafir (kafir-centric), the dhimmi (dhimmi-centric) or believer (believer-centric).” In a world in which dhimmi-centric and believer-centric studies dominate the universities and media treatments of Islamic issues, Mr. Warner and others have stepped into the breach and begun to provide kafir-centric analyses to help non-Muslims understand exactly what we are dealing with. I myself have tried to fill a gap in kafir-centric scholarship on Muhammad with my book The Truth About Muhammad, and on the Qur’an in my Blogging the Qur’an series at hotair.com. At this point, which such a fog of ignorance and propaganda enveloping us and impeding our understanding of the jihad threat, to be informed is an essential first step.

And Mr. Warner is also quite right, of course, that “for the believer, Allah is wise, forgiving, knowing, and so forth. But for the kafir, Allah is a hater, a torturer, a plotter, a sadist, and an enemy. Allah makes us kafirs. Then he goes ahead to tell the Muslims what filthy scum we are.” This dualism is deeply rooted in the Qur’an, which tells Muslims to be merciful to one another but harsh or ruthless to unbelievers (48:29), and tells them that they are the “best of people” (3:110) while the unbelievers are the “vilest of created beings” (98:6). Even worse, unbelievers have no control over their fate – while there are many verses in the Qur’an that assume that human beings have free will, early in Islamic history the proponents of this idea, the Qadariyya, were defeated, and human free will was declared a heretical infringement of Allah’s absolute sovereignty.

The guiding principle on this issue in Islamic theology has been Qur’an 10:99-100: “And if thy Lord willed, all who are in the earth would have believed together. Wouldst thou (Muhammad) compel men until they are believers? No soul can believe, except by the will of Allah, and He will place doubt (or obscurity) on those who will not understand.” Allah even boasts that he could have made everyone a believer, but instead will fill hell with humans and spirit beings: “If thy Lord had so willed, He could have made mankind one people, but they will not cease to dispute, except those on whom thy Lord hath bestowed His Mercy, and for this did He create them. And the Word of thy Lord shall be fulfilled: ‘I will fill Hell with jinns and men all together.'” (11:118-119).

This put the unbeliever in the position of being a victim of Allah’s decision not to make him a believer – a decision over which the unbeliever has no control, but for which he will suffer. This only reinforces the idea that the unbeliever – hated by Allah, more vile than any other creature, is not to accorded basic human respect. The presence of such material in the Qur’an first demonstrates, along with the Islamic supremacist and violent material that is also in the Qur’an, that a Qur’an-only Islam would not necessarily be an Islam in which Muslims respect and live in peace with their neighbors as equals

When, however, Mr. Warner makes his excellent observations about the position in which Islam puts the kafir, the inimitable Mr. Yuksel responds by scratching his head in wonder that anyone would want to be classed as an unbeliever. “There is variety of kafirs (ingrates),” he informs us, “and each treated according to the severity of their hostility, aggression and crimes. For instance, the Quran condemns the ingrates (kafirs) for attacking weak men, women and children (4:75-76), and Warner’s feelings are hurt because we are asked to stand against those Kafirs.” But unless Mr. Yuksel is postulating that anyone who doesn’t believe in Islam will inevitably attack weak men, women and children, he is putting the cart before the horse.

The fundamental reason why the Qur’an demonizes kafirs is because they are kafirs, and any evil they do other than disbelieve in Allah flows from that disbelief. This is the sort of attitude, as Mr. Yuksel’s demeanor here abundantly demonstrates, that militates against establishment of the basic respect that is required for people of differing views to live together in peace. For orthodox Muslims, and even unorthodox ones like Mr. Yuksel, to be able to have that respect would require that they first reject all this demonization. But it is deeply embedded in the Qur’an.

Mr. Yuksel errs when he attributes to the estimable Abul Kasem this statement: “He accuses Jamie Glazov of relying on ‘unreliable hearsay stories’ for information about Muhammad, but fails to inform us that the great majority of Muslims around the world rely on those same ‘unreliable hearsay stories,’ and offers no program for convincing those hundreds of millions of Muslims of the historical weakness of these stories.” Actually, I said that, and I stand by it. Mr. Yuksel responds to this by saying, “If you had read the Reformist Translation or Manifesto for Islamic Reform you would learn that we offer a theologically consistent and very powerful argument to trash all those hearsay stories.”

That’s great, if it’s true, but that’s only part of what I said. Since Mr. Yuksel doesn’t deign to share his “theologically consistent and very powerful argument” with us, but only asserts that it exists, I can’t evaluate the chances of its gaining wide acceptance among Muslims worldwide, but that remains the key question. I haven’t heard of any of the established Islamic sects or jurisprudential schools or the ulama of any Muslim country embracing his vaunted Reformist Translation. Perhaps Mr. Yuksel would be so kind as to provide us with a list.

Mr. Yuksel again errs by attributing to Abul Kasem my objection to his Qur’anic numerology. I pointed out that another Muslim writer had noted the forced and artificial character of Mr. Yuksel’s apologetic, and concluded that “When Mr. Yuksel’s fellow Muslims so readily notice such inaccuracies in his presentation, it’s unlikely that many will accept his program for reform.” Mr. Yuksel, however, now tells us that his “opponents finally accepted their error.” In this, however, he did not simply ask us to take his word for it, but gave us a link – and I went there, only to find the Muslim source to which I had referred earlier saying this about Mr. Yuksel: “He is the man who published a list, supposedly of all occurrences of the word ‘day’ in the Qur’an, and this list was false on its face, and even more false when examined in detail. If I have erred in my publication, I invite correction, something Yuksel does not do; in fact he hates it.”

This is Mr. Yuksel’s opponent eating crow? It is in fact illustrative of a trait Mr. Yuksel shares with the Islamists he abhors: an inability to engage in self-criticism, and the displacement of one’s own faults onto another, as in his complaint about Mr. Warner’s alleged “diatribes and vitriolic attacks,” when he himself is the only one who has actually engaged in such attacks. I am not saying, after all the squabbles above, that Mr. Yuksel is an Islamist; however, his attitudes are still redolent of the supremacism and contempt that characterizes Islamists. I respectfully suggest that his reform efforts would find better reception were he to rid himself of such attitudes.

Finally, he tells us that in his Reformist Translation we will “learn that the Quran justifies fighting against aggressor and violent Kafirs, that is warmongering ingrates, not peaceful ingrates like Kasem and Warner.” Unfortunately, given the widespread Muslim belief that a resistance to or even a simple rejection of Islamic proselytizing constitutes “aggression,” or that non-Muslims are aggressors against Allah for having rejected Islam, this is not enough to establish a framework for peaceful coexistence between Muslims and non-Muslims as equals on an indefinite basis.

Finally, Abul Kasem’s question is highly pertinent and brilliantly put: “Mr. Yuksel, please tell me why must I not trust the most celebrated exegetes of the Koran, such as Jalalyn, ibn Abbas, ibn Kathir, Maududi and so on? Are you claiming they are inferior to you, or that they did not understand the Koran?”

To this, Mr. Yuksel answers only by telling us that he has answered this question elsewhere. Great. But in a symposium discussing the reform of Qur’anic ideas and Islam in general, it would have been nice if he had deigned to favor us with his wisdom on this all-important question. And his ridiculous finger-pointing Bible quotes, which are used today by no Jewish or Christian group to justify violence, have already been well answered by Jamie Glazov. But they put the coup de grace to any hope I might have had that we will see any real reform effort coming from such quarters.

FP: Khalim Massoud, Abul Kasem, Edip Yuksel, Thomas Haidon, Bill Warner and Robert Spencer, thank you for joining Frontpage Symposium.

Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine’s managing editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s Left Illusions. He is also the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left and the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union (McGill-Queens University Press, 2002) and 15 Tips on How to be a Good Leftist. To see his previous symposiums, interviews and articles Click Here. Email him at [email protected].

Symposium: The Fictional Muhammad?

By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | 3/7/2008

Is the Muslim account of Muhammad valid? To discuss this issue with us today, Frontpage Magazine has assembled a distinguished panel. Our guests today are:

Edip Yuksel, a Kurdish-Turkish-American author and progressive activist who spent four years in Turkish prisons in the 1980”s for his political writings and activities promoting an Islamic revolution in Turkey. He experienced a paradigm change in 1986 transforming him from a Sunni Muslim leader to a reformed Muslim or rational monotheist. He is the founder of 19.org and the Islamic Reform organization. His personal site is yuksel.org . His recent major work, Quran: a Reformist Translation, has been recently published by BrainbowPress, after being cancelled by Palgrave-Macmillan, which followed the fatwa of a “very established scholar.”

Robert Spencer, a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of seven books, eight monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including the New York Times Bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is Religion of Peace?

Bill Warner, the director of CSPI Publishing and the spokesman for Political Islam.com.
and

Thomas Haidon, a Muslim commentator on human rights, counter-terrorism and Islamic affairs. He is active in the Qur”anist movement and works with a number of Islamic reform organisations as an advisor. He has provided guidance to several governments on counter-terrorism issues and his works have been published in legal periodicals, and other media. Mr. Haidon has also provided advice to and worked for United Nations agencies in Sudan and Indonesia.

FP: Edip Yuksel, Thomas Haidon, Robert Spencer and Bill Warner, welcome to Frontpage Symposium.

Edip Yuksel, let me begin with you.

I think a good way to begin this discussion is to talk about Muhammad in the context of women”s rights. What, for instance, are your thoughts on our video about the violent oppression of women in Islam? Some critics would argue that this reality is the outgrowth of the foundation that Muhammad laid down in terms of his own teachings and also his own actions in terms of women. Do you agree?

Yuksel: No I do not agree. The video portrays a sickening reality, but if Muhammad came back today, these same people would declare him an apostate and heretic and would perhaps stone him to death.

FP: But just a second, some would argue that the misogynist pathologies in the Islamic world (i.e. female genital mutilation, forced marriages, child marriage, forced segregation, forced veiling, honor killings etc.) are engendered by the second-class status accorded to women in Islam and the demonization of female sexuality that is rooted in Islamic theology.

Are the teachings and actions of Mohammed himself in regards to female equality, rape and sexual slavery, not a part of this issue? Is his life, what he taught, and how he led by example really irrelevant to Muslims who seek to follow their religion in terms of how women are treated?

Mr. Yuksel, what do you make of the track of evidence in terms of Mohammed as demonstrated by Bill Warner? Can you explain how and why it is irrelevant when it comes to Islamic gender apartheid? Please also take a look at how Robert Spencer has documented Mohammed”s life in his new book — and this book is based on Islamic sources.

Are Spencer”s and Warner”s findings about the Muslims” prophet really irrelevant, especially when they are all based on Islamic sources and agreed to — and pointed too — by Muslim clerics and scholars themselves?

Yuksel: None, yes none of these innovations can be found in the Quran, the only book delivered by Muhammad; they were imported from other cultures and sanctified or they were innovated centuries after the revelation of the Quran. Not only they do not exist in the Quran, they contradict it. Hadith (hearsay narrations falsely attributed to Muhammad and his companions) and their collections have been the prime tool in distorting the progressive message of Islam. The reactionary forces, misogynistic ideas and practices, racism, tribalism, superstitions, despotism, and many other vices of the “days of ignorance” were resurrected and sneaked back into the minds and lives of Muslim communities after they were rejected by the early Muslims at great cost.

Soon after Muhammad”s death, thousands of hadiths (words attributed to Muhammad) were fabricated and two centuries later collected, and centuries later compiled and written in the so-called “authentic” hadith books:

• to support the teaching of a particular sect against another (such as, what nullifies ablution; which sea food is prohibited);
• to flatter or justify the authority and practice of a particular king against dissidents (such as, Mahdy and Dajjal);
• to promote the interest of a particular tribe or family (such as, favoring the Quraysh tribe or Muhammad”s family);
• to justify sexual abuse and misogyny (such as, Aisha”s age; barring women from leading Sala prayers);
• to justify violence, oppression and tyranny (such as, torturing members of Urayna and Uqayla tribes; massacring the Jewish population in Medina; assassinating a female poet for her critical poems);
• to exhort more rituals and righteousness (such as, nawafil prayers);
• to validate superstitions (such as, magic; worshiping the black stone near the Kaba);
• to prohibit certain things and actions (such as, prohibiting drawing animal and human figures; playing musical instruments; chess);
• to import Jewish and Christian beliefs and practices (such as, death by stoning; circumcision; head scarf; hermitism; rosary);
• to resurrect pre-Islamic beliefs and practices common among Meccans (such as, intercession; slavery; tribalism; misogyny);
• to please crowds with stories (such as the story of Miraj (ascension to heaven) and bargaining for prayers);
• to idolize Muhammad and claim his superiority to other messengers (such as, numerous miracles, including splitting the moon);
• to defend hadith fabrications against monotheists (such as, condemning those who find the Quran alone sufficient); and even
• to advertise products of a particular farm (such as, the benefits of dates grown in a town called Ajwa).

In addition to the above mentioned reasons, many hadith were fabricated to explain the meaning of the “difficult” Quranic words or phrases, or to distort the meaning of verses that contradicted the fabricated hadith, or to provide trivial information not mentioned in the Quran (such as, Saqar, 2:187; 8:35…).

In terms of discrimination against women:

Verse 49:13 unequivocally rejects sexism and racism, and reminds us that neither man nor female, neither this race nor that race is superior over the other. The only measure of superiority is righteousness; being a humble, moral and socially conscientious person who strives to help others.

49:13 – O people, We created you from a male and female, and We made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Surely, the most honorable among you in the sight of God is the most righteous. God is Knowledgeable, Ever-aware.

As I have demonstrated in the Quran: a Reformist Translation and Manifesto for Islamic Reform, the message of the Quran is a liberating and progressive one. I would appreciate if you share the following table from Manifesto regarding some topics involving misogynistic ideas and practices in today”s so-called Muslim societies:

Teachings Based on the Man-Made Sources, Such As, Hadith, Sunna, Ijma, and Sharia

The Quranic Verses Contradicting these Teachings, and
Brief Discussions on Their Sources

When Muhammad was 53 years-old, he married Aisha who was only 9 years-old.

This is another lie by the enemies of God and His messenger. They tried to create a moon-splitting, tree-moving, child-crippling superman with the sexual power of 30 males (Verse 24:11-12 with its non-specific language, prophetically addresses this lie too). Muhammad was an honorable person and would not have a sexual relationship with a child (68:4; see 4:5-6). Discrepancies in the historical account show a deliberate attempt to reduce Aisha”s age. This lie is perhaps produced to justify the sexual excesses of kings and the wealthy. They tried to justify their violence, oppression, injustice, sexual transgressions, and many other crimes through the fabrication and promotion of hadith.

The menstruating women should not touch the Quran, should not pray and should not enter the mosques.

This is based on a misunderstanding of at least two verses. Verse 56:79 is not an inscriptive but a descriptive verse about understanding of the Quran. The only verse mentioning menstruation forbids sexual intercourse during menstruation since it is considered a painful period (2:222), and does not forbid women from praying or reading the Quran.

The Quran prohibits sexual relationship with a menstruating woman, not because she is dirty, but because menstruation is painful. The purpose is to protect women”s health from being burdened by the sexual desires of their husbands. However, the male authors of the Old Testament, exaggerated and generalized this divine prohibition so much so that they turned menstruation to a reason for their humiliation, isolation, and punishment. (Leviticus 15:19-33)

Despite the Quranic rule, the followers of hadith and sunna adopted Jewish laws that consider a woman unclean, and treat her like dirt for fourteen straight days of every month. According to the fabricated rules of the Old Testament, a menstruating woman is considered unclean for seven days, and during that period wherever she sits will be considered unclean; whoever touches her or sits where she sits must wash and bathe. After she finishes the menstruation, she has to wait for seven more days to be considered clean for ceremonial purposes. (Leviticus 15:19-33)

Women should not lead congregational prayers, and it is not recommended for them to participate either.

The verse instructing those who acknowledge the truth to gather for congregational prayer does not exclude women (62:9). The Quranic expression, “O you who acknowledge…” includes both men and women. Thank God, we have ended this misogynistic rule since 1999 and women have been leading congregational prayers and giving speeches ever since The end of the world did not come, nor did anything bad happen. To the contrary, we are now blessed with being members of a balanced congregation.

Women are mentally and spiritually inferior to men.

If a donkey, a dog, or a woman passes in front of the praying person the prayer is nullified.

Hell will be filled with mostly women; women are deficient in intelligence and religion.

These are male chauvinist statements that reflect a diabolic arrogance, and lack appreciation of half of the human population, who are the mothers, sisters, friends, and wives. (9:71; 33:35)

This is another misogynistic statement falsely attributed to Muhammad by so-called “authentic” hadith books. If we measure the level of intelligence by people”s response to those who questioned their dogmas and superstitious beliefs, men have not scored better than women. Most of those who committed violence against the messengers and prophets were the male leaders, and most of those who distorted their message after their departure, again were all male religious leaders.

With a few exceptions based on biological differences or special conditions, men and women are considered equal in every aspect. The Quran expressly states the equality of man and woman, by the expression “you are from each other” ( 4:25). Furthermore, it reminds us of the common origin of both sexes and the purpose of why God created us as male and female, is the purpose being love and care (30:21) . Hadith sources do not reflect a loving and caring relationship between man and woman, but an arrogant, chauvinistic and patronizing attitude towards women. Unfortunately, when consultation and election was replaced by monarchy and satanic khilafa (theocratic rule), the rights women enjoyed with the revelation of the Quran were taken one by one, and within two centuries after Muhammad, Muslims reverted to the misogynistic attitudes and practices of the pre-Islamic days of ignorance.

The rights of women during the time of prophet Muhammad is reflected with all its power in verse 58:1, where a Muslim woman argues with Muhammad regarding her husband. God does not reprimand that woman; to the contrary, God sides with the grievances of the woman and criticizes the superstition. A critical study of hadith and history books will reveal that even those books contain many hints regarding the individual, social and political rights enjoyed by women during the era of revelation and even decades afterwards. History books report that Aisha, Muhammad”s wife, in her old age became the leader and commander of a major faction that participated in a civil war that took place thirty years after the departure of Muhammad.

Verse 60:12 informs us of the rights and privileges enjoyed by women in the early Muslim community during the life of Prophet Muhammad. In that verse, the prophet acknowledges women”s right to vote, by taking the pledge of believing women to peacefully surrender themselves to God alone and lead a righteous life. The word ” BaYA”” used in the verse implies the political nature of the pledge; they accepted the leadership of the prophet individually, with their free choice. This verse is not about some pagan or mushrik women embracing Islam, but rather about a group of Muslim women publicly announcing their allegiance to Muhammad who became a founder of a federally secular constitutional government in central Arabia. This is a historical document that Muslim women were not considered default appendices of their decision-making husbands, brothers, fathers or male guardians, but Muslim women were treated as independent political entities who could vote and enter into social contract with their leaders. Unfortunately, many of the human rights recognized by Islam were later one by one taken away from individuals, especially from women, by the leaders of Sunni and Shiite religions; they replaced the progressive teaching of the Quran and practices of the early Muslims with hearsay fabrications thereby resurrecting the dogmas and practices of the days of ignorance. It took humanity centuries to grant women their God-given rights. For instance, the US recognized the right of women to vote in 1919 by passing the 19th Amendment, exactly, 13 centuries after it was recognized by the Quran. As for the region that once led the world in human rights and freedom, it is more than 13 centuries behind! After women, the men too lost their dignity to elect their leaders. What a regression!

According to the Quran, Mary was a sign for the world just as Jesus was (21:91). The Quran reports that Abraham”s wife together with her husband welcomed male guests, participated in conversation, and laughed loud in their presence. She was not reprimanded for participating. To the contrary, at that meeting, God blesses her with the good news of pregnancy with Ishaq (11:71).

Verse 49:13 unequivocally rejects sexism and racism, and it reminds us that neither male nor female, neither this race nor that race is superior over the other. The only measure of superiority is righteousness; being a humble, moral and socially conscientious person who strives to help others.

The Quran is filled with verses referring to men and women in a neutral language that treats them equally (3:195; 4:7,25,32,124; 9:68-72; 16:97; 24:6-9; 33:35-36; 40:40; 49:13; 51:49; 53:45; 57.18; 66:10; 75:37-39; 92:3).

The Old Testament and St. Paul”s Letters in the New Testament contain many misogynistic instructions. I recommend comparing Torrey”s index for entries on ”Man” and ”Woman.” The comparison will show how the Old Testament and St. Paul are biased against women. St. Paul ”s misogynistic teaching is a reflection and extension of a historical trend. The Old Testament contains many man-made misogynist teachings. For instance, a woman is considered unclean for one week if she gives birth to a son, but unclean for two weeks if she gives birth to a daughter (Leviticus 12:1-5).

Here are some of the misogynistic Biblical verses that changed so-called Muslims” attitudes towards women centuries after the Quran:

• Woman was created from Adam”s ribs (Genesis 2:21-22).
• Woman was deceived by Satan (Genesis 3:1-6; 2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Timothy 2:14 ).
• Woman led man to disobey God (Genesis 3:6,11-12);
• Woman was cursed (Genesis 3:16);
• Woman is weaker than man (1 Peter 3:7);
• Woman is subordinate to man (1 Corinthians 11:7).

Women should be covered from head to toe under a veil. Women should be confined in their homes. Women should be segregated in public places.

Societies, on certain occasions, times, or places might choose to segregate the sexes, but none can sanctify those decisions in the name of God.

After a brief period of freedom and progress women enjoyed during the revelation of the Quran and several decades afterwards, they lost many of their human rights because of the fabricated misogynistic teachings introduced under the title of hadith, sunna, and sharia of various sects (3:195; 4:19,32; 9:71; 2:228).

The word “KHuMuR” in 24:31 is a plural noun that comes from the root word of “KHaMaRa” which means, “to cover.” It is used for any cover, not exclusively for headscarves. An extensive Arabic dictionary, Lisan-ul Arab, informs us that the word was even used for rugs and carpets, since they cover the floor. The singular form of the same word “KHaMR,” has been used for intoxicants, which “cover” the mind (5:90). In verse 24:31, God advises female Muslims to maintain their chastity and put their covers on their chests, not their heads! Additionally, the word ” fel yedribne = they shall put, they shall cover” is significant in that verse. If KHuMuR meant head cover, the verb, “fel yudnine = they shall lengthen,” (like in 33:59) would be more appropriate.

Another distortion involves the word “ZiYNa” of verse 24:31. Muslim clergymen have abused this word to cover women from head to toe. They considered almost all parts of female body as ZiYNa. Reflecting on the rituals of ablution for the daily prayers, one can easily infer that women can publicly open their faces, hair, arms, and feet as an act of worship (5:6). Therefore, opening their faces and arms is indeed an act of worship; and they are not required to worship in secret or segregated places (17:110). If a man stares at a woman who is taking ablution and is sexually aroused it is not her fault, but it is either a symptom of his psychological problems or an indication of the deep-rooted problems in that society. By requiring women to cover any of these parts of their body, religious scholars have turned a religious ritual into a matter of sexual expression.

It is up to women to cover themselves for their own protection. It is not up to men or moral police to mandate or impose this divine instruction on women, since the instruction is personal and specific to women. Besides, the language of the instruction is deliberately designed to accommodate different cultures, norms, conditions, and individual comfort level. A divine recommendation to protect women from the harassment of unrighteous men should not be abused to justify the harassment and oppression of self-righteous misogynistic men.

Verse 33:52 informs us that Muhammad was attracted to the physical beauty of women. No reasonable man is attracted to the “beauty” of women walking in black sacks. Despite this verse informing us that Muslim women during the time of Muhammad were interacting with men, their faces open, those who tried to deprive women from social and political life and from their individual and group identity, went to the extreme and issued religious fatwas mandating a veil to cover their faces. The veil is a satanic innovation designed to turn women into the slaves of men who claim to be lords and masters.

Verse 60:12 mentions the practice of another role model, prophet Muhammad. Muhammad did not receive any divine warning regarding the danger of the devil during this face-to-face interaction! Furthermore, the Quran permits men and woman to eat together or to help each other (24:61; 3:195; 9:71).

The Quran, for important political reasons, advises to the wives of the Prophet not to mingle with people as they used to (33:32-33). The advice is due to protecting Muhammad and his spouses from the defamation campaign started by the unappreciative crowd ( 8:30-31; 24:11-20).

Ironically, the followers of hadith ignore their own history regarding the condition of women during the time of Muhammad and the four “guide leaders”: Aisha, Muhammad”s wife, is reported to lead a faction of Muhammad”s companions after his departure. How could have Aisha lead men and women, in peace and war, if she did not interact and communicate with them, if she did not have her own identity, if she was imprisoned in her home or in her black veil?

The Quran provides several examples of women being active role models in their societies and interacting with men, such as Abraham”s wife (11:69-71; 60:4-6), Muslim women in Madyan with one whom Moses married (28:23-28), the Queen of Sheba who later surrenders to the will of God (27:34:40), and Mary (19:16-30; 3:42-43; 66:11-12). Muslim women were so outspoken that they could engage in debate with Muhammad (58:1), and women pledged allegiance and voted for Muhammad”s leadership (60:12).

Therefore, segregating men and women has no Islamic basis; it is a un-Quranic practice imported from misogynistic teachings of St. Paul and the Old Testament.

Segregation in places of worship existed as an innovation among Jews (Exodus 38:8; 1 Samuel 2:22 ) and reached its zenith with additional condemnation and degradation with St. Paul who condemned women for Adam”s sin and silenced them in the public arena.

“Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says.” (I Corinthians 14: 34)

“For a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.” (I Corinthians 11:6-9)

“Let a women learn in silence with all submission. And do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless, she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love and holiness, with self-control.” (I Timothy 2:11-15)

The followers of hadith and sunna adopted the misogynistic teachings of St. Paul , and still many of them clung onto them as their religion, while most of Christendom has meanwhile mutated many times and quietly ignored and abandoned those teachings. In the Christian world, St. Paul”s teachings have been partially rejected; women no longer cover their heads, and they no longer stay silent in churches. It is ironic that today”s Sunnis and Shiites follow more seriously many of the teachings of Judaism and Christianity than the Jews and Christians themselves.

A woman cannot divorce her husband on her own.

Verse 2:228 establishes equal rights to both genders. By associating and even preferring numerous collections of lies and innovations to the Quran, the followers of hadith and sunna denied Muslim women the right to divorce and turned them into slaves of male despotism.

A man can divorce his wife by uttering some words three times.

Sectarian scholars who ignored the Quran and upheld volumes of books of hadith and sunna, issued laws (sharia) allowing the marriage contract to be terminated with several words coming from the husband”s mouth. Divorce is an event lasting several months; it is not just an oral declaration of the male spouse. A wife cannot be divorced by announcing, “I divorce you three times.” This ease and one-sided divorce created miserable marriages and destroyed many families. Many men, who “divorced” their wives by uttering the magical word ” talaq” (divorce) unintentionally or in the heat of anger, desperately looked for a solution (fatwa), and found mullahs and religious judges selling fatwas to save their marriage! The class that created the problem in the first place became the benefactor of the solution (2:226-230; 9:34-35; 33:49).

The New Testament takes the opposite direction; divorce is considered a great offense and after the marriage, none should divorce, except for reasons of adultery. Marriage after divorce is committing adultery (Matthew 5:32; 19:9).

Polygamy up to four women is permitted. One can marry four previously unmarried women. Men do not need the consent of his wife(s) for polygamy.

The Quran does not limit the number of women. Though the Quran allows polygamy (4:3), it discourages its practice by requiring certain conditions: a man can marry more than one, only to the widows with children and should try to treat them equally ( 4:19-20, 127-129). Besides the consent of the former wife(s) is essential since they have the right to object or divorce their husbands. Unfortunately, verse 4:127 has been traditionally mistranslated as to allow marriage with juvenile orphans rather than their mothers. The word ” ibkar” in verse 66:5 too has been mistranslated. For discussion on verses, 4:127 and 66:5 please see the notes.

It is an injustice to blame the Quran for advising us to care about the orphaned children and their widowed mothers. These verses primarily advocate the economic interests, psychological and biological needs, and social status of orphans, especially during war. Unfortunately, the enemies of the last prophet who attributed volumes of fabrications to him (6:112-116), have distorted the meaning and purpose of these wonderful divine precepts.

Muhammad”s marriages to widows had political and social reasons. Unfortunately, the permission for polygamy was distorted and it became a means to satisfy the libido of the rich and dominant males. The all-male scholars, to achieve their goal used hadith and distorted the meaning of verses, such as 4:3-6, 4:127 and 66:5.

Here, we should note that exaggerated examples of polygamy, explicit details of sexual affairs, and stories of incest have been inserted into the Bible. We find much similarity between stories in hadith books and those Biblical stories. For instance, 1 King 11:3 claims that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Anyone familiar with the current versions of the Bible would know that it contains numerous textual problems, translational errors, and contradictions. Numbers in the Bible are easily subjected to distortion, exaggeration, or simple scribing errors. For instance, we see a big difference in the number of charioteers killed by David. It is 700 according to II Samuel 10:18 and it is 7000 according to I Chronicles 19:18. Note that both numbers are whole numbers and the discrepancy is ten times.

A little attention to the numbers of wives and concubines attributed to Solomon would reveal a deliberate attempt to make it as round as possible. 700+300=1000. Total of seven zeroes! Most likely Solomon had a few wives. Contrary to the Quran that exhorts muslims to help widows, the misogynistic Rabbinical teachings inserted to the Old Testament put them in the category of harlots, and finds them unworthy of marriage by the privileged class, priests (Leviticus 21:14).

In terms of male and female circumcision:

Modifying God”s creation for religious purposes is considered evil (See 4:119). Obviously, foreskin is not an abnormality in God”s creation; it is the norm. Attempting to change such a creation through surgery to attain salvation is superstition (13:8; 25:2; 32:7; 40:64; 64:3; 82:6-9).

Sunni sources report many contradictory stories regarding circumcision. For instance, Ahmed B. Hanbal in his Musnad reports that Usman bin el-As refused to participate in a circumcision ceremony, since he considered circumcision an innovation. The Sunni historian Taberi reports that Caliph Abd al-Aziz rejected the suggestion of his advisors that the people of Khurasan should be circumcised; they were converted to “Islam” to avoid paying extra tax! Bukhari gives contradictory numbers for the year Abraham was allegedly circumcised, 80 versus 120. Bukhari who reports hearsay regarding the circumcision of converts and women, also reports that when Greeks and Abyssinians embraced islam they were not examined at all by Muhammad.

Hadith books, including Bukhari, contain numerous hadiths promoting circumcision including female circumcision, which is a torturous mutilation. However, hadith fabricators somehow forgot to fabricate hadiths about the circumcision of prominent figures during the time of Muhammad. More interestingly, since the practice of circumcision was adopted centuries later, they missed the opportunity to attribute this practice to Muhammad himself. Sunni scholars, therefore, came up with another so-called miracle: Muhammad was born circumcised. This would answer those who wondered about the absence of such an “important” record in the books of hadith and sunna.

The Quran never mentions Abraham practicing circumcision. If indeed Abraham did such a surgery on himself, perhaps he wanted to eliminate some kind of infection, and the blind followers who later idolized him turned his personal deed into a religious ritual. Looking at the history of the Jewish people and their trials and tribulations, it is more likely that this is an invention of Rabbis to mark the endangered race and protect it from extinction. Introducing innovations in religious communities may need some “holy stories” to attribute the innovation to historical idols.

The Quran never mentions the adventures of the Biblical character Samson who had a bizarre hobby of collecting the foreskins of the thousands of people he killed by the jaw of an ass (Old Testament Judges 15:16).

The Old Testament contains hyperbolic exaggerations and bizarre practices. For instance, ignoring the discrepancy in the number of mutilated penises read the following verses from Bible:

“So David rose and he and his men went and struck down among the Philistines two hundred men, and David came bringing their foreskins and giving them in full number to the king, to form a marriage alliance with the king. In turn Saul gave him Michal, his daughter, as a wife.” (1 Samuel 18:27).

“Then David sent messengers to Ish-Bosheth son of Saul, demanding, ”Give me my wife Michal, whom I engaged to myself for a hundred foreskins of the Philistines” (2 Samuel 3:14).

Using a bundle of foreskins of mutilated genitals of the dead bodies of enemy as the symbolic show of manhood, and literally using them in exchange for a woman is appalling and insulting to women.

In sum:

Men and women, in general, have some differences because of their different biology, and have some different needs and roles. However, some sex roles and inequalities are created by society and exploited by men. In order to let nature and justice prevail over superficiality and injustice, it is imperative to have the following: 1) Equal respect and appreciation of roles regardless of their gender, 2) Equal chance for both males and females to choose their roles freely and responsibly, And 3) Laws to promote and guarantee these two goals.

FP: Thank you Mr. Yuksel. Robert Spencer, go ahead.

Spencer: All sincere and genuine attempts to reform Islamic theology so as to reinterpret and/or remove violent and supremacist elements are to be welcomed. They are to be welcomed all the more wholeheartedly when they keep a consistent focus on the purpose that all such efforts have or should have in the first place: to convince Muslims that jihad violence and Islamic supremacism are not “pure” and “true” Islam, as the jihadists themselves claim, but that there is another way to live out their faith that is consistent and authentic on its own terms.

Edip Yuksel, when he says that “none of these innovations can be found in the Quran, the only book delivered by Muhammad” and that the Hadith are “hearsay narrations falsely attributed to Muhammad and his companions” that “contradict” the Qur”an, argues for the proposition that the Qur”an alone holds authority for Muslims, and that the Hadith is to be dismissed out of hand. This view is being espoused by an increasing number of reform-minded Muslim thinkers in the West, and there are certainly many immediate apparent merits to this view – stoning for adultery, the death penalty for apostasy and the compulsory covering of all but a woman”s face and hands all come from the Hadith, not the Qur”an. A Qur”an-only Islam gives the hope that such practices, and others that have no Qur”anic foundation (although stoning is a bit of a problematic case, since in one Hadith Umar informs us that it was originally in the Qur”an, and should be considered to be from Allah, and some Muslim exegetes see the death penalty for apostasy in Qur”an 2:217 and/or 4:89) could easily be jettisoned.

As comforting as this may be to non-Muslims and Western-minded Muslims, the fundamental question for this and for all genuine reform efforts is: what chance do they have to become widely accepted among Muslims? One way to evaluate this is to examine the obstacles it will face in gaining such acceptance. The chief obstacle that Yuksel”s blanket dismissal of the Hadith will encounter among Muslims is the fact that acceptance of ahadith that have been deemed authentic by traditional Islamic authorities is very deeply rooted within Islamic tradition. All Muslims agree that some ahadith were fabricated, but few would agree with Yuksel that all of them are. While he may be able to make a case for this on strict historical grounds, since in reality the historical foundations even for the ahadith that Muslims deem authentic are quite shaky, he will have a harder time compelling Muslims to accept such historical judgments even against ahadith that have been deemed authentic by authoritative Islamic scholars such as the Imams Bukhari and Muslim.

In fact, the acceptance of the Hadith is itself grounded in the Qur”an, in its exhortations to Muslims to “obey Allah and his Messenger” – that is, Muhammad (3:32; 3:132; 4:13; 4:59; 4:69; 5:92; 8:1; 8:20; 8:46; 9:71; 24:52; 24:54; 33:33; 47:33; 49:14; 58:13; 64:12; cf. also 24:47; 24:51; 24:56). Qur”an 4:80 even says, “He who obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah.” It is Muhammad who “commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure)” (Qur”an 7:157).

How can Muslims obey such emphatic and oft-repeated commands after the death of Muhammad? The traditional answer to this question has been the Hadith. Muslims are told to follow what Muhammad commands, and only in the hadith can those commands be discovered. The Tafsir Anwar ul-Bayan, for example, articulates this traditional view in sharp terms: “Those who reject the Ahadith do not accept the position that Allah accorded to the Holy Prophet…Those who reject the Ahadith seem to object to Allah for conferring this position to the Holy Prophet…In this way, they actually reject the Qur”an since verses like the one above [7:157] clearly reveal that the duty of the Holy Prophet was much more than that of a mere postman.” In other words, Muhammad is more than just Allah”s messenger: he is, according to Qur”an 33:21, uswa hasana, an excellent example of conduct, the supreme model for emulation. Muqtedar Khan of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy explains:

No religious leader has as much influence on his followers as does Muhammad (Peace be upon him) the last Prophet of Islam….And Muhammad as the final messenger of God enjoys preeminence when it comes to revelation – the Qur”an – and traditions. So much so that the words, deeds and silences (that which he saw and did not forbid) of Muhammad became an independent source of Islamic law. Muslims, as a part of religious observance, not only obey, but also seek to emulate and imitate their Prophet in every aspect of life. Thus Muhammad is the medium as well as a source of the divine law. (“The Legacy of Prophet Muhammad and the Issues of Pedophilia and Polygamy,” Ijtihad, June 9, 2003.)

This is a traditional and mainstream Islamic understanding. I wish Mr. Yuksel well in its efforts against it, but caution non-Muslim observers against assuming that he will achieve easy or widespread acceptance for his views among Muslims.

Unfortunately, there are also some problems with his analysis on strict Qur”anic grounds alone – problems that will also hinder the acceptance of his reform efforts among Muslims. Mr. Yuksel asserts, for instance, that Qur”an 49:13 “unequivocally rejects sexism and racism, and reminds us that neither man nor female, neither this race nor that race is superior over the other.” Qur”an 49:13 says, “O people, We created you from a male and female, and We made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another.” While it would be comforting indeed to see this as a blanket rejection of the male supremacism and commodification of women that mars so much of Islamic tradition and culture, on its face it is nothing of the sort. It merely states that Allah has created people from a male and a female, and says nothing that contradicts Qur”an 4:34 — which, interestingly enough, in his lengthy exposition Mr. Yuksel does not quote at all. Yet besides its notorious command to beat disobedient women, this verse says: “Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other…” That doesn”t sound like an unequivocal rejection of sexism to me. Nor does the condition of women in the Islamic world in general, expecially where Islamic law is rigorously applied, testify to a widespread understanding that Qur”an 49:13 has established equality between the sexes. Here again, I wish Mr. Yuksel well with his reform efforts, but I suspect that all too many traditional Muslims will quote 4:34 against his views. I look forward to his explanation of how he might respond to them.

Similarly, in his refutation of the proposition that “women are mentally and spiritually inferior to men,” Mr. Yuksel never mentions Qur”an 2:282, which stipulates that for testimony,” if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her.” It was on the basis of this verse that, according to a hadith, Muhammad declared that women are “deficient in intelligence and religion.” When a woman challenged him on this statement, he replied: “Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man? This is the deficiency in her intelligence.” Mr. Yuksel may deny the hadith, but the Qur”an verse upon which it rests remains.

In conclusion, I find it unfortunate that Mr. Yuksel so often has recourse to the Bible in his attempts to show the Qur”an and Islam to stand for enlightenment and equality. For whatever the actual barbarity of any of the Biblical verses he quotes may be, the unpleasant fact remains that it is not Jews and Christians, but Muslims, who today are applying teachings that render normative “bizarre practices.” Judaism and Christianity have developed interpretative traditions that mitigate the literal understanding of such material, while Islam has not – and no religious reform has ever succeeded when the reformers simply ignored uncomfortable material, as Mr. Yuksel has here so far, rather than confronting it.

Haidon: The Center”s video is a sickening reminder of the nature and foundations of what we are facing. The Muslim account of Muhammad (via the Hadith and Sirah) is replete with references to Muhammad”s alleged appetite for tyranny, oppression and violence of the worst kind. Both Mr. Spencer and Mr. Warner”s work painstakingly sets out this account in clear terms. I am deeply troubled by much of the Muslim historical account of Muhammad as enshrined in the Hadith and Sirah. While in many instances these sources portray the Prophet as a moral and upright, other instances portray a sinister picture of violence against women, and non-Muslims, and in some cases sexual violence.

Similar to Mr.Yuksel, I advocate a Qur”anist approach to Islam which seeks to marginalise/de-emphasise the so called Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad towards greater deference to the Qur”an which, in Islam, is divine revelation (whereas the latter sources are not). Although there are some differences in our approaches. I will allow Mr Yuksel to respond to Mr. Spencer”s observations about the rationalist movement to de-emphasise the Sunnah. I will say however that there is a growing Qur”an based rationalist movement that is “walking the talk” so to speak by developing intellectual and theological responses to Islam”s underlying problems which address and refute Mr. Spencer”s concerns. Mr. Yuksel”s translation, as well as the work of Ahmed Subhy Mansour, Caner Taslaman and the scholars at www.free-minds.org and www.quranists.org provides a framework for addressing the key issues.

In reality, however, we cannot ignore the entire written account of Muhammad, whether it be enshrined in the Quran, Hadith or Sirah. I would like nothing more than to be able to inform my co-panelists that I have every confidence that Muhammad did not commit any of the atrocities attributed to him. However I think from a practical perspective it is a difficult case indeed to sweepingly disregard the historical account of Muhammad or to categorically say that it is false. It also poses strategic problems. Nonetheless, whether or not the Muslim account of Muhammad is fictional or fact, the reality is that Muslims rely on that history regardless.

FP: Mr. Haidon, if you don”t mind me following up with you for a moment in terms of your own faith. If it is a difficult case to sweepingly disregard the historical account of Muhammad or to categorically say that it is false, as you say, how and why do you remain a Muslim? I don”t mean this in an aggressive or accusatory way, but more in a hope to open up the discussion and to crystallize, perhaps, what it means to be a Muslim for many Muslims who are ready to be honest about the truth regarding their own Prophet.

Haidon: “The Messenger said “My Lord, my people have deserted this Qur”an” (Qur”an, 25:30)

Shall I seek other than Allah as a source of law, when He has revealed this book fully detailed? ….The word of your Lord is complete , in truth and justice. Nothing shall abrogate His words; He is the hearer, the omniscient. Yet, if you obey the majority of people, they will take you away from the path of The God. That is because they follow conjecture, and they fail to think.” (Qur”an, 6:114-116)

And We have sent down the Book to you as a clarity for everything, and a guidance and mercy and good news for those who Submit.” (Qur”an 16:89)

Allah has revealed herein the best Hadith [the Qur”an]; a book that is consistent, and points out both ways. The skins of those who reverence their Lord cringe there from, then their skins and their hearts soften up for Allah”s message. Such is Allah”s guidance; He bestows it upon whoever wills. As for those sent astray by Allah , nothing can guide them.” (Qur”an39:23)

In summary, I am Muslim and will remain Muslim because I believe in the primacy of the Qur”an and its wisdom. I believe that the Qur”an is complete, and provides comprehensive guidance to Muslims when interpreted contextually. I believe in the principle in the Qur”an that all Prophets are equal, and that Muslims must not distinguish between them. I believe that to blindly follow the Sunnah and place it in close parity to the Qur”an is a form of shirk.

To be clear, I believe that many of the Hadith (and aspects of the Sirah) are fabrications developed in order to help the powers that be (Ummayids and Abbasids) legitimise their power to control Islamic jurisprudence. As a rationalist, I believe that the isnad hadith verification methodology is flawed, and that the real test of whether an ahadith should become a recognised source of Islamic jurisprudence is its overall consistency with the Qur”an. Any Ahadith must be interpreted and understand in light of the Qur”an, not the other way around. The Qur”an is the Criterion in Islam and has ultimate primacy.

To reject all ahadith as false is also impractical because there are a number of early hadith which support our position that the Prophet Muhammad was vehemently opposed to recording his traditions out of a credible fear that they would become, in the eyes of Muslims, equal to the Qur”an (“The prophet said:”Do not write anything from me EXCEPT QURAN. Whoever wrote, must destroy it” (Muslim, Zuhd 72; Hanbel3/12,21,39)) . There is also historical evidence to suggest that the early, so called “rightly guided” Caliphs were opposed to the codification of Hadith for the same reasons. The impact of Muslim adherence to Hadith and Sunnah, as imposed by Islamic rule, has been devastating and has lead to the veneration and de-ification of Muhammad. Ironically, the practice of traditional Islam has almost become a form of shirk. It also contravenes the principle of the equality of the prophets as enshrined in 2:285 and 4:152. However, while I cannot reject the authenticity of all Hadith, I reject their place of authority in the realm of Islamic jurisprudence, because a significant portion of the Hadith are prima facie inconsistent with the Qur”an.

Mr. Spencer has correctly framed the traditional Sunni justification/arguments arguments for the legitimacy of the “Sunnah” as a primary source of Islam. These verses, along with others, have been the primary basis of the Muslim reliance on Sunnah. However, to a rationalist, this view is fatally flawed. I will defer to Mr. Yuksel to provide a more coherent explanation, as his marvelous Translation and accompanying Manifesto for Islamic reform does. Briefly, however the Qur”an is complete and is the culmination of Allah”s commandments and injunctions. Mr. Spencer writes: “Muslims are told to follow what Muhammad commands, and only in the hadith can those commands be discovered”. This is where we differ: Muhammad”s commands and injunctions are derived from the Qur”an. Therefore his commands and injunctions must be consistent with the Qur”an. This is the essential principle which undermines the traditional Sunni view. Again, I will leave it to Mr. Yuksel to provide a more cogent articulation.

I understand where Mr. Spencer is coming from and have every respect for him. However, I am slightly surprised by Mr. Spencer”s tone towards Mr. Yuksel. Mr. Spencer has, for many years exhorted Muslims to provide a practical and sustainable framework for reform. Well, its here. I would hope that Mr. Spencer would, instead of merely citing/parroting the traditional Sunni critique of the Qur”anist/rationalist movement, view it for what it is; a comprehensive, rational and practical framework for reforming Islam. That does not mean he should not challenge it of course, but I would hope that he will closely evaluate all sides of the argument.

Mr. Yuksel, nor anyone in the Qur”anist movement said that convincing Muslims will be easy. This is not because any lack of soundness in the Qur”anist approach, but again because the approach challenges Islamist power and places the powers and freedoms into the hands of individuals. Mr.Yuksel or Qur”anists cannot be faulted for not yet being able to convince the massive swarms of Muslims who believe in traditional approaches. Efforts are being made however, that go beyond rhetoric and double-speak. Mr. Yuksel”s work and the work of others in the Qur”anist movement illustrate this. The rationalist movement however, as Mr. Spencer points out, represents a minority of Muslims. Much more work will need to be done to challenge the status quo. Non-Muslims, who are legitimate stake-holders to Islamic reform, should not be diluted that full scale reform will happen any time soon. However progress is being made.

Warner: I do not find the reform ideas here to be either comprehensive or rational.

All of my comments are from the standpoint of the unbeliever, the kafir. I have no interest, whatsoever, in religious Islam. My interest is only in how Islam treats the “other” or political Islam.

The amount of the material in the Trilogy (Koran, Sira and Hadith) about the kafir is considerable. About 67% of the Koran written in Mecca is about the kafir, 51% of the Koran written in Medina is about the kafir. About 75% of the text in Ishaq”s Sira is about the kafir and 20% of the Hadith (Bukhari) is about the kafir.

Every mention about the kafir is negative. “Kafir” is usually translated as unbeliever, but this is wrong. The word “unbeliever” is neutral. The Koran defines the kafir by its usage and says that the kafir can be killed, hated, punished, raped, mocked, enslaved, plotted against, beheaded, tortured, insulted, condemned, stolen from, deceived, kidnapped, humiliated and on and on. The Hadith and Sira follow in the same vein. There is no word in the English language that has the negativity of the word kafir.

As a measure of the negativity it is interesting to observe the Jew hatred. The hatred of Jews accounts for 10.6% of the text written in Medina . As a comparison, 6.8% of the text in Mein Kamph is about Jew hatred.

Even Hell is political. Only 6% of the people in Hell are there for moral failings-theft, lying and so on. The majority, 94%, of the people in Hell are tortured for the simple reason of not believing Mohammed. That is a political and intellectual disagreement, not a moral failing. Allah”s Hell is a political prison for kafirs.

So when the gentlemen in this symposium say they reject the violence and hatred against the kafir found in the Sira and Hadith, I applaud them. However, they are wrong about the reason to reject it. They argue that Mohammed was a wonderful man and did not do those horrible things in the Sira and Hadith. We have a way to measure the truthfulness of the Sira and Hadith regarding Mohammed.

Mohammed left four very close friends and students, the “rightly guided” caliphs. No men were as intimate with Mohammed and his teachings as these men. They carried his teaching forward into history where their actions are recorded. Abu Bakr killed thousands of Muslims who wanted to leave Islam, apostates. Umar brought jihad to the kafir world and killed, raped, stole and tortured the Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians of the Middle East . Uthman was assassinated and Ali died in an Islamic civil war. Any coach will tell you-you play like you train. The rightly guided caliphs practiced what they were taught by the master-jihad and kafir hatred.

These men lived their lives just as Mohammed taught them. The teachings are portrayed in the Sira and Hadith. They did what we would expect. Now, if Mohammed was a wonderful man, why did his best students annihilate the kafir civilization? We do not have to speculate about the “real” Mohammed, he is found in the Sira and Hadith. History proves this.

The second reason to accept the Sira and Hadith as a good portrayal of Mohammed (I am not referring to the excessive detail in them, an obvious story-telling technique) is the integrity of the Trilogy. The Koran, Sira and Hadith are a seamless fabric of ideas. The Koran is the warp and the Sira/Hadith is the weft. All three of them are based upon submission and duality. They relentlessly advance the dominance of Islam over all kafirs. They form an integral whole, a unified ideology.

Having said that, I want to help with Islamic reform. If we decide to divide the Sunna into good Sunna and bad Sunna, how do we do it? We need a rational method, not whim, taste or like/dislike.

If we take an overview of the Trilogy, we find two organizing principles-submission and duality. The Koran is a text devoted to submission and duality. Submission is straightforward enough, but duality is not as familiar. Part of the Koran”s dual nature is seen in the Meccan Koran and the Medinan Koran. They contain contradictory principles.

The Koran gives a method to resolve the contradictions-abrogation. But since every word in the Koran is from the perfect god, both sides of the contradiction are true. It is just that the later verse is better than the earlier verse, but the earlier verse is still true.

This establishes an Islamic dualistic logic, which can accept both sides of a contradiction as being true.

As an example of this dualism, the nice Muslim practices the Meccan (early) Koran. Osama bin Laden practices the Medinan (later) Koran. Both are “good” and “real” Muslims, but Osama is the better Muslim.

The dualism is further seen in Islamic ethics. A Muslim must not kill another Muslim; a kafir may be killed, or not. A Muslim must not lie to another Muslim, but a kafir may be deceived, or not. A Muslim is not a friend to the kafir. So Islam has one set of rules for Muslims and another set of rules for the kafir. This is dualistic ethics.

As an aside, the word “kafir” is pure dualism.

There is no universal view of humanity in the Trilogy. It always has a dualistic view of Muslim and kafir. The closest thing to a universal view is that all of humanity must submit to Islam.

Dualism and political submission is the divide between Islam and the rest of the world. There is one principle which will heal this division. All of the world cultures, except Islam, have the ethical principle of the Golden Rule: treat others as you would be treated. The Golden Rule establishes a unitary ethical system. All people are treated the same. Our civilization includes this unitary ethic. Women”s rights, ending slavery, and the Declaration of Independence, were based upon this unitary ethic. We fall short of this unitary ethic on a daily basis, but we use it as a principle to judge and correct our actions. The Golden Rule is a goal and operating principle, not always an achievement.

Unitary ethics is a rational basis for reforming political Islam and its dualistic ethics. A comprehensive reform of Islamic politics must reform the Koran as well as the Sira and Hadith.

What happens if we apply the Golden Rule to the Trilogy? All of the hurtful, negative and harmful words about the kafir disappear. The Sira is reduced in size by 75%. Only 20% of the Hadith vanishes. The Koran is reduced by 61%. But that is not the only reduction. The Golden Rule will also eliminate the prejudice about women and this will reduce the texts even more.

The way to reform Islam is to add the missing ethical principle-the Golden Rule.

But here is the problem. Not even Mohammed could make the religion of Islam a success. He preached the religion of Islam for 13 years and garnered only 150 Muslims. But when he turned to politics and jihad in Medina , he conquered all of Arabia in his last 9 years. He averaged an event of violence every 7 weeks for those 9 years, not including assassinations and executions. Political violence against the kafir succeeded, when preaching failed. Dualism and political submission worked.

My point is: why would Islam drop what has brought it success? Political submission and duality work for political Islam. Everyone fears political Islam and does what it demands due to its doctrine of political submission and duality. No one quits a winning strategy for a losing strategy. The Center for the Study of Political Islam could easily produce a Koran, Sira and Hadith based upon the Golden Rule. It would be a thin book, but who would accept it?

[A technical note: the percentages of text used here are not based upon counting verses. Verses limit an idea to one sentence. What you want to measure is ideas, not verses. See A Simple Koran for a detailed discussion.]

Yuksel: Our effort is to reform our minds, attitude, actions and culture according to monotheistic precepts, which require rational approach. We know that only truth will set us free. Thus, the Islamic Reform movement will only contribute in making this world better for all, including, Christians, Jews and Muslims; Atheists and Polytheists; Edip and Haidon; Spencer and Warner.

I find Spencer”s and Warner”s understanding of the Quran heavily distorted by the teachings of Sunni or Shiite sects. I do not blame them for this. Had they studied the Quran without the distortion of Hadith, Sunna and sectarian fatwas, they would find out that the address of their criticism and concern is wrong. I invite them to study our exposition of sectarian distortions. I invite them to reflect on the translation of those verses and our arguments in the Quran: a Reformist Translation.

If Spencer and Warner learn the historic distortions committed centuries after the revelation of the Quran, they might regret for attacking Prophet Muhammad and his message, the Quran, because of those who have deserted and betrayed it (Quran 25:30; 10:100; 6:22-24; 6:112-113; 45:6-11; 31:6-7; 68:35-38). Perhaps, one day they will hear the message of the Quran without the backward background noises and will submit themselves to God alone.

I invite both to participate in our next conference on celebration of heresy and reform in Atlanta this spring. We will, God willing, have open debates on these and other controversial issues. We invite those who wish to participate to come to the Celebration of Heresy Conference: Critical Thinking for Islamic Reform, 28-30 March 2008, Atlanta , Atlanta Perimeter Holiday Inn. Join our low activity emailing list at http://groups.google.com/group/19org or visit http://www.hereticmuslims.com and www.19.org for information.

Spencer is right that majority of Sunni and Shiite masses are not receptive to the message at this point. But, the situation is changing dramatically. When I first rejected Hadith and Sunna in 1986 and invited Turkish Muslims to reform themselves by following the Quran alone, I was a young author with a few supporters. Then, I declared jihad against powerful Sunni and Islamist organizations, foundations, sects and orders with millions of followers and billions of dollars. After about thirty years, dozens of books, thousands of emails and forum discussions, hundreds of articles, and numerous live TV debates, now there are tens of thousands of Turkish people accepting this message. The message is now receiving the attention of especially the educated Muslims all around the world.

There are threshold points in history of nations and the world; I do believe that the time has come. Muslims are getting ready for extraordinary social and political change. Despite the obstacles we encounter, from Christianists to Islamists, we are witnessing a global interest in the message of Quran alone, especially among the youth. You will hear much better and surprising news within a few years, God willing.

FP: Mr. Yuksel, just as follow-up, you say that perhaps one day Mr. Spencer and Mr. Warner “will hear the message of the Quran without the backward background noises and will submit themselves to God alone.” Just wondering, how is it that you presume that they do not have, in their own way, a belief in and relationship with God? There is the implication here that you somehow have access to the truth, or some kind of relationship with a true God that they do not have. Is this by any chance connected to the fact that you are Muslim and they are not? Are you implying here that this is a bad thing for them and that they must, in the end, come over to your religion? How come they haven”t made any such comments in your direction? And what does this signify?

And if you are here to argue that the true Islam is one that does not and should not see its believers as superior to non-Muslims and that non-Muslims should not be subjugated, why do you make comments here suggesting the superiority of your beliefs and the inferiority of the beliefs of others? Surely you are aware that this in the fertile ground on which Islamism and Islamic jihad finds its inspiration? Please explain why you assume that Spencer and Warner somehow need to start believing what you believe.

I am also interested about you mentioning “Christianists” and Islamists in the same sentence and in the same context — as if there is some kind of moral equivalency between the two (and I am still not completely certain what exactly a “Christianist” is, but that is beside the point). There have been more than 10,000 deadly terrorist attacks carried about Islamist jihadists worldwide since 9/11. How many have the “Christianists” perpetrated? Would you yourself rather be found stuck in an environment filled with Islamists or “Christianists”? In which group do you think you would remain alive for more than five minutes? How many “Christianists” have blown themselves up lately, in a crowd of innocent people, in their effort to get to paradise? How many “Christinaists” kill non-Christianists and do so by pointing to the New Testament verses to legitimize their acts? Who are these Christianists and what verses are they pointing to? Why would you even make a moral equivalency in this regard, Mr. Yukself, when you know very well that Islamism is the totalitarian and terrorist ideology that poses a monstrous threat to the world today and that “Christianists” are completely benign in comparison?

Yuksel: I will attempt to clarify my statement. I meant what I said. Either Muhammad was one of God”s messengers or he was an impostor. Since, I am convinced because of substantial evidence that the Quran is the word of God, it follows that I should consider those who have devoted themselves to distort the truth about the Quran and its messenger, to be on the wrong path. Unlike Sunni or Shiite Muslims, I support their freedom to choose any path they wish and express their faith or conviction without fear. I will side with them against any group that would try to deprive them from their God-given right to freedom.

So, if these gentlemen have the right to depict Muhammad to be an evil guy and his supporters being as evil or duped, then I should also have the right to expose their so-called scholarly work, which is merely based on hearsay books and distortion and contortion of the Quranic verses by the followers of those hearsay stories. For instance, brother Spencer generously uses the hearsay stories fabricated centuries after Muhammad”s life to assassinate Muhammad”s character, while he knows well that according to the same sources which he trusts, Muhammad reportedly split the Moon causing half of it to fall in Ali”s backyard, or Muhammad reportedly made trees walk, Muhammad ascended to the seventh heaven with his body, and many other stories. Scholarly integrity requires consistency and honesty in using sources in evaluating a historic personality. But, your gentlemen pick and choose from those books as they wish. They take advantage of the crazy noises created by Jingoists, Crusaders and Jihadists, and hideously try to justify a bloody imperial Crusade with its resurrected Spanish Inquisition mentality against Muslims. I consider the work of these gentlemen a dishonest or ignorant attack against one of the most progressive and peaceful leaders in human history. I would like to repeat my invitation to Spencer to discuss his book about Muhammad at the Celebration of Heresy Conference, which we are organizing in Atlanta by the end of March. See: www.hereticmuslims.com.

As for the charge of superiority, I am not morally relativist nor do I find subjectivist epistemology to be accurate. I do argue that in the court of reason and evidence, Muslims (not Sunnis or Shiites, but anyone, including Christians and Jews, whoever peacefully submit themselves to the laws and message of their Creator) are indeed superior over those who are willing to discard rational thoughts or confuse fake evidences from the genuine ones to join a religious or political bandwagon. People do not need to call themselves Muslim to become muslims (with miniscule). Ironically, most of those who call themselves Muslims are not muslims according to the Quran. The flowers, insects, trees, animals, planets, stars, galaxies, everything in the universe, with the exception of human mind, are entirely muslim, since they follow God”s law without deviation. So, superiority is only through righteous acts that follow right thoughts and ideas (See Quran: 49:13).

Arguing for the superiority of some maxims or actions does not necessarily lead to suppression or oppression of others. Does your belief in democracy being superior over monarchy transform you into a democratic bully? (Don”t ask me the Thrasymachusian bullies exploiting the good name of democracy). Does a Christian”s belief in “salvation-through-Jesus-only” necessarily turn them to torturers and bloody Crusaders? I do not believe so. I would like, however, to remind the reader that I do not glorify “faith” as it is used by adherents of religions. We, the monotheist reformists, have a problem with even the definition and implication of the word “religion.” We consider faith without reason to be fakery or delusion. Appreciation and acknowledgement of God starts with questioning everything, and after rejection of all gods and religious power-brokers, including nationalistic and religious dogmas, we can reach the Truth or God.

As for morally equivocating Christianists to Islamists, you are right. They are not morally equal. The line between morality and immorality is not always categorically clear and sometimes, there are grey areas. Unfortunately, the language of propaganda ignores the many important subtle details. The ethical question is a bit deeper than the propaganda language of both parties. For instance, none questions the immorality of killing innocent people for the fun of it? This is surely reprehensible. But, what about killing innocent people to save the lives of many more innocent people, as it is used for justification of the nuking the two Japanese cities and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians and injuring millions? Is this as reprehensible as the killing of a few innocent people for fun? Perhaps, not. What about killing innocent people by sacrificing one”s life in order to fight against a fascist invasion and oppression? What about killing innocent people while targeting terrorists or aggressor invaders? What about not directly killing but financially or politically supporting the terrorists or the military aggression of a government? What about voting for a fascist or warmongering government and using the children of the poor people to kill the poor children of other nations for unjustified wars? What about calling for jihad against imperialists and their supporters, or calling for pre-emptive strikes against jihadists and their supporters?

You are right, that Muslims have unfortunately adhered to many hearsay fabrications that promote intolerance, violence and aggression. It is also true the New Testament, (of course not the Old one) promotes a peaceful message that usually promotes the Golden Rule. But, despite those books we have seen mixed results. There have been periods in history where the followers of Hadith and Sunna have been more peaceful and tolerant than the followers of the Gospels, and vice versa. So, we cannot just focus on the theology alone to address the problem properly. There are more than one reason for the level of violence and anger among Muslims at our time, and without honest diagnosis we will never be able to prescribe a proper set of solutions. Weeks after the 9/11 attack, I remember Dan Rather telling David Letterman with a straight face that the reason they attacked us was because “we were number one!” Dan knew better than that, but he wanted to please the crowd and unfortunately misled them. When intellectuals play for the tribune, the truth becomes the first victim and the price can be very costly. The Islamist terrorism has ecology, and the imperialist policy of the western world is an important contributor and incubator in its emergence and continuation. Just knowing that bin Laden was trained by the CIA and was once our ally against Russians, should inspire a wider angle and better vision to address this problem.

As for the 10,000 fatal terrorist acts. My ethical standard does not discriminate between on life or thousands of lives. Each human life is as important as the entire humanity. If we do not respect a single life then why should we respect the second one? So, a single terrorist act should be enough for us to seek justice on behalf of the victim. You should also know that I do not discriminate between gang terrorists and state terrorists, my dear friend. Both are evil. If gangs of terrorists are danger for humanity, just look at Iraq alone. About a million Iraqi lost their lives; millions were injured and became orphans, because of the unjustified war waged by the politicians elected by the votes of “peaceful” Christians against a country led by their former monster. I know you will try to blame the victim by telling us about Sunni and Shiite division in Iraq, but if a bigger bully invaded the USA and employed provocations and covert operations to win a victory over the American freedom fighters, that super-duper bully could have easily created multiple civil wars in the USA by exploiting her ethnic and religious fault lines. In short, I condemn every terrorist act, regardless of their religious affiliation, nationality, and colour.

In my youth, I did not lick the boots of Turkish generals nor kissed the beards of the Muslim clergymen, which led me to find freedom in the land of free that is established not by Evangelical Christians, Sunni or Zionist fanatics, but by open-minded rational humans, such as Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin, whom I consider Muslims (submitters to God/Truth in peace) or very close to that description according to the definition of the Quran. Any person who believes in one God, engages in good deeds, and acknowledges the Day of Judgment is a Muslim (Quran 2:62). Thus, I will not abandon my spirit of dissent against criminal politicians and corporations in my second country either. We need to save the planet from the crazy battle between the “coalition of evil” between religious zealots, jingoist nationalists and big corporations.

FP: I find it interesting that the forces that you demonize are the forces that you have sought refuge in to save your life. And due to the protection and freedom they grant you, you can say anything you want – even condemning them — knowing nothing will happen to you. . . .not a luxury you could afford living anywhere where Islam has taken control of the state.

Needless to say, there is such a thing a thing as a just war, and the war against Fascism and Communism was just, just as our war is today against Islamo-Fascism. There is no morally equivalency between those who want to impose tyranny through terror and those free states who must engage in war to defend liberty. Muslims who engage in jihad can find the legitimacy to do so in the Quran. Christians who engage in any violence are betraying Christianity”s teachings and can find no legitimacy to do what they do in the New Testament.

Spencer: Thomas Haidon says,

“I am slightly surprised by Mr. Spencer”s tone towards Mr. Yuksel. Mr. Spencer has, for many years exhorted Muslims to provide a practical and sustainable framework for reform. Well, its here. I would hope that Mr. Spencer would, instead of merely citing/parroting the traditional Sunni critique of the Qur”anist/rationalist movement, view it for what it is; a comprehensive, rational and practical framework for reforming Islam. That does not mean he should not challenge it of course, but I would hope that he will closely evaluate all sides of the argument.”

I am slightly surprised in turn that Mr. Haidon, for whom I have great respect, would take issue with my “tone” after I repeatedly wished Mr. Yuksel well with his reform efforts, and explained that I was only raising questions about them because if attempts at Islamic reform fail to be internally consistent and coherently argued on Islamic grounds, they will fail to convince any Muslims of their truth – which is the point of them in the first place. If Mr. Yuksel”s version of Qur”an-alone Islam is neither traditional nor mainstream, nor even consistent on Qur”anic grounds, as I have shown above, then it is important for non-Muslims to be aware of that, so that they can realistically assess its prospects for success.

As such I make no apologies for pointing it out. My position on this has always been consistent. In May 2005, after another self-proclaimed reformer, Khaleel Mohammed, made a similarly flimsy presentation amid similar false charges about my own work, I wrote:

“I am all for supporting moderate Muslims, but I am not for getting my intellectual pocket picked. I don”t care one bit about how good any given moderate speaker can make non-Muslims feel about Islam and the war on terror. All I care about is: can this moderate”s arguments from the Qur”an and Sunnah convince jihad terrorists to stop waging war in the name of Islam? If it looks as if they can, I will support the moderate wholeheartedly. But if it looks as if they can”t, then I wish someone would tell me why such moderates are even worth supporting.”

I stand by those words.

Mr. Yuksel, meanwhile, claims that if Mr. Warner and I had “studied the Quran without the distortion of Hadith, Sunna and sectarian fatwas, they would find out that the address of their criticism and concern is wrong.” While that may be true, he ignores the fact that hundreds of millions of Muslims have likewise studied the Qur”an as “distorted” by the Hadith and Sunnah, and they will think of the same Qur”an verses that contradict his Qur”anic arguments that I referred to above. It is unfortunate, but revealing, that he did not deal with those points at all, thus leaving the weaknesses of his presentation exposed and making Mr. Haidon”s objection to my “tone” even more bizarre, as if I should simply be abjectly and uncritically grateful for any attempt to reform Islam, no matter how much of a farrago or how tissue-paper-thin it may be.

Mr. Yuksel also complains that Mr. Warner and I “depict Muhammad to be an evil guy and his supporters being as evil or duped” in my “so-called scholarly work, which is merely based on hearsay books and distortion and contortion of the Quranic verses by the followers of those hearsay stories.” One who is not reading closely may miss the fact that the “followers of those hearsay stories” constitute the great majority of Muslims around the world today, and that in my biography of Muhammad I was merely depicting Muhammad as he appears in texts written by pious Muslims and accepted by most Muslims as authoritative. But for Mr. Yuksel, “scholarly integrity requires consistency and honesty in using sources in evaluating a historic personality,” and Mr. Warner and I have fallen short of this, daring to “pick and choose from those books as [we] wish.”

Of course, if a book is not simply going to reproduce another book in its entirety, some picking and choosing is necessary, and Mr. Yuksel unfortunately provides no examples of what he finds so objectionable about the choices I made in my book, except that I rely on early Islamic traditions about Muhammad – traditions that he rejects. But for this also I make no apologies, as I was trying simply to illuminate some elements of mainstream Islamic belief about Muhammad as he is depicted in mainstream Islamic texts. If this makes Mr. Yuksel regard me as irresponsible and unscholarly, I trust he has the same view of the multitudes of Muslim biographers of Muhammad, such as Muhammad Husayn Haykal, Safi ur-Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, and Yahiya Emerick, as well as non-Muslim Islamic apologists such as Karen Armstrong, who rely on the same sources.

But in this Mr. Yuksel accuses me of dark motives, saying that Mr. Warner and I “take advantage of the crazy noises created by Jingoists, Crusaders and Jihadists, and hideously try to justify a bloody imperial Crusade with its resurrected Spanish Inquisition mentality against Muslims” and says that he considers “the work of these gentlemen a dishonest or ignorant attack against one of the most progressive and peaceful leaders in human history.” Now we have entered the realm of fantasy, since in reality I have repeatedly called on Islamic spokesmen to acknowledge the elements of Islam that jihadists use to recruit terrorists, repudiate those elements, and formulate some way to combat the jihadist challenge within Muslim communities, so that non-Muslims and Muslims may coexist as equals on an indefinite basis. That Mr. Yuksel would take this as heralding some “bloody imperial Crusade” casts yet more doubt upon the seriousness of his reform efforts. In that light, while I am grateful for his invitation to attend his Atlanta Conference, and am always open to discussion and debate (and am quite prepared to defend my work), I am unsure if he is inviting me to speak, or simply to be the target there of more insults and smears on my work and my integrity as a human being. If the latter, I must respectfully decline.

Haidon: I must apologize up front for contributing to any hostilities in the debate. Invariably, as often happens in these kinds of debates, we have returned to the question of Islamic reform. While I want to address some of the points raised by the co-panellists here, I hope that my response will help bring us closer to the theme of this discussion: the validity of the Muslim account of Muhammad. There is much to comment on, however, I have limited my responses in the interest of time and space.

I”ve read Mr. Warner”s response with interest. I think his views are representative of a growing number of non-Muslims who are simply tired of atypical Muslim responses to the Islamist problem. What I find particularly interesting about Mr.. Warner”s responses is that he speaks in certitudes and absolutes. I think that Mr. Warner needs to carefully read my rejoinder above. I did not state that Muhammad was a “was a wonderful man and did not do those horrible things in the Sira and Hadith“. In fact, I stated that I could not categorically say that Muhammad did not do the things he was accused of. To say, without qualification, that Muhammad did not commit any of the dreadful acts accredited to him in the Sunnah is disingenuous, because we simply do not know. Mr. Spencer, in his initial comments, appears to recognise that there may very well be historical grounds to cast doubt on the veracity and validity of the hadith and Sunnah. This view is also shared by many non-Muslim and Orientalist scholars, including Ibn Warraq and Joseph Schact. Within this historical backdrop, the political context, and the motivations of the Ummayid and Abassid rulers who used Sunnah to consolidate their power, is a key consideration. For Mr. Warner to say with such certainty that Muhammad did what he did, while ignoring the historical and political arguments which challenge the veracity of hadith and the Muslim record of Muhammad, is rather weak.

But it is unlikely that the entire body of hadith are prima facie invalid. This may be a point of departure between myself and Mr. Yuksel. To be sure, many of the hadith arecan be viewed as perfectly innocuous and relate to ritual and manners. Simply casting away all hadith, is not realistic and would also remove this class of “good” hadith. I subscribe to the great Qur”anic scholar Kassim Ahmad”s view that true test of authenticity of a specific ahadith lies in its consistency with the Qur”an, not in the flawedisnad chain methodology.

The real question then becomes, what is the methodology for determining consistency of ahadith with the Qur”an? Most traditional Muslims would argue that all sahih hadith are prima facie consistent with the Qur”an. Indeed, proponents of the insnad chain methodology would argue that this is a key component of that approach. This is a key challenge/question to proponents of the Qur”an alone and Qur”anist approaches.

For purposes of clarity, I would like to draw upon Kassim Ahmad”s articulation of five key principles that, at a high level, provide the foundation of the Qur”anist approach[1] (the book, contains the enumerable Qur”anic references, to support each principle):

• The Qur”an is complete, perfect and detailed. It is the fundamental law and the basic guidance for mankind .
• The sole mission of the Prophet Muhammad was to deliver the divine message, the Qur”an. His other roles were secondary.
• The hadith compiled by hadith scholars consists of reports of alleged sayings of the Prophet and cannot be absolutely guaranteed as to their authenticity. Those hadith that conform to the Qur”an are acceptable, while those that conflict with it are automatically rejected.
• Religious duties of prayer, fasting charities and optional pilgrimage were not delivered by way of hadith, but were religious practices handed down through generations from the time of the Prophet Abraham.
• Besides being prophet and messenger of God, Muhammad was also a leader of the medina city state and the later Arab nation state. In that role he implemented the divine imperatives of the context of the 7th century Arabia. It is impossible that he would have done anything contrary to God”s commandments.

Underlying the Qur”anist approach is the core assumption that the Prophet could never issue an injunction that contradicted the Qur”an. In the context of this symposium, further discussions on the validity of the Qur”an alone/Qur”anist approach are probably unhelpful. The traditionalist view is prevalent, and widely held by Muslims across the world. Whether Mr. Yuksel and I believe in the validity of the Muslim record is irrelevant for the moment. The bleak picture painted by Robert Spencer in his autobiography of Muhammad, is not conjecture, but based exclusively on Muslim sources, and is supported by the majority of ulaema, worldwide. Mr. Spencer nor Warner cannot be blamed, or derided, for merely spelling out what this historical record is, and what potential barriers exist for reformers.

So, the answer to the question about whether or not the account of Muhammad is fictional is irrelevant in this context. For all intents and purposes, the account is real because it is drawn upon and relied upon so heavily by jihadists and Islamists. Perception, unfortunately, is everything.

Warner: This symposium started with the question: who is the “real” Mohammed? Why do we need to keep asking this question? After September 11, 2001, we heard that the Muslims who committed that act of horror were not “real Muslims” and that the real Islam is the “religion of peace”. What is there about Islam that makes us keep trying to figure out what is the real Islam?

In the same way, is the religious Koran of Mecca the real one? Or is it the political Koran of Medina? Said in another way, is the real Mohammed the preacher or the jihadist?

Duality is one of the two Islamic fundamental principles. Submission is the other. Duality means that Islam holds two contradictory views on all subjects. Thus, asking the question about which view is the real one is like asking which end of the magnet is the real magnet. Is it the north end or is it the south end? At least we can agree that both poles are just different ends of the same magnet.

Just like the magnet, the “complete, perfect and detailed” Koran is both religious and political and the real Mohammed is the jihadist and the preacher. Islam uses each one when it is needed. Yuksel and Haidon need the “good” Mohammed. But the Taliban and the Muslim Brotherhood presently are using the jihadist Mohammed. North pole. South pole. Same magnet. Preacher Mohammed. Jihadist Mohammed. Same Mohammed.

So this symposium is based on the false premise that Mohammed must be one or the other, when he is both sides of the contradiction.

It is this dualism that lets Islam deceive the kafir. When talking to kafirs and dhimmis, Islam presents a saintly man. The apologist dhimmis say, “Well, if Mohammed was such a nice guy, the other Mohammed must be false.” The shape-shifting dualism fools the dhimmis.

Which brings us to the Koran. Haidon and Yuksel think that if we didn”t have to deal with the “false” jihadist Mohammed, Islam would be acceptable. However, the Koran says over 30 times that Allah wants every human to be just like Mohammed. Then it says over 40 times, that if we aren”t like Mohammed, we burn in Hell. Islam has to have Mohammed. Without him, a Muslim does not know how to fulfill any of the Five Pillars. To be generous, the Koran is an incomplete document. Without Mohammed”s life there is no Islam.

Also the actions of Mohammed show up constantly in the Koran. Mohammed the jihadist shows up at the battles of Badr and Uhud. Mohammed the politician shows up in the Victory sura. Islam has to have Mohammed even if there were no Sira or Hadith.

All of the mentions of Mohammed in the Koran are seamless with the Hadith and Sira. That is one of the reasons that the Sira and Hadith cannot be dismissed. The Koran, Sira and Hadith are a unified intellectual work.

But let”s go along with the argument that without the Mohammed of the Sira and the Hadith, a good Islam would be a Koran-only Islam. Mr. Haidon and Mr. Yuksel are so immersed in dualism of believer/kafir that they cannot see what a dreadful document the Koran is for the kafir. They love it when the Koran says that they are the “best of people”, but they cannot see how horrible it is that I and all other kafirs are called the worst things in Allah”s creation.

The Medinan Koran has brought political misery to the kafirs for 1400 years. There is not one good statement in the Koran and Islam for us. It says that we can be tortured, beheaded, crucified, robbed, raped, enslaved, mocked, and humiliated. These are political actions and they define the Islamic worldview. Why does any Muslim think that I get a warm feeling and a smile when I am told that Allah plots against me and hates me?

A reformed Islam based upon the Koran without Mohammed is still an Islam where the kafirs are political second class citizens to be abused. The only reform that is good for kafirs is the removal of the negative language. The application of the Golden Rule to the Koran will do this, but over half of the Koran would vanish. Only a Koran with a Golden Rule and without kafirs is a reformed Koran.

I can give a criteria for a reformed Islam. Can I hear a good Mohammed joke after reform? I am very serious. There are jokes about Jesus, Noah, Adam and Moses (all supposed Islamic prophets of Allah). Why not Mohammed?

I cannot help but notice that no Muslim can discuss Islam without criticizing Christianity. The reason for this is found in the “complete, perfect and detailed” Koran. The Koran is vicious about all other religions. Due to its dualism, it has a good word in the beginning about the Jews and Christians, but in the end, the dualism prevails and the Koran”s second view is brutal. It demands that it, and it alone, determines the truth of all other religions. But the Koran does not stop with religious criticism, but it always includes political persecution of other religions. The “complete, perfect and detailed” Koran also dictates that all other religions must politically submit in this world. Islam is not just about religion, but politics. The Koran is a political text that contains only negative, pejorative, hurtful, insulting words for the kafir.

The “complete, perfect and detailed” Koran of Medina contains more Jew hatred than Hitler”s Mein Kamph. A detailed statistical analysis of Mein Kamph shows that 6.8% of the paragraphs are Jew hatred. The same analysis of the Koran written in Medina shows that 10.6% of the material is about Jew hatred.

To conclude, like Mr. Spencer, I note that Mr. Yuksel has called me to Islam. Let me use this example to show the dualism of Islam. This “call” has two meanings. The first meaning is that Mr. Yuksel has an actual concern for my well being and does not want me to be one of the citizens of Hell who is being mocked by the Muslims in Paradise as I burn with my shirt of fire and drink my molten brass. I like that interpretation.

But there is a second meaning to the call. When Mohammed attacked the Jews of Khaybar (an event referred to in the Medinan Koran) he first called them to Islam. When they rejected this call they were attacked, crushed and made dhimmis. It was in this vein that bin Laden called America to Islam before he attacked on September 11, 2001 .

So the call to Islam can be from care and concern or it can be a prelude to death by jihad. Such is the dualistic nature of political Islam and the Koran.

This makes me very sad. I wish that I could believe that Islam can be reformed and that Muslims could be convinced to stop imitating the jihadist Mohammed, obeying the Medinan Koran and killing kafirs. Look at the results. Mao was responsible for the deaths of 77,000,000 people, Stalin killed about 62,000,000 and Hitler was responsible for the deaths of 21,000,000. And for the last 1400 years those who imitate Mohammed and follow the Koran of Medina, have killed over 270,000,000 kafirs. If you could bring about a reform that would negate this effect, you and your work would be the greatest blessing to humanity in written history.

Haidon: After serious reconsideration, I wish to withdraw my comment about Mr. Spencer”s “tone”. I believe my remarks are an unfair characterisation of Mr. Spencer”s rejoinder. Mr. Spencer was merely challenging the points put forth by Mr Yuksel, and responding with reasoned arguments (firmly rooted in Islamic history and theology) as to why Mr. Yuksel”s points about Muhammad, the Sunnah and the Quran were flawed. In criticising Mr. Spencer”s tone, I inadvertantly adopted a common tool of Muslim apologists when confronted by legitimate questions about Islam. It was wrong of me to do so.

Mr. Spencer, in this symposium (and through his wider work in general), has presented well constructed arguments that are firmly rooted in traditional Islamic teachings, to highlight the troubles facing traditional Islam . In many ways, Mr. Spencer is carrying out the work that genunie reforrmers need to carry out, in terms of identfying problems, and gaps (and shortcomings) of reform efforts. Instead of maligning scholars like Mr. Spencer, we need to answer the hard questions, with well developed answers, not accusations of Islamaphobia or weak accusations. As a Muslim, I firmly believe in the Qur”anic injunction: “O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even if it be against yourselves, your parents, and your relatives, or whether it is against the rich or the poor…” (Quran 4:135).

FP: Edip Yuksel, Thomas Haidon, Robert Spencer and Bill Warner, thank you for joining Frontpage Symposium.
Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine”s managing editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz”s Left Illusions. He is also the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left and the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev”s Soviet Union (McGill-Queens University Press, 2002) and 15 Tips on How to be a Good Leftist.

By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Bill Warner, the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI) and spokesman for politicalislam.com.CSPI’s goal is to teach the doctrine of political Islam through itsbooks and it has produced an eleven book series on political Islam. Mr.Warner did not write the CSPI series, but he acts as the agent for agroup of scholars who are the authors. The Center’s latest book is The Submission of Women and Slaves, Islamic Duality.

FP: BillWarner, it’s a privilege to have you back at Frontpage Magazine. We aregoing to do a two-part series with you on the most recent book. In thisfirst part we will discuss Islam and its doctrine on the submission ofwomen and in the next part we will discuss the matter of slavery.

Welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Warner: Thank you, it is a pleasure.

FP: So tell us in general where Islam stands on women and why.

Warner: Islam’sstand on women is the same as its stand on every issue—duality andsubmission. Dualism demands that everything is seen, not as a unifiedwhole, but as divided. The primary political duality is the divisionbetween kafirs (unbelievers) and believers. The primary internalduality is the division between males and females.

The principle of submission means that one must rule over the other. No surprise, the women must submit to the men.

CSPImeasured the submission of the female to the male by analyzing theIslamic doctrine. All of Islam’s doctrine is found in the Koran, theHadith (Traditions) and the Sira (the life of Mohammed), the Trilogy.We collected every verse, every paragraph and every sentence thatmentioned women and their power relationships. These were allcategorized into the women being superior, inferior, equal or merelymentioned.

In4% of the cases, women were superior, in 91% of the cases they wereinferior and in 5% they were equal. But there is a big catch. The onlyway that women are equal is after death on Judgment day, when men andwomen will be judged on how well they followed the Koran and the Sunna.And guess what? The only way to follow the Koran and the Sunna is toobey men. Equality means obeying men.

Womanare superior by being a mother, who must obey her husband. So theperfect woman on Judgment day will be a mother, who obeyed all the menin her life. So really, the women are subordinate to men in 100% of allof the Koran, Hadith and the Sira.

FP: So what’s the story on sex in heaven? Apparently men will have lots of fun but not women?

Warner: Whatdoes the perfect Muslim woman find when she gets to Paradise? A maleParadise. Her husband will have his pick of Allah’s houris for sex.These houris are the perfect Islamic women. They arelight-complexioned, sexy, shy, perpetual virgins who never say no.

Thequestion arises: why shy and why virgins? Since submission is key toIslam, then submission must apply in Paradise as well. A virgin knowsnothing, is a blank slate, and is easily dominated. A shy woman has thesame submissive qualities. A houri will not even look you in the eye,nor offer any opinions about anything.

Theword houri never appears in the Koran. It is always in the plural,houris, although the Koran does not say 72 virgins, just virgins. So asubservient Islamic woman must wait in line behind perfect women to seeher husband. The promised equality on Judgment day would imply thatthere are male houris for her pleasure, but no. There are eternallyyoung, beautiful boys, but they don’t seem to be there for the women.

However,women are included in the drinking wine, fine food, lying about in theshade and watching and taunting the kafirs (unbelievers) burning inHell. So Paradise is just like earth, a place based upon duality andsubmission. Women must submit to men in this life and the lifehereafter.

Thisparallel between Islam after death and in this life is important. Islamis usually seen as a vague and confusing doctrine. This is not true.All of Islam is built on duality and submission. Islam is absolutelylogical and coherent in heaven, hell and earth. Islam is submission andduality yesterday, today and tomorrow.

FP: Why does Islam teach that most people in hell will be women?

Warner: Womenmay come up shy in Paradise, but they get more than their fair share ofjustice in Hell. The Bukhari’s Hadith (Traditions) record over twentytimes how the majority of those in Hell will be women. Why are thesewomen in Hell? Murder? Theft? Lying? Cheating? No, they were notgrateful to their husband. They were not submissive enough.

Inthe same hadith, Mohammed says that women are not as smart as men. Thatis the reason that it takes two women to equal the testimony of oneman. By that formula, a woman is half as smart as a man. The final partof this hadith also assures us that women are spiritually inferior tomen because they can’t pray when having their period.

Again,all of this is a manifestation of submission, women must submit to menin all things including intelligence and spirituality.

Thisinferiority started with Mohammed, just like everything else in Islam.Since Mohammed is the ideal model of a Muslim, the one to be copied ineverything, we must turn to Mohammed to understand sexual roles inIslam.

FP: How many wives did Mohammed have? Is it true he had sex with Aisha when she was nine?

Warner: Weknow a great deal about Mohammed’s sexuality. It is recorded inincredible detail. Mohammed’s sexual life is like the Koran in that itis divided into Mecca (early) and Medina (later). In Mecca he wasmarried to a widow and had six children. His wife died shortly beforehe was driven out of Mecca into Medina. After her death, his sex lifetook an abrupt turn. He engaged himself to Aisha at the age of six andalso married a widow.

InMedina he (age 53) started having sex with the nine-year-old Aisha. Shewas always his favorite. Most of the sexual details are told by Aishaand recorded in the Hadith.

Bythe time he died he had nine wives and several sex slaves. Mohammed isseen as the perfect Islamic husband and part of his perfection is hisrole as “stud” in the harem. Every Muslim male wants to be likeMohammed.

FP: How about the subject of wife beating?

Warner: Womenmust submit to men in all things. But this causes some human problems.If the woman does not submit, what is the man to do? After all, thewife will have violated the sacred law of submission. Mohammed had asolution to this misbehavior—beat her. After all, Allah said it wasgood to beat the wife. Koran 4:34 says that if a wife is notsubmissive, first admonish them and remind them that Allah wants themto submit. If they don’t submit then use social pressure by ignoringthem and not having sex. If that doesn’t work, then beat them lightly.

Mohammedlaid out more rules for these beatings. Do not strike them in the face.(That leaves public bruises.) One of his rules (Sunna) was not to ask aman why he beats his wife.

Hestood around, more than once, while beatings were administered to womenand slaves. Beatings are a fundamental part of Islamic justice. TheKoran mentions Job beating his wife, beatings in Hell and beatings foradultery. Mohammed gave advice to a woman not to marry a certain manbecause he beat his wives, but he did not condemn the beatings. When awoman came before him seeking justice about her husband, her face wasbruised from a beating. Mohammed made no comment about the beating thatbruised her face.

Beatingthe Muslim wife is not to be done in outrage. No, the husband isputting the world into Islamic order of duality and submission. Thehusband submits to Allah and the Sunna of Mohammed. The wife mustsubmit to Allah, the Sunna and her husband. Her lack of submission is afault in the world and the beating restores the proper order ofsubmission. Beatings are justice. So when the husband beats his wife,both are partaking in a sacred moment of good (what is permitted).

FP: Did Mohammed beat any of his wives?

Warner: Wehave only one record of Mohammed hitting one of his wives, Aisha. Herfather, in the presence of Mohammed, also hit Aisha. Mohammed made nocomplaint. At one period in Medina, Mohammed said not to beat women.But that developed into the practical advice that if you beat your wifeduring the day, don’t expect to get any loving that night.

Mohammedwas around a lot of beatings. For example, he stood by while Ali beatMohammed’s slave to make her tell the truth about the affair of Aishaand her possible assignation with a jihadist.

FP: What was Mohammed’s family life like?

Warner: Mohammedhad a very busy family life. But even though he was the most perfectman who ever lived, life was not always harmonious around the house.His favorite wife was the little Aisha, but for a while his favoritesex partner was a Christian slave called Mary. She was a gift to himand came with a sister. He gave the sister away as a present to helpplacate his favorite poet.

Oneday, one of his wives, Hafsa, went into her room to find Mohammed insome state of intimacy with his sex slave. Now, it was granted by Allahthat Mohammed could have as many sex slaves as he wished, but not in awife’s bedroom. Hafsa was outraged and Mohammed tried to placate herand told her not to mention it to the other wives. Good luck. The haremerupted in anger and coolness.

Mohammedretreated from his wives and set up his sex slave in another apartment.He stayed away for a month. Allah even weighed in on his sex life(Allah had a lot to say about Mohammed and sex and it was all good forMohammed). Allah said Mohammed could divorce all of them and get betterones, if he wanted.

In the end, he went back to his familiar family scene.

Allahalso gave him permission to marry his daughter-in-law. Mohammed cravedhis adopted son’s wife. Incest laws prevented his marriage, but Allahweighed in and said that his adopted son was never a real son, so goahead and marry her. Even Aisha remarked that Allah was quick to grantMohammed his pleasures.

Thereis a large amount of text about how the wives fought, argued, andplotted against each other. Jealousy was an ongoing state of affairs inthe Mohammed household. It turns out that you can’t get a houseful ofwomen to live in harmony with the ideal man.

FP: Can you talk a bit about menstruation?

Warner: Islamis always about submission and duality. What is amazing is howcompletely this is applied. There is no part of being a human beingthat is not to submit to Islam. Women are divided from men and mustsubmit in all things, including every aspect of femininity. Men tellwomen what they can and cannot do about their most personal life,having a period. Allah and Mohammed tell women that they are uncleanduring their period. They should not go the mosque or pray during theirperiod.

Butit does not stop there. Men even tell women how long to nurse a child.Islam is obsessive/compulsive. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is left outfor Islam to dictate.

FP: Is it true that Islamic doctrine advocates rape?

Warner: Mohammed and the Koran advocate rape of the kafirs. After their battlesthe jihadists partook in the pleasure of raping the wives and daughtersof the conquered men. Duality separates the kafirs from a real humanityand submission means that the cruelest treatment is given to them sothey will submit. It is only just.

Rapeis a supreme tactic of war and Mohammed used it in everyway possible.Rape humiliates the kafir men and crushes the spirit of the women. Itis the perfect weapon of fear and subjugation. How much more humiliatedand subjugated can a woman be? The history of jihad shows that rape wasa constant.

Rapeis in use today, but the media refuses to talk about it. The media doesnot want to offend Islam by unpleasant news. The use of rape by Islamis a forbidden topic. Islamic rape of European women is happening now,but our media refuses to ever mention it. Now, it could be that themedia does not like to connect sexual malfeasance with a religion, butthe media eagerly reports about Catholic priests and children forinstance. Think of the number of times the press has covered somepreacher’s sexual misconduct. No, the media loves sex and religion.

Whatthe media does not want to do is to criticize anything about Islam.Reporting the rape of the school children at Beslan, Russia would meanfinding fault in Islam. And Islam would harass the media. The mediafear Islam.

Dualisticethics make rape a virtue. Islam has one ethical code for Muslims andanother one for kafirs—dualism. The kafir woman is not real human.Allah hates kafirs and sanctioned rape. So when a Muslim rapes a kafir,he is partaking in sacred behavior, sanctioned by his ethics. Rape ofthe kafir is Sunna (following the ideal behavior of Mohammed).

FP: Why is the veil/hijab so important and what is its real role?

Warner: Theveil is the supreme symbol of duality and Islam. How separate can awoman be? The most dangerous aspect of a women is her sexuality. Allaspects of the veil/hijab control this, including the headscarf. Itsays to Muslims, “I have submitted to Islamic men.”

TheMuslim female dress is a battle flag of jihad. She is better than us.It says to the civilization of equality and freedom, “I hate yourfreedom. I hate your equality. I want nothing of you (except your moneyand technology).” For the kafir the veil is the same symbol ofsubjugation and oppression that of the Ku Klux Klan white robe.

The veil/hijab is also a way of subjugating the woman in public. All aspects of being a woman are controlled by Islam (men).

Inthe end, there are two things to remember about Islam and sex—dualityand submission . Islamic dualism separates men from women. Submissionmakes sure that the women submit to the men.

Islamis a civilization that is entirely based upon duality and submission.Our civilization is based upon equality and freedom. These twocivilizations cannot co-exist. Islam is ahead of us here, because theincompatibility of the two is clearly stated and gives the world thesolution for this incompatibility. We must submit to Islam and exchangefreedom and equality for Islamic slavery.

Thisis not really an inherent problem, since we have faced other doctrinesthat said we must submit. Communism and Nazism come to mind. In thepast our intellectuals have attacked our enemies of our civilizationand defended our civilization. But our intellectual system hasdegenerated and is no longer capable of defending us or attacking ourenemy.

Ourintellectuals have decided that we don’t even have a civilization, itis just one big multicultural world where all of the cultures areequal. So there is nothing to defend.

Theother thing that has happened in our schools is that debate is nolonger used. Our intellectual system used to be based upon thearguments between two views, some form of the left/right,nature/nurture. There was no presumption of evil on the part of theopponent. As the debate went on, some middle ground of understandingoccurred.

Debateis no more. There has been some kind of divine revelation that hasdecreed the final truth and what can be discussed. The Church ofPolitical Correctness does not indulge debate, but decrees that allviews that differ from its papal bulls are evil. Those who argueagainst Islam are bigots filled with hate.

Ouruniversities are filled with arrogant ignorance about Islam. Find asingle university that has a women’s studies program that teaches thesexist doctrine of Islam. Not even 1400 years of rape is of interest,much less the doctrine that supports it. Of course, the historydepartment never teaches the suffering of the kafir and the dhimmi,just the glorious history of Islam. The universities do not teach thesuffering of the deaths of 270,000,000 kafirs, so why should they teachabout the suffering of women?

Whydo our tax dollars go to our state universities, who refuse to teachthe facts of doctrine and history? Why can’t we pressure them to teachthis?

Wemay be too afraid to attack Islam, but why can’t we attack theuniversities and intellectuals? How can we justify not teaching anddebating the doctrine of Islamic sexuality? What is the basis of notteaching the doctrine and history of Islam? It is all fact and the seedof the action of Islam in 1400 years of history. We must acknowledgeand master the Islamic political doctrine and history or be annihilatedas a civilization.

FP: Bill Warner, thank you for joining us.

Warner: Thank you Jamie.

JamieGlazov is Frontpage Magazine’s managing editor. He holds a Ph.D. inHistory with a specialty in U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He editedand wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s Left Illusions. He is also the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left and the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union (McGill-Queens University Press, 2002) and 15 Tips on How to be a Good Leftist. To see his previous symposiums, interviews and articles Click Here. Email him at [email protected].

By Jamie Glazov

FrontPageMagazine.com | 5/7/2008
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Bill Warner, the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI) and spokesman for PoliticalIslam.com.

FP: Bill Warner, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Warner: Thank you Jamie.

FP: I’d like to talk to you today about how many of the names, words and phrases we use about Islam are muddled and incorrect. Many non-Muslims create certain terms about Islam to try to make the world seem safer and to feel good about themselves. But many of these terms have no actual basis in Islamic theology or culture and have no real meaning in an Islamic context.

I think the best way to start this discussion is to begin with the term “moderate Muslim.”

Warner: “Moderate Muslim” is a perfect example of the muddle and incorrect terminology that kafirs (unbelievers) use.

This term is intended to describe a Muslim who doesn’t seem dangerous or advocate violence. But “moderate Muslim” is a non-Muslim name, one that kafirs made up.

The doctrine of Islam does talk about the different kinds of Muslims. The measure of a Muslim is the Koran and the Sunna. Anyone who follows these teachings is a moderate Muslim, by definition.

Islamic doctrine defines what is moderate and not moderate. Since we are dealing with Islam, we need to know that the doctrine is dualistic. Islam can have two doctrines about any issue. This follows from the Koran. The early Koran, which was written in Mecca is generally religious. The Koran written in Medina is very political and includes jihad. The two Korans are not only very different, but they also contradict each other in major ways.

So we have the possibility of two kinds of moderate Muslims, since we have two doctrines. Osama bin Laden is a moderate Muslim, who follows the Koran of Medina, the Koran of jihad. Kafirs call him an extremist or radical Muslim. Actually, Osama obeys the Koran of Medina and the Sunna of Mohammed, so he is a moderate, pious Medinan Muslim.

The jihadists on September 11, 2001 were all moderate Medinan Muslims. They were not extremists or radicals.

The other kind of moderate Muslim follows the Koran of Mecca and he is more generally what kafirs mean when they say “moderate Muslim”. But how moderate is a Meccan Muslim? A moderate Muslim thinks that you are a kafir, but he isn’t violent, just antagonistic.

FP: So tell us exactly what “kafir” means. We take it to mean unbeliever but I presume it is more complicated than that.

Warner: The usual translation of this Arabic word is unbeliever, but unbeliever is only a very small part of its meaning. It is the Koran that defines the word “kafir” and it says the most terrible things can happen to them. The Koranic doctrine about kafirs says they are hated and are Satan’s friends. Kafirs can be robbed, killed, tortured, raped, mocked, cursed, condemned and plotted against. The Koran does not have one good thing to say about kafirs. (There are some psuedo-good words, but more about them later.)

For over the last 1400 years, 270 million kafirs have died as a result of the political doctrine of Islam. It is the biggest single source of suffering in the history of the world.

The word kafir is the worst word in the human language. It is far worse than the n-word, because the n-word is a personal opinion, whereas, kafir is Allah’s decree. Nearly two thirds of the Koran is devoted to the kafir. Islam is fixated on the kafir and the moderate Muslim thinks that you are a kafir. How moderate is that?

FP: I guess not very moderate.

Warner: Well the moderation does not stop there. A moderate Muslim follows Islamic ethics. Not only is the Koran a dualistic document, but also Islamic ethics are dualistic. Islam has one set of rules for Muslims and another set of rules for the kafirs. A Muslim does not lie, cheat, kill, or harm another Muslim. But, if it will advance Islam, a kafir may be cheated, deceived, murdered, tortured and raped. Or a Muslim may treat a kafir like a brother.

It is the dualism of Islam that gives it such power. It has the entire good cop/bad cop psychology built into its very DNA. There have been other groups with dualistic ethics, the KKK for instance. But a member of the KKK hates all blacks all the time. There is a certain bald-faced honesty in the hatred of the KKK. But Islam has the good cop face to the world most of the time. The bad cop is held in reserve the same way that a police detective carries a hidden weapon.

The ethical dualism means that Islam does not take part in the shared reciprocity of altruism. As an example, Islam is very big on charity, but Islamic charity only goes to Muslims. When Saudi Arabia sent money to New Orleans after hurricane Katrina, the money only went to Muslims, not to suffering kafirs.

FP: Can you expand a bit on reciprocity of altruism?

Warner: Reciprocity of altruism[1] is the very basis of civilization. Islam does not share this trait. This is one of the reasons that Islam is not a part, nor can it be, of kafir civilization. Islam is built on different ethics and logic than the kafirs. Islam’s dualistic ethics prohibit reciprocity of altruism. Islamic civilization and kafir civilization do not share similar values.

So a moderate non-violent Muslim thinks that you are a kafir and that a kafir does not have to be treated the same as another Muslim. The moderate Muslim (Islamic meaning) thinks that you are Allah’s scum and you can be treated like trash. Or not (dualism always has options).

How can such a person be a true friend, if he believes the Koran. In some 14 verses, the Koran says that the Muslim is not the friend of a kafir. But what if the person actually is your friend? We can deal with this very important question if you wish.

In any case, the term moderate Muslim has two totally different meanings. The kafir meaning is warm, fuzzy and incorrect. The Islamic meaning is cruel, precise and correct.

FP: What are some other false kafir names?

Warner: Radical Muslim. Extremist Muslim. Reformed Islam.

What is a radical Muslim? A radical Muslim is capable of harming kafirs. A radical Muslim is a Medinan Muslim, but a Medinan Muslim follows Mohammed’s actions. So killing kafirs is not radical. Harming kafirs follows Mohammed’s example and is pure Islam, not a radical interpretation.

FP: So, overall, what is the real issue here?

Warner: Islam.

These false names used by kafirs are an attempt to humanize Islam. The kafirized naming tries to put the violence (radical, extremist) outside of Islam or suggest that violence is a bizarre interpretation of Islamic doctrine. But Mohammed was involved in a violent episode on the average of every six weeks for his last nine years. Again, Mohammed defines moderation, and the violence is integral to Islam.

The doctrine of both religious and political Islam is based on dualism and submission. The religious doctrine is of no concern to a kafir. It is the politics that concerns kafirs.

Political Islam is based upon dualism and submission. All of humanity is divided into kafirs and Muslims, with not one good word for the kafirs.

Names like “moderate” and “good” are an attempt to link goodness and Islam. But there is no goodness in Islam for the kafir, only for another Muslim. This is extremely harsh, but it is a consequence of the doctrine of political Islam.

If you are well-read in the Islamic political doctrine, you may jump in and say that the Korans says a positive things about Christians and Jews. These few good things are a very few sentences. It is sad to see how Muslims and apologists drag the pitiful few sentences out of the Koran to show the good in Islam for the kafirs. First, compared to the massive amount of hateful, hurtful and evil things said about the kafirs, the few good sentences are statistically insignificant.

But worst of all is that the good verses are contradicted by later doctrine. This is another aspect of dualism.

The doctrine of Islam is not static since it is based upon the life of Mohammed. The doctrine describes a process. The conclusion of that process was annihilation of the native Arab culture with not a single enemy of Mohammed left standing. In the end, there is no good in Islam for the kafir, nothing. That is the conclusion to the process of political Islam. Those “nice, tolerant” verses are temporary tactics to be used while Islam is weak.

Most kafirs treat the doctrine of Islam like a box of those magnetic words you can put on the refrigerator. By choosing the right words, they can make any sentence and any thought. But the doctrine of Islam is a very coherent story. It has a beginning, middle and an end. Islamic doctrine is taken from the life of Mohammed, not from a dictionary of unrelated facts. Indeed, the remarkable thing about Islamic doctrine is how systematic and logical it is. You can’t just reach in and take a sentence or verse here and there.

What is the most important thing about a story is its conclusion.

FP: And the conclusion is?

Warner: The conclusion is that political Islam is always bad for the kafir. In the end, all Christians and Jews must submit to Islam. That is the goodness of Islam for kafirs. As long as the kafirs submit to Islam’s demands, then Islam is good to them.

Dualism is the key to understanding Islam. On the surface many parts of the Koran contradict each other. The usual explanation is that the older, nicer verses are abrogated by the later verses. But in reality all of the Koran is true since it comes from the only god, Allah. Allah is perfection, and therefore, the contradictory statements in the Koran are all true. This violates Aristotelian kafir logic, but it defines the Islamic dualistic logic. In Islam two contradictory things can both be true at the same time. So for every one of those statistically insignificant “good” verses, each one is weak, and the stronger harsh and violent verses are stronger. Contradictions are integral to Islamic logic.

To put a fine point on the previous claim—the only good for kafirs in the doctrine of political Islam is negated somewhere else.

FP: So what is the good of Islam?

Warner: Islam is the cause; Muslims are the effect. So if there is no good in Islam for a kafir, how is there any good in a Muslim for a kafir? There is not any good in a Muslim for kafirs. Cause and effect. But there can be good in people who call themselves Muslims.

Now we get to our central problem. There are some nice people who are Muslims, how do we explain this?

The doctrinal problem here is that a Muslim cannot be the friend of a kafir. The Koran says this 14 times. So if a friend is a Muslim, then that friendship has to be based on something other than Islam.

Notice that Islam has a strong core doctrine of mutual Muslims friendship; indeed the Koran says that Muslims are brothers and sisters to each other. And why can Muslims be friends? Because they are equal.

But a Muslim is not the political equal to a kafir because the Koran says that a Muslim is superior. So where does the good person who is a Muslim get his basis for friendship? The same place as everyone else does—from equality, the same equality that is inferred from the Golden Rule.

Treat others as you want to be treated.

Which others? All others, without exception. The Golden Rule implies the unity of humanity. There are no limits to its application.

The Golden Rule does not apply to Islam. Indeed, Islam denies the truth of the Golden Rule. The duality of Islam divides all humanity into Muslims and kafirs. There are no two groups more unequal than kafirs and Muslims.

FP: So what do we call the Muslim that is a friend of a non-believer?

Warner: The goodness in your Muslim friend comes from the kafir civilization, not Islam. Your friend is a kafirized Muslim, but he is not a good or a moderate Muslim. Remember, Osama bin Laden is a good and moderate Muslim.

FP: A kafirized Muslim. This is interesting. Expand for us please.

Warner: A kafirized Muslim is a new naming, but an old reality. For some reason, every analysis of Muslims assumes that they are completely Muslim, without any kafir in them. But Islam does not drive all Muslims in all aspects of their life. Kafir culture has some very appealing ideals and people who call themselves Muslims are attracted to the benevolence in it. A true Muslim has absolutely no attraction to any aspect of kafir culture. The Koran and Sunna condemn 100% of kafir culture, so no Muslim has any desire to emulate kafirs. As soon as a person has any attraction to any aspect of kafir culture, they cease to be a Muslim and become kafir. That is the way the doctrine of Islam works.

The name kafirized Muslim is analytic and fits the data. But kafirized Muslim is more than a name; it is a new concept with some very profound consequences.

What are its advantages? It is better than any of the alternatives such as a “good Muslim”, a “moderate Muslim” or my “Muslim friend”. All of these names are an attempt to bring some good out of Islam. But, there is no good in Islam for kafirs, only for Muslims.

The name kafirized Muslim acknowledges a bridge between Islam and kafirs. It is bigoted to assume that every Muslim has all of their behavior based upon Islam. Islam may demand that a person be 100% governed by Islam, but the truth is that Muslims are people and as people they are capable of picking and choosing. What is wrong with acknowledging that Muslims can be part kafir? What is wrong by acknowledging that the Golden Rule attracts Muslims?

The word “Muslim” entraps a person into a small box. What we need to be able to do is recognize the person, not the Muslim. We live in a multicultural age where the majority culture is defined as oppressive. In order to distinguish yourself, you should be separated from the main body. Hence, a name like African-American exists. But these names come with a box. If you are African-American, you are supposed to have certain political and social views. Similarly, the name Muslim can become a narrow category for a person. A Muslim should only have certain views, or you are not a “real” Muslim.

The name kafirized Muslim acknowledges that we are dealing with a person, not a category.

The usual names, (good Muslim, moderate Muslim), attempt to credit the good found in Muslims to the doctrine of Islam. The term kafirized Muslim clearly states that the good comes from the kafirs, not Islam.

Now we get to the crux of the politics of the made-up naming. These names represent a desperate attempt to deal with the problem of Islamic threats, violence and destruction of kafir civilization. Very few people know much about either the doctrine or history of political Islam. So they think of Islam as only a religion and believe since Islam has so many members, it must be one of the great religions. And all religions are good, so Islam must be good. But there is a nagging dark feeling about the violence in Islam. Since Islam has been defined good, there must be an explanation. Those Muslims who kill must be “extremist” Muslims. That leaves Islam as good with a few rotten apples.

In Islam, Mohammed, Ali, Umar, Abu Bakr and all of the rest of the founding Muslims were “extremist” Muslims since they were killers over and over again. What kafirs call extremism is only Islam.

FP: In the context of everything you are saying, what is the hope, or point, of trying to “reform” Islam?

Warner: Some come up with the thinking that if Islam has nothing good for kafirs, then why not reform it? This idea comes from making an analogy to Christianity. However, Islam’s claims aside, there are almost no points of comparison between Islam and Christianity. On the issue of ethics, for instance, there is absolutely no analogy.

The religion of Islam needs no reform. Who cares about how Muslims worship? All kafirs must be concerned with Islamic politics or how Islam defines them. The Koran, the Sira and the Hadith determine the treatment of kafirs.

To reform the Koran, all of the hateful, cruel, and bigoted references to kafirs would have to be removed. If the kafir material is removed, then only 39% of the Koran remains. The greatest part of the part of the Koran, 61%, is devoted to negativity about kafirs.

The Sira (the life of Mohammed) has about 75% of its material devoted to jihad.

The Hadith has 20% of its material devoted to jihad. There is no one positive reference to kafirs.

If you delete 61% of the Koran, 75% of the Sira and 20% of the Hadith, you will have reformed Islam. You will also have destroyed it. There is a very good reason that Islam has never been reformed. It is impossible.

Is it so hard to believe that a political system with the name “submission” (that is what Islam means) is violent and can’t be reformed? To submit is a demand of force.

Why would Islam want to reform? It works. You don’t fix a system that works.

The other objection to Islamic reform is that there is no central hierarchy that makes decision for Muslims. Anyone can read the doctrine and decide what to do. No one has the authority to decide what every Muslim can do. In that way, Islam is like the Internet; it is a distributed system with no central doctrinal authority. Who speaks for Islam? Mohammed. Who interprets Mohammed? Any Muslim.

You can have a kafirized Muslim, but there is no such thing as kafirized Islam. Islam cannot be reformed. Hence, the name reformed Islam is only a kafir dream.

FP: So we need to start using the right names and terms.

Warner: Of course. The right names help to think right thoughts. Muddled names lead to muddled thoughts. If we are serious, we must start using the right names to describe Islam. Our terms must be based upon Islam, not kafir dreams.

If we want to refer to the more peaceful Muslims, call them Meccan Muslims. The jihadists are Medinan Muslims.

Wrong names include: moderate Muslim, extremist Muslim, good Muslim, radical Muslim.

Right names include: Meccan Muslim, Medinan Muslim, kafirized Muslim.

We must take control of the language. Incorrect names lead to incorrect thinking. We have to use the right names to defeat political Islam.

FP: So what point of view is your argument and outlook based on?

Warner: All of this analysis is based upon a kafir-centric view. There are three ways to examine Islam—believer, kafir and dhimmi. The believer-centric view is the standard Islamic viewpoint. For the believer, the Koran is the perfect word of the only god of the universe and Mohammed is the prefect pattern for all human life and all times.

Kafir-centric analysis looks at Islam from the viewpoint of the kafir; how does this affect us?

Kafir-centric analysis is the view of the victim. As an example, in the Sira, Mohammed’s triumph over the Meccan polytheists is told as a wonderful victory. From the view of the kafir, it represents the annihilation of a tolerant society and the creation of the modern apartheid state of Arabia. As a result of Islam, the Arabs went from being a tolerant people to being the most bigoted and biased society on earth.

The kafir-centric school is skeptical and analytic.

The dhimmi-centric viewpoint is the academic school and is neither fish nor fowl. It is marked by political correctness and never refers to the deaths of the 270 million kafirs, never talks about the suffering of the dhimmis. The dhimmi-centric school is actually believer-centric lite. It rarely applies skepticism. The dhimmi-centric school is the predominate school in the universities, military, law enforcement, government and the media. The dhimmi-centric school is very fond of using modern political science to analyze Islam.

One of the marks of the dhimmi-centric school is to ignore Islamic political theory. For instance, jihad is never used to explain violence. Or Israel is seen only as a modern political state and the Palestinians are just another political group. Reading the Israelis news stories, you would never know that Islam had a doctrine of war. But when you read the communications of the Palestinian leaders, it is crystal clear that it is jihad against the kafirs in Israel. From the standpoint of Islam, if every Jew in Israel were a Hindu, nothing would change.

Multiculturalism is all the rage these days. What is strange is that only the believer-centric school and the kafir-centric theory explain Islam by its doctrine. The dhimmi-centric academic school avoids this at all costs. This is ironic since it was the academics who created multiculturalism. So the dhimmi-centric school is bigoted and euro-centric by its own standards of multiculturalism.

FP: Bill Warner, thank you for this fascinating and eye-opening discussion.

Warner: You are welcome Jamie.

Notes:

[1] Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors, Chapter 8, Sociality, pgs. 130-180, Nicholas Wade, Penguin Press, NY, 2006.
Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine’s managing editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s Left Illusions. He is also the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left and the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union (McGill-Queens University Press, 2002) and 15 Tips on How to be a Good Leftist. To see his previous symposiums, interviews and articles Click Here. Email him at [email protected].

By Jamie Glazov

FrontPageMagazine.com | 4/23/2008
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Bill Warner, the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI) and spokesman for PoliticalIslam.com.

FP: Bill Warner, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Warner: Jamie, thank you for inviting me.

FP: I would like to discuss the issue of dhimmis today. Let’s begin like this: who are the dhimmis? And what different kinds are there?

Warner: Dhimmis begin with Mohammed. He was the world’s supreme master of making others submit to his will. Mohammed had the insight into the human psyche that all human beings have a genetic disposition to submit to the will of the group and higher ranked individuals.

We like to think of ourselves as individuals who can make decisions and freely execute them. Mohammed’s insight was into the submissive side of being human. To survive as a civilization we must allow others to dictate what we do to some extent. As an example, we all submit to the idea that we stop our car at the red light. We submit to society’s rules. We are not completely free, but a member of society. If we did not have this “pack” gene, we could not survive as a species. We must be able to work together. There is no way to survive alone.

In short, all humans have a beta gene, a submissive gene, as part of our DNA. But a beta needs an alpha. Mohammed was history’s supreme alpha male.

Previous religious leaders and philosophers approached humanity with the idea of freeing the individual from fear. Mohammed did not try to free humanity, but to make humanity a slave to Allah, the god of fear. So he “revealed” the ultimate alpha—Allah. Under Allah, all humans come to their fulfillment by being Allah’s slave. But since Mohammed was the only “prophet” of Allah, to obey Allah was to obey Mohammed. Islam is submission to Allah/Mohammed.

In his early phase in Mecca, Mohammed only talked about religious slavery to Allah/Mohammed. The Koran promises the use of violence in Hell after death. The Koran of Mecca has 67% of its text devoted to how the kafirs (unbelievers) must submit to Allah/ Mohammed.

Then in Medina, Mohammed’s message became political, and he became violent without limits towards kafirs. Mohammed made all the Jews of Medina submit to him by robbery, murder, war, assassinations, rape, torture, executions, exile and enslavement.

After he had subdued all of the kafirs in Medina, Mohammed attacked the Jews of Khaybar. By now he realized that you could make more money from a live kafir than from a dead one. Kafirs can be enslaved, but the slave option has a disadvantage. Slaves have to be managed and be near at hand. So Mohammed created the dhimmi. The dhimmi agrees to live in a world that is dominated by Islam in all public areas. A dhimmi is free from Islam only in his own home. Law, customs, art, education, the media, government, speech and every thing in public space is Islamic. In addition, the dhimmi has to pay a tax to Islam called the jizya tax. In Khaybar the jizya tax was 50%.

The key psychological technique is that the dhimmi is to be humiliated in all possible ways. In effect, the dhimmi is halfway between freedom and slavery, a semi-slave.

Mohammed’s power structure was now complete. His first division of humanity was into believer/kafir. Then he refined kafir into dhimmi and slave. Humanity became divided into Muslim, kafir-slaves, kafir-dhimmis and kafirs.

As the Islamic conquest rolled over the kafirs, the dhimmi was the perfect tool of subjugation. After Islam conquered a country, for instance Egypt, the Muslims were the top dogs in the politics, but the Christians could keep their religion. However, they had to live without legal protection or civil rights. All public space was Islamic. The dhimmi could be insulted, abused and had no recourse. They had to pay the jizya tax. The dhimmi were cattle on the Islamic ranch, but could attend their church or synagogue.

FP: What happened to the dhimmis under these conditions?

Warner: The insults, humiliations and taxes wore the dhimmis down. What happened over time was that the dhimmis converted to Islam. It was easier to avoid all this pain and become a Muslim.

In the 20th century, Islam became so weak that the full dhimmi status was dropped. But if you meet and talk to Christians from the Middle East today, you will find that the centuries of dhimmitude have produced, in many cases, a personality similar to an abused wife. It is very sad to see how subjugated a personality can become.

There is another kind of dhimmi—kafirs who become apologists for Islam, fear and defer to it. So we have two types of dhimmi—the subjugated dhimmi who is under the political power of Islam and the apologist dhimmi who seeks Islamic favor.

FP: I see, so two kinds of dhimmis.

Warner: Exactly, the word dhimmi has two separate meanings—a subjugated dhimmi is persecuted and the apologist dhimmi helps the persecutor. The context determines which dhimmi we are talking about. One dhimmi is to be pitied and helped; the other dhimmi needs to be educated. But the apologist dhimmi is the key to defeating Islam.

Our civilization is under attack by political Islam. It is the intent of Islam to do this country what it has done to every country it has invaded—annihilate our civilization. This annihilation is the goal of political Islam for a simple reason. Annihilation is the process of Islamification. We must understand that Islam is a totally separate civilization from ours. The civilization of Islam is anti-everything in our civilization. As an example, our ethical system has at its core the Golden Rule and is a unitary system. We have one set of ethical rules for all possible groups. Islamic ethics are dualistic. Islam has one set of rules for Muslims and another set of rules for the kafirs.

Kafir logic is based upon Aristotelian law of non-contradiction. If two things contradict each other, then at least one of them must be false. Islamic logic is dualistic. The Koran establishes the logic of Islam. The Koran of Mecca contradicts the Koran of Medina, but since both Korans are perfect, both sides of the contradiction are true. Dualistic logic allows two contradictory “facts” to be true at the same time. Islamic logic is built on contradiction.

Allah is the god of duality and submission. Islamic civilization is based upon the principles of duality and submission. Our civilization is based upon the principles of unitary ethics and unitary logic.

FP: Right, ok, so our civilizations are completely different. We have nothing in common and our basic values are completely opposed to one another.

Warner: Jamie, this may be an extreme statement, but I am honestly unable to find even one issue on which Islam and the kafir culture agree.

Not one.

We have nothing in common. Since the Islamic civilization opposes us on every issue of art, politics, gender, education, the media, free speech, ethics, logic, family, and entertainment, it is an inevitable that the change would annihilate our civilization.

Mohammed agreed to a compromise with the kafirs once in the infamous Satanic verse when he compromised about prayer and the native Arabic gods. The Sira records that the act of compromise was the biggest mistake he ever made. After that, Mohammed never agreed with kafirs and never, ever compromised again. Total submission—annihilation—was Mohammed’s way.

There is no happy compromise that can be worked out with Islam. This is not because we are intolerant, unfeeling or stupid. As an example, the word kafir is the worst word in the human language. There is not one positive or neutral aspect to kafir. Allah loves Muslims and hates kafirs. What is the compromise that will let kafirs and Muslims live together harmoniously?

FP: Understood. So who are our enemies?

Warner: We have two ideological enemies—the far enemy, Islam, and the near enemy—the apologist dhimmis. The apologist dhimmis preach that a compromise exists.

Now think about how the near enemy works. It is Islam that demands that Muslims write the “official” history of Islam that will be taught in the kafir schools. But it is an ignorant textbook committee of dhimmis that say, “Yes, only Muslims can write the official version.” So our history courses never report the disaster of the loss of kafir culture in North Africa, the Middle East, Turkey and Hindustan. It is the dhimmis who decide the history, Islamic studies and Middle East departments and pass on lies as truth. It is a dhimmi government of America who has decided to base all of its policies on what the imam says. Islam knocks and we open the door and invite them in. Whatever Islam wants, the school board, textbook committee, zoning board, politician, educator, and media reporter gives them in order to be seen as tolerant.

Dhimmis roll over for all Islamic demands on our civilization. Dhimmis are aiding and abetting implementation of Sharia inch by inch. We are losing the war of annihilation due to the dhimmis, not the Muslims. It is not that Islam is so strong, but that we are so weak. We are weak because we are ignorant.

Who do you know–politician, professor, minister, rabbi, artist–who has read the Sira (the life of Mohammed) or the Koran? The heads of the FBI, military and the CIA have never given the slightest hint that they understand the doctrine or history of political Islam. All of these kafirs are dhimmis because they don’t know Islam.

The place to win the war of annihilation is to attack the near enemy, the dhimmi. Forget attacking the Muslims. That is useless.

FP: So what is the best way to wake up the dhimmis or, if they refuse to wake up, to defeat them? Tell us a bit about possible grand strategies.

Warner: The key to waking up the dhimmis is with two kinds of knowledge–history and doctrine. Our dhimmis suffer from wanting to do the right thing and they think that the right thing is to help the victim. And Islam always claims to be the victim. Dhimmis love a good victim story.

We need to tell the history of the real victims–subjugated dhimmis, the Christian Arabs, Egyptian Copts, the Armenians, the African slaves, the Hindus, and the rest. We need to tell our apologist dhimmis these victims, the story I call the Tears of Jihad.

The Western historical mind is schizophrenic. We have an enormous missing history. What’s missing is not the problem, the problem is that we don’t even know it is missing. I like to ask devout Christians, “What happened to the Seven Churches of Asia mentioned in the book of Revelation?” Most Christians don’t know how Greek Christian Anatolia became Turkish Islamic Turkey. Buddhists don’t know how Afghanistan became the ground zero of Ghandarvian Buddhism. Jews are in denial about their role as dhimmis in medieval Islamic history. North Africa used to be Greek and Roman. How did it become Islamic?

They all became Islamic with an invasion where the kafirs became subjugated dhimmis. Over the next centuries, all the dhimmis converted. The dhimmi is a halfway point to submission to Islam.

All of these civilizations were annihilated. It is the purpose and history of Islam to annihilate all kafir culture. But the enormous tragedy is that the history was annihilated as well. We don’t even know that such history exists, never mind what it is. Almost no kafirs ever refer to this non-history of annihilation.

How big is this non-history of annihilation? The total killed over a 1400-year period is about 270 million. That is the biggest single source killing in the history of the world. The history of the death of those 270 million is the Tears of Jihad. Each and every one of these people was killed for only one reason—they were kafirs.

FP: This was civilizational annihilation, right?

Warner: Yes, and it was a two-step process. The jihad crushed the kafir political structure and set up the natives as dhimmis. Centuries later, the kafir culture is annihilated because dhimmis always submit over enough time. Dhimmitude is a temporary state that leads to submission.

We must learn the history of the Tears of Jihad and present it to our dhimmi culture. Because it is not just that our leaders are dhimmis, but with the help of the media and education, our entire culture has been dhimmified. So the history of the subjugated dhimmi must be taught.

This is a major problem for the Tears of Jihad history has been suppressed. The suppression did not occur because of some left or right wing cabal, but due to our own revulsion about the history. The history of the jihad and dhimmitude is so shameful and humiliating that we do not want to know. The kafirs totally lost everything that was in their culture. The language, art, customs, names, literature, legal systems, history …everything. When you go to Egypt, where is the living civilization of the pharaohs? When you go to North Africa, what happened to the Greek, Roman and Christian civilization? Annihilated.

But there are bits and pieces of the destruction of ancient kafir cultures that can be found, if you search. But you won’t find this history in the universities. The universities teach a beautiful lie of the glorious conquest of Islam and the “Golden Age” that followed.

We don’t teach this shameful and humiliating history of the deaths of Tears of Jihad for another reason. If we understand the past, then we understand that it is happening today. We don’t want to know it because that would mean we have to do something. We are like the man who suspects that his wife is cheating on him, but doesn’t want to know, because if he knew he would have to act. Ignorance is a good enough reason to do nothing.

But we must teach the apologist dhimmis the history of the subjugated dhimmis. The brutality of dhimmitude is too much to dismiss. The deaths of 270 million are too many to ignore. And what is worse, 210 million of these dead kafirs are “people of color”. Even your uber-liberal dhimmis can get upset at the suffering of “people of color”.

Not only can we save our culture by knowing what happened to other kafir cultures, but also we would pay a moral debt to the dead. Until we acknowledge and remember the 270 million dead, they will have died in vain.

FP: Is there another front of attack on dhimmis?

Warner: Yes, the second front of attack on dhimmis is to use the doctrine of political Islam. It seems that every dhimmi has a Muslim friend or at least has read an article that says that the “real Islam” is peaceful, blah, blah, blah. Well, we no longer need the doctrine of political Islam interpreted for us by a “good” Muslim or the New York Times. We can go straight to Mohammed and Allah and see what they say. That is the entire purpose of CSPI’s books, as well as many others such as those by Ibn Warraq and Robert Spenser, is to expose the doctrine of political Islam.

You can’t go to a university to learn about Islam. The professors are the chief dhimmis and teach about Sufi poetry, Islamic architecture or modern political theory about the Middle East. But, the Web is filled with good sources on the doctrine of Islam found in the Trilogy—Koran, Sira (life of Mohammed) and Hadith (traditions of Mohammed). This material is scandalous. Mohammed was involved in violence on the average of every six weeks for nine years. The Koran talks about the kafirs as if they are the lowest scum in creation.

Not only is the political doctrine of Islam violent and hateful, but its results, the Tears of Jihad, are the worst single cause of suffering and the largest annihilation of people in human history. The story of the persecution of the dhimmis is dreadful. Mohammed was a violent and bad neighbor. This is all true and documented in fine detail by Islam.

All of the facts of persecution and doctrine of suffering are available to kafirs. So what? How can we force this material to be known? How can we deliver this ammunition? And to what target?

Our target must be the near enemy—the dhimmi, the apologist and enabler of Islam. Notice I said—the dhimmi, not the media, not the universities, not the government. We do not have the financial or political power to attack organizations.

But think about it. In every case, there is an individual involved. They may be the writer, the congressman, the professor, but their name is attached. We have to attack the specific dhimmi. By attack, I mean to invoke war, but this is an ideological war. Remember our ammunition is the doctrine and history of political Islam. We deliver that ammunition as best we know how.

While we are at it, we should also attack the dhimmi’s support network. If they are a newspaper writer, we also attack the editors and others who support or administer the writer. We attack the specific person and their network.

A lesson from the predators: a big cat kills in about 10% of its attacks. A wild dog pack kills about 90% of the time. Do the math. The wild dogs are organized, the big cats aren’t. We are too much like the big cats. We have to learn how to attack in packs.

We have very strong propaganda material. The kafirs have the best books, the best thinkers and the best Web sites. Islam has money, organization and a 1400-year head start so they are winning. Where we are tragically weak is in organization (including organizational money).

FP: Give some advice as to how we can improve our organization.

Warner: Ok, let me lay out a theoretical organization devoted to attacking dhimmis.

We must organize as political activists. This can take a thousand forms, but since this is a Web article, let me suggest one possible form of war—personal educational attacks on dhimmis.

Organization: Wild Dog Team (must have a coordinating website).

Situation: a university professor of Middle East studies writes a puff piece about Islam in a large newspaper.

Response: A Wild Dog member posts the article to the Wild Dog target page. If this dhimmi writer has been attacked before, there is a historical record. (Assume this has been going on long enough that an email directory has been prepared for the newspaper staff and the University Middle East studies and the University Administration.) Other Wild Dogs sign up to do a pack attack.

A project page is created for this attack. The project page has some suggested ideas for attack lines. Each of the members writes a letter and sends it to the email list of the professor, the newspaper editorial staff, the University department and University Administration. The team member also posts his letter to Project Page. This lets other Pack members coordinate their letters and not duplicate.

The Library: The Wild Dogs Web page has a library of “best letters” so that cut and paste can be used for letter writing.

Tone: no personal attacks. Use facts of the doctrine and history. These letters are not to insult, but to educate. Shame works, use it.

Repetition: Each time the professor writes another letter or the newspaper publishes another dhimmi article, the Pack attack continues. Individual dhimmis can be influenced over time by knowledge, pressure and shame.

This is all doable. We have a lot of talent, but we are not organized.

Here is another organization idea: we kafirs have many Web sites. We need a communication network for our Web site owners. There are ideas, projects, strategies and tactics we could share and develop, and have a channel to advance some ideas.

We must make being a kafir a point of identity and pride. Call yourself a kafir in all relations with Muslims. We are the Free, free of Islam. Muslims are the slaves. We must make the word dhimmi a stinging, shameful rebuke, a punishing insult that hurts.

So I can’t make it any clearer and I need to shout:

Kafirs must organize and be politically active against the dhimmis.

FP: Let me switch over to some Christian apologists for Islam out there. They trying to make Islam seem right. There are also those Christians who oppose Islam but they are scared to come out. What are your thoughts on this phenomenon?

Warner: These are all manifestations of dhimmitude based upon ignorance and fear, the terms of surrender to Islam. Such people are not capable of defeating political Islam nor doing battle.

Jamie, I have been to some of the most outrageous Christian events. I have seen evangelical Christians stand up and defend Islam based upon what an imam told them. I know graduates from prestigious divinity schools say that a dhimmi was protected by Islam (warm and fuzzy) and the that Islam is a “brother Abrahamic faith”.

Some evangelicals admire Islam, because Muslims are so Puritanical and relentless in their public faith. Other Christians are jealous of Islam. Christians are reflexively attacked by the media and the intellectuals; mocked for their beliefs and given short shift for Christianity’s role in forming our civilization. You couldn’t even get the intellectuals to criticize Islam when they murdered and raped innocent school children in Beslan, Russia. Government, universities and the media fall all over themselves to “respect” and not “offend” Islam. Some Christians look at that and are wistful. This can lead to a kind of admiration. Islam may be like the Mafia, but they get respect.

Then you have the main line churches like the Episcopalians and Methodists. They compete with the Leftists to be the most tolerant and understanding dhimmis.

Christianity’s main problem in dealing with Islam is seeing it only as a religion. Therefore, they want to defeat Islam by conversion. Christians point to a few converts and say, “See it works.” The only problem is that more Muslims are born or immigrate than convert. Christians must do the math.

Christians are ignorant about Islam and don’t know how to use Mohammed for their benefit. If you know the life of Mohammed, you can use his brutality, enslavement of kafirs, deceit, and bigotry to attack Islam. The best strategy is to use the knowledge about Mohammed and the Koran to first cause the Muslim to become an apostate and leave Islam. Then they can convert the apostate to Christianity.

Christianity is the best, and maybe the only, chance we have of defeating Islam. Just earlier I said that our main problem was organizational. Christians have that solved and have, many times, exerted social and political pressure. Christians bring a certain mass to the solution. Just imagine what could happen if Christian intelligence, communications, organizational skills, morale and capital could be brought to bear. Christianity must realize that this is live-or-die as a civilization and there are only two choices—war or annihilation. See Turkey, Egypt, Iraq and North Africa for what an annihilated Christianity looks like.

It is time for Christians to learn the truth about political Islam’s history and doctrine. Protestant Christianity invented universal education. They must repeat this. This time they must educate themselves about the factual truth about Islam.

Now let’s deal with “scared to come out” part of your question. I know of both Christians and Jews who are afraid to speak about Islam at their church or synagogue. This lack of candor and honesty means that there are congregants who do not know that there are others feel just as they do. Silence has replaced honesty in both Christianity and Judaism. Both Christians and Jews are ruled by a desperate ignorance. The topic of Islam is forbidden to be discussed when ministers and rabbis get together at organizational meetings.

FP: What about the Jews?

Warner: A large portion of Jews are in a state of denial. When Islam comes up, their first instinct is to move from Islam to their irritations with Christianity. The vast majority of Jews don’t know Sira from syrup and think that Hadith is a Scottish dish. So they prove their “tolerance” by making apologies for Islam.

The true nature of Jews and dhimmitude is given in detail by Andy Bostom’s book, The Islamic Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism (to be published in May, 2008). I am sure there is a rabbi somewhere who knows what a dhimmi is, but I have never met him.

Jews are the oldest and supreme dhimmis. They actually write propaganda for Islam. Bernard Lewis and Ruven Firestone are dhimmi sycophants of the highest order. They transform dhimmitude into an elitist Islamic Golden Age. And, of course, since Muslims are a minority in America, Jews would not want to be caught dead being bigots by opposing political Islam. So, the dhimmi Minnesota Jews helped vote in the first Muslim US Congressman whose supporters yelled “Allahu akbar” over and over again at his victory celebration.

There is no way to save Israel without understanding the jihadic nature of the Palestinians. But Jews must be willing to study political Islam to save Israel.

I am harsh in criticizing Christians and Jews because we cannot win without them. It is time to reverse a 1400-year history of deliberate ignorance and face the truth about the doctrine and history of political Islam. In the war to defend ourselves against political Islam, the Christians are like the regular army. The Jews are like the Marines. We need the intellectual power and influence of the Jews.

Jews and Christians could unite on a project that could save us. There is an enormous historical suffering in the Tears of Jihad. This material has never been collected. Jews have experience in documenting the Holocaust. They could work with Christians to collect and record the suffering. There is both old and ancient history to be collected and cataloged, along with the suffering of those alive today. This history must be preserved.

We can see we face an up-hill battle when it comes to unifying Christians and Jews to war against political Islam. It was Mohammed who said that Christians are endless divided and Jews have hearts harder than rocks. The actual task of attacking dhimmis is not so hard. It is assembling the army that is hard. Can evangelicals feel sympathy for the suffering of the Orthodox and Catholics? Many Jews don’t like the fact that they have to accept help from Christians for Israel. Historically Catholics have bad blood with the Orthodox. The first instinct of any Christian when they meet another Christian is to notice how they disagree about doctrine—endlessly divided. In the face of these divisions, we must assemble an army and prove Mohammed wrong.

We haven’t even talked about the secular kafirs. Kafirs are a quarrelsome lot and never seem to be happier than when they argue with other kafirs about politics. But the simple fact is that if all kafirs don’t unite against political Islam, Islam will unite them all when their descendants bow down and face Mecca at the call to prayer.

FP: Bill Warner, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

Warner: Thank you.
Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine’s managing editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s Left Illusions. He is also the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left and the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union (McGill-Queens University Press, 2002) and 15 Tips on How to be a Good Leftist. To see his previous symposiums, interviews and articles Click Here. Email him at [email protected].

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-two-kinds-of-dhimmis/

FRONTPAGE ARTICLES

Islam, Slavery and Rape
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, November 23, 2007

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Bill Warner, the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI) and spokesman for politicalislam.com. CSPI’s goal is to teach the doctrine of political Islam through its books and it has produced an eleven book series on political Islam. Mr. Warner did not write the CSPI series, but he acts as the agent for a group of scholars who are the authors. The Center’s latest book is The Submission of Women and Slaves, Islamic Duality.

FP: Bill Warner, welcome back to Frontpage Magazine. This is the second part in our two-part series with you on the Center’s most recent book. In the first part we discussed Islam and its doctrine on the submission of women. In this second and final part we will discuss the matter of slavery. Welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Warner: It is a pleasure to work with Frontpage.

FP: So tell us in general where Islam stands on slavery.

Warner: Islam’s stand on slavery is based on its political principles of submission and duality. The principle of submission could not be clearer. By definition a slave is the most submissive of all people. You become a slave only when you have no more choices. A slave has completely submitted to a master.

The principle of duality is shown by the fact that Islam does not enslave Muslims, only kafirs (non-Muslims). Since only kafirs are enslaved, it assures that more of the world submits to Islam.

Islamic slavery is based on the Trilogy of the Koran, the Sira (Mohammed’s life) and the Hadith (the Traditions of Mohammed). All three texts say that slavery is permitted, ethical, desirable and a virtue. There is not one single negative word about slavery.

Slavery is seen as a process that brings kafirs to Islam. It is a virtue to free slaves, but Mohammed only freed slaves who submitted to Islam. If the kafir slave does not submit, then their children will. So given enough time, slaves convert to Islam. That is one of the reasons that Islam sees slavery as a positive.

Of course, there is another reason that Islam sees slavery as being so “good” and that is the money. Mohammed and the other jihadists made a fortune out of enslaving kafirs. Mohammed used the money for more jihad. So slavery financed the spread of Islam and jihad from the beginning.

FP: What were the ingredients of Mohammed’s own life in terms of slavery?

Warner: Mohammed is the perfect pattern for all humanity and his life was saturated in slavery. When his mother died, it was a freed slave who nursed him. His first wife owned slaves. One of his first converts was a slave. His closest friend, Abu Bakr, traded one of his black kafir slaves for a Muslim who was enslaved by a kafir.

But all of this was small change compared to his envolvement with slavery once he turned to jihad. In his first major battle at Badr, he stood by and prayed as his henchmen beat and tortured captured slaves to get information about the enemy kafirs.

Slaves made Mohammed’s pulpit. Slaves mended his cloths, cooked his food, and did every thing that a slave does for the master. He gave away slaves as gifts and received them as gifts. He went to war to kill the males so that the remaining people would surrender to be sold as slaves. Mohammed sold slaves on both the retail and wholesale markets.

He offered captured slaves their freedom if they would first agree that he was the prophet of Allah. A kafir slave then became a slave of Allah, because all Muslims are slaves of Allah. For a slave, the religion of Mohammed started and ended with slavery.

FP: Can you talk a bit about Islam and sexual slavery?

Warner: All morality in Islam is patterned after the example of Mohammed. Everything that he did and said defines what is permitted or “good”. Mohammed repeatedly sanctioned forced sex (rape) with kafir females after they were captured. The Hadith clearly reports that he got first choice of the women. In one case, he repeatedly demanded one particular woman for himself and swapped two other kafir slave women for his choice. So if Mohammed was involved in the rape of kafirs, then rape is a virtue, not a sin or error.

When Mohammed destroyed the B. Qurayza tribe, all of the adult male Jews were beheaded, so that no husbands were left. Mohammed then took the children and gave them to Muslims to raise as Muslims and he sold off the Jewish women as slaves.

We know from another story that the women were divided into sex slaves and domestic slaves. In one scene, a jihadist is trying to obtain a high ransom for a woman and he is told that her breasts are flat and her mouth is cold, so her value was less. In short, she was only good for work around the house, not in the bedroom.

The Hadith tells of another story where the Muslims used coitus interruptus to avoid impregnating the kafir sex slaves. The reason was purely for business. If the kafir sex slave was pregnant, then she was worth less money.

Islamic doctrine says that kafir women should not be used for prostitutes, only for the pleasure of the master.

When Mohammed attacked the Jews at Khaybar, many moral precedents were set. Sexual slavery received an entire set of rules. Muslims were not to rape pregnant or menstruating women until they had delivered the child or finished their periods. At Khaybar, Mohammed’s god Allah, announced that even married women were fair game for rape.

Mohammed only killed some of the Jews at Khaybar. The male and female survivors were needed to work the land as dhimmis. (The original dhimmis were semi-slaves with no civil rights. Today, dhimmis are ignorant kafirs who apologize for Islam.) Since Islam needed the men to work, husbands were left alive. That was the reason that the Koran said that in this case, even with the husbands looking on, it was good to rape the women.

Sexual slavery was not only fun and profitable for the Muslim men, but rape was a powerful tactic of war, then and today. The women are forced into submission to Muslim men and the husbands are humiliated. Humiliated men are weakened men, so more kafirs were less able to resist Islam.

For some time Mohammed’s favorite sex partner was a Christian slave from Egypt named Mary. One of Mohammed’s wives caught him in some state of intimacy with Mary in the wife’s bedroom and raised hell. Mohammed promised to not do it again and moved Mary to her own apartment in Medina.

Mohammed had received Mary and her sister as gifts. He gave her sister away to a Muslim poet. He was used to giving away sex slaves. He gave several of his top lieutenants kafir sex slaves. Umar, who later became caliph, gave his sex slave to his son. [As an aside, when he was caliph, his son got drunk and Umar beat him to death.]

FP: This institution of Islamic sexual slavery isn’t just a reality of the past is it?

Warner: Everything that has been said up to now is not only history; it is Sunna (the example of the perfect pattern of action and morality found in Mohammed). So today we don’t have a beautiful blonde Christian girl on the block in Mecca, but we have continuous and ongoing rapes by Muslims in kafir cities. This goes on everywhere that Islam goes because it is Sunna.

This is a continuous 1400-year history of jihad. In every detailed history that comes from the original documents from history, rape is a constant. You have to look in the original documents, since our historians refuse to report it in so-called history books.

Rape is Sunna. Rape is not a sin. Rape is permitted and encouraged by Mohammed and the Koran. Islam is the only political system in the world that includes rules for rape and war. Rape is jihad. How good can it get? A Muslim gets to rape a kafir girl and get heaven credits. All jihad is a ticket to Paradise.

The most disgusting aspect of the Islamic rape of kafirs is not the rapes, but the kafir response. Kafirs become dhimmis by ignoring the rapes. I challenge you to find one, even one, mention of Islamic rape in the history books.

Islamic rape is more taboo than the N-word in the media. At least the N-word is acknowledged to exist. Even unicorns exist in media fantasy. But Islamic rape is forbidden to even exist as a fantasy.

And to reach a fevered rant: our so-called “feminist” scholars are absolutely intellectually and morally bankrupt hypocrites. They are traitors to our culture and a shame and a disgrace. They remain silent in the face of heinous crimes against women. They are arch-dhimmis when they refuse to speak of the Sunna, history and current rapes of our daughters, mothers, and sisters.

And our tax dollars support their evil in our public universities.

FP: Mohammed was a white man and had black slaves, correct? Isn’t there a racism here? Where is all the leftist indignation against Islam on this issue?

Warner: The relationship between blacks and slavery is ironic. A standard approach of Islam to blacks is that Christianity is the religion of the white man and Islam is the natural religion of the black man. They add that Mohammed’s second convert was a black slave, Bilal, who was Mohammed’s companion and the first muezzin (the man who calls to prayer).

The Hadith, however, goes out of its way, many times, to tell the world that Mohammed was a white man. The Hadith also tells us the race of the kafirs that Mohammed enslaved. And Mohammed had many black slaves in his household. One of his slaves was a black man called, Anjasha.

Mohammed owned black slaves. It is that simple. His favorite wife, the child Aisha, had a black slave. But to be fair to Mohammed, he was not a racist about slavery. He enslaved Arabs, Africans, and Greeks. Islam enslaves all kafirs, independent of race.

Mohammed was politically incorrect about blacks and called them “raisin heads” in the Hadith. Thus it would be a compliment to call a black Muslim a “raisin head.” It would be Sunna and not offensive. Mohammed also said that Muslims are to obey the Islamic leader, “even if they were black.” A left-handed compliment, at best.

Mohammed used his robe to shield Aisha, so she could watch black slaves perform a martial arts routine in the mosque. The Hadith tells of a prophecy about a black man bringing evil to Islam. Black men were prophesized to destroy the Kabah.

But when Muslims preach to blacks they only say that Islam’s first muezzin was a black man. They don’t tell the rest of the story.

FP: Can you give us a brief synopsis of the history of Islamic slavery?

Warner: It all started with Mohammed and then went worldwide.

When Islam burst out of Arabia into the kafir world, they took the wealth and slaves. Slavery was an unapologetic part of jihad.

The Arabic language is a good place to see how important slavery was. In The Submission of Women and Slaves, we collected over 30 Arabic words that deal with slavery. We think that Arabic has more words for slaves than any other language.

Both a black African and a black slave have the same name, abd. The historical reason for this is that African slavery was so important to Islamic economics. Language reflects history. Islamic legal history is filled with the complaints by African Muslim jurists about how Arabic Muslim slave traders captured African Muslims and sold them on the auction block.

History records around 11,000,000 Africans being sent to the Americas and about 13,000,000 being sent to Islamic countries for a total of 24,000,000 African slaves. To get one slave, many others have to be killed for the tribe to surrender to enslavement. The old, sick and children are left behind to starve. These collateral deaths are conservatively estimated to about 5 to 1. So that implies that over 1400 years, 120,000,000 million Africans have been killed to furnish Islam with its profits.

The accepted history of race in the U.S. is that white men captured Africans, brought them to the U.S. and sold them as slaves. This is wrong. When the white slavers showed up on the west coast of Africa, they didn’t capture Africans. They looked them over in the pens, gave the Muslim slave traders their money, took their bills of sale, and loaded their purchases into their boats.

The Muslims had been plying the trade of war, capture, enslavement, and sale for a thousand years. Mohammed was a slave trader. Long after the white slave traders quit, the Muslims continued their African slave trade. It still exists today.

And to put a fine point on it, many African slaves were castrated by removing both testicles and penis. Castrated slaves brought more on the slave block. Castrated blacks were the traditional keepers of Mohammed’s mosque in Medina.

African slaves were called abd; white slaves were called mamluk. Most black slaves were used in mining and heavy fieldwork. White slaves were used more for skilled trades. White slaves were even promoted to leadership positions, if they converted. Only one black slave was promoted to leadership. He ruled Egypt and was a eunuch.

Over a million white slaves were taken from Europe. Our word, slave, comes from Slav. A white woman was the highest price slave for 1400 years on the Meccan auction block. The Muslim who could not afford a white sex slave choose an Ethiopian woman at a third of the price.

The most revolting enslavement of whites was how Turkish Muslims took as a tax, one out of five Christian children in Islamic ruled Eastern Europe. These male children were taken back to Turkey where they became the janissaries, elite soldiers for the sultan. The Turkish sultans did not trust tribal Muslims to be the elite palace guards, since they all harbored ancient tribal rivalries. We see the same distrust of Muslim tribal politics in Afghanistan, where kafirs are used as presidential guards.

The Hindus were enslaved, but we don’t have the number. We do know that jihad took half of ancient Hindustan and killed 80,000,000 Hindus. We have accountings of Hindus being enslaved by the hundreds of thousands at a time.

Muslims enslave everyone, but no one enslaves Muslims. This knowledge is part of Islam’s arrogance and superiority. They know the history; it is the dhimmis (kafir apologists) who are ignorant of the doctrine and history of Islamic slavery.

FP: The violent capture and enslavement of black Africans by Muslim Arabs continues to this today. The root of this modern-day slavery is, of course, Islamic doctrine.

Warner: The enslavement of Africans is happening today. The only reason that Islam stopped enslaving whites and Hindus is that Islam is too weak to resist the social pressure. The Sunna of slavery has not changed, just the ability to use their law.

In the African countryside Muslims are still using jihad to enrich themselves. I have spoken with a Sudanese slave who escaped. The Muslims killed his parents and took him and his sister. Each night the jihadists gang raped his sister. Remember, rape is Sunna.

When he met his new masters, they put him in the middle of a circle of the family and each beat him with a stick. He was told that his new name was Abd, black slave. He slept in the barn with the animals.

Our media and intellectuals are quick to punish the slightest insult by a white against a black man, but they have not the slightest recognition of murder, rape and enslavement of blacks by Islam. Our media and intellectuals are dhimmis.

FP: Final thoughts and comments?

Warner: Slavery is the fruit of Islamic duality. Mohammed, the master of dualism and submission, used slavery as a tool of jihad because it worked. Mohammed’s life was infused with slavery. Slaves were the lifeblood of Islam. Mohammed, the white man, owned both male and female black slaves. His attitude was pure dualism.

The most disgusting thing about Islamic slavery is not that Muslims enslave others, but that we ignore it. The Muslims have been fed the Koran and the Sunna in their mother’s milk. They are doing what is ethical according to Islam. In a strange way, Muslims are to be pitied. A Muslim is the first victim of Islam.

The criticism of whites because of their being involved in slavery is standard fair in the media and the universities. Try to find a university that even teaches about the killing of 120,000,000 Africans for Muslims to profit from the 24,000,000 slaves.

Blacks define themselves on the basis of slavery. They will not go beyond the white, Christian version of slavery. There is only one theory of history in the black community—the West African Limited Edition version of history. Blacks will not admit the broad scope of slave history. Hindu slavery? It never happened. White and European slavery? It never happened. Slavery on the East coast of Africa? It never happened. A massive slave trade through the Sahara into North Africa? It never happened. Black, eunuchs at the Medina mosque? It never happened. This incomplete history of slavery is what the taxpayers fund in the state universities.

How can black leaders ignore Islam’s sacred violence in Africa? Why aren’t the black columnists, writers, professors, or ministers speaking out? They are ignorant and in total denial. They are the molested children of Islam.

Blacks are dhimmis and serve Islam with their silence. There is a deep fear of Islam that makes them overlook and placate Islam. Arabs are the masters of blacks.

One thing whites and blacks have in common is that their ancestors were enslaved by Islam, and both are too ignorant to know it. Blacks and whites have a secret shame buried under the denial of being slaves inside Islam.

But the rest of the media and intellectuals line up as dhimmis, too. One of the marks of a dhimmi under the fourth caliph, Umar, was that a dhimmi was forbidden to study the Koran. The chief mark of dhimmitude today is ignorance of the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith. The ignorance of kafir intellectuals about Islam is profound.

They don’t know about how jihad killed the 120,000,000 Africans, the 60,000,000 Christians, the 80,000,000 Hindus or the 10,000,000 Buddhists. Our intellectuals do not know about the Tears of Jihad (detailed in all of our books). That is a lot of death and ignorance—270,000,000 dead. Our intellectuals don’t know, don’t care and don’t bother. They deny.

University Islamic studies never mention the Islamic political doctrine. The media discusses Islam in terms of political correctness, and multiculturalism. History courses don’t teach about the civilizational annihilation due to jihad. 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. Islamic ethics and politics have one set of rules for Muslims and another for kafirs. Our civilization is based upon the ideal of unitary ethics, the Golden Rule. We do not have two sets of laws and ethics, like Islam. Our intellectuals cannot explain what dualism has meant in the past or what it will mean for our future—civilizational annihilation.

Our intellectuals and the media have only one view of Islam—a glorious civilization. They have created the “terrorist”, a bogus term based upon ignorance. And the “terrorist” is not even a “real” Muslim, but an extremist fundamentalist. All of these terms are based upon a profound ignorance of Islamic political doctrine.

Intellectuals cannot connect the dots of persecution of other intellectuals and artists today, such as Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh, the Mohammed cartoon riots, and Daniel Pearl. Their persecution is part of a 1400 year Islamic tradition of keeping all intellectuals and artists in line with the doctrine of political Islam. But for our intellectuals, there is no history, no connection, no pattern, no doctrine of Islam. Their only doctrine is the doctrine of denial. These intellectuals write our textbooks. Then our tax dollars buy the books to feed the ignorance.

What explains the intellectuals’ silence and ignorance? The enormous violence of jihad has produced the psychology of the “molested child” syndrome. Intellectuals fear, apologize for, and placate the Islamic abusers, ignoring the violence of the past. Then they turn around and advise our politicians. The result is an ignorant populace who look to our intellectuals for guidance and find treachery and lies.

FP: Bill Warner, thank you for joining us.

Warner: Thank you for standing against political Islam.

Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine’s managing editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s Left Illusions. He is also the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left and the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union (McGill-Queens University Press, 2002) and 15 Tips on How to be a Good Leftist. To see his previous symposiums, interviews and articles Click Here. Email him at [email protected].

Copyright©2008 FrontPageMagazine.com