Islam and the Egyptian Political Future

Published in American Thinker

Today we see the politics in Egypt in change and the question of the day is “what will happen to the government?” The details cannot be known, but the future will probably be some version of the past a past is driven by Islamic political doctrine.

All Islamic political doctrine is determined by the example of Mohammed. His rise to power was not by winning elections, but in the use of armed force. Mohammed averaged an event of violence on the average of every six weeks for the last nine years of his life. He may have been the prophet of Allah, but his rule was in parallel to other absolute rulers.

Historically, fascism was a political system in power in Italy in the middle twentieth century. Today, the term has come to mean:

• An authoritarian political system with a strong leader who is glorified.
• Mass demonstrations play a political role.
• Totalitarian rule without an opposing political party.
• Militaristic–advocate the use of force to advance the ideology.

Even the casual observer can see that Islam has many of these features.

Political Domination

Mohammed is the ideal Islamic leader. He rose to power by force of arms—jihad. Jihad was critical in his rise to total and absolute power.

The Sunna (the perfect example of a Muslim life) of Mohammed is found in the Hadith (Traditions) and Sira (his biography). The three texts, Koran, Sira and Hadith, are named the Trilogy. If it is in the Trilogy, it is Islam. If it is not in the Trilogy, it is not Islam. Here is a chart of how much text is devoted to jihad in the Islamic texts:

Jihad is a large part of Islamic doctrine. It is not a verse or two, but a dominant theme. In his jihad phase, Mohammed attacked his nearest neighbor and then the next nearest. He attacked with propaganda and the sword. This remains Islamic hegemonic political doctrine.

Islam’s political purpose is for the entire world to be under Sharia law.

The Elimination of Political Enemies by Force

Islam started as a religious ideology in Mecca, but in Medina it quickly moved to the use of lethal force by men sent out with orders to attack commercial targets, kill, capture and take all wealth. The captured victims were ransomed, executed, enslaved and tortured. The size of the forces ranged from single assassins to small bands and armies.

This military philosophy was so important that it was given a unique name—jihad. What is so brilliant about jihad is its civilizational scope. Armed force was merely the final stage in a system of war against all Kafirs. Jihad is practiced by armed force, speech, writing and cash contributions through charities. (Note: the inner or spiritual jihad is mentioned in less than 2% of texts.)

The graph below shows the efficiency of jihad. The conversion rate went from about ten a year to ten thousand per year.

Jihad has been the most effective system of military force known to humanity. Today, no one kills for Julius Caesar, Napoleon or any other military leader of history. Kafirs die daily because of jihad. Approximately 270 million Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and Africans have been destroyed by jihad over the last 1400 years.

Islam created the word “assassin”. Mohammed repeatedly used assassins to eliminate his political enemies, including artists and intellectuals. A partial list includes:

A Partial List of Assassinated Intellectuals and Leaders

Strong Leader

When Mohammed died he did not have an enemy left standing. All Arabs within his horizon were Muslims. He absolutely and completely dominated all political life in a unified Arabia. Mohammed is the perfect example of an Islamic political leader. He was absolute in his power. He was the judge, lawgiver, military leader, intellectual leader, spiritual leader, and political leader.

He rose to power through his own efforts and became the ultimate strongman. He did not leave behind a process for Islam to choose leaders other than imitating his methods.

Nationalism

All Muslims are a part of the umma, the Islamic community or nation. This concept goes beyond the usual geographic boundaries of nation. The al Qaeda idea of restoring the caliphate is based upon going back to a supreme leader who rises to power and rules all Muslims as the global umma.

The umma means that every Muslim living in a Kafir nation has two allegiances—the nation and Islam. Islam demands that a Muslim’s first allegiance is to the umma, not the nation. Therefore, the Islamic version of nationalism is umma-ism.

Mass demonstrations

Islam does mass demonstrations and riots like a symphony orchestra plays Bach. Demonstrations are a political tradition. The Islamic mass demonstration is so common that we do not really see the brilliance and perfection that is in their execution. Mass demonstrations and riots are happening in Europe and we will soon feel the pressure of them in America when Islam has greater numbers.

Over time Political Islam dominates every country where Islam was introduced. At some point in the process, street riots, mass rallies and assassinations become part of the political process of domination by Islam, until complete political dominance is achieved.

Israel and Islam

At first Islam was kind to the Jews, but in the end Mohammed exiled, enslaved and annihilated every Jew in Arabia. This is recorded in the Trilogy. Examine the next chart:

There is less Jew hatred in Mein Kampf than in the Trilogy. Hence, Islamic texts can be compared to Mein Kampf. Ask this question: if Egypt becomes more Islamic, as the Muslim Brotherhood wants, what will the new Egyptian policy be towards Israel?

Conclusion

Islam has fascist qualities. The next government in Egypt will have a fig leaf of democracy, but if the past is any guide it will be fascist in it implementation and rule. Egypt will become more Sharia compliant, which is bad news for all Christians in Egypt.

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink https://politicalislam.com/islam-and-the-egyptian-political-future/
Copyright © 2011 CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com

There is a false dichotomy about Islam. Some think that only conservatives are critical about Islam and the liberal/progressives/Democrats/leftists are supportive of Islam. But there are very conservative Christians who admire Islam and stand up for it. There are left-of-center types who abhor Islam because of its doctrine and treatment of women. There are people from both camps who support and condemn Islam.

Islam has little to do with left/right and liberal/conservative split. Islam is another axis and does not share the normal political divisions. Now it is true that the Democrats are the current benefit of Islamic support, but during Bush’s first election, Muslims in Florida claimed it was their support that tipped the election to Bush. Muslims have voted for both parties.

Although there are more conservatives who are critical of Islam than liberals, the correlation is not so strong as to be useful. There is another political axis that predicts whether someone supports or criticizes Political Islam. That axis is knowledge, knowledge about the doctrine and history of Political Islam.

Whether a Kafir (non-Muslim) supports or criticizes Islam is not classical left/right politics, but knowledge. There are two separate Kafir parties—the Party of Knowledge and the Party of Ignorance.

The Party of Knowledge has learned about the political doctrine and political history of Islam and knows about words such as jihad, Sunna, dhimmi and Kafir. Members of the Party of Knowledge know that the Koran is a dualistic document and contains “good” and “bad” verses that are both true. The Party of Knowledge also knows that the biggest key to understanding Islam is knowing Mohammed, not the Allah of the Koran.

The Party of Ignorance draws its arguments from what Muslims say about Islam. They use the voice of Muslims to repeat apologies for Islam. The Party of Ignorance is always attacking the members of the Party of Knowledge with insults, put downs, mocking tones and allusions to the Party of Knowledge being bigots and hate-speechers. In short, the Party of Ignorance repeats what Muslims say and uses personal attacks against the members of the Party of Knowledge. Knowledge is evil; ignorance is good.

The true foundation of the Party of Ignorance is that they absolutely refuse to read any of the biography of Mohammed, the Sira, nor his traditions, the Hadith. The Party of Ignorance holds the Koran in high esteem, but no one in the Party of Ignorance has any understanding of it. Since it is impenetrable it must be profound. Since it is not understood, it can mean anything you want to project onto it.

What are we to call the members of these two parties? Derivative names such as Knowers and Know-nothings suggest themselves, but there is already a classical set of names taken from Islamic doctrine. Members of the Party of Knowledge are Kafirs and members of the Party of Ignorance are dhimmis. Naturally the Kafirs know who they are and the dhimmis have not clue as to what their name means. Poetic justice?

A dhimmi is a creature created by Mohammed when he subjugated the Jews of Khaybar. Dhimmis can live under Sharia law, because they have agreed to never publicly oppose Islam and practice their beliefs in private. Today, the name dhimmi refers to an uncritical apologist of Islam.

How does this play out in real life? Here is the language of the Kafirs: Koran, Sira, Hadith, and Sharia. Their language uses terms like Sunna and abrogation. Kafirs use details about the history of jihad and the dhimmi.

Dhimmis quote a Muslim or an apologist professor. But the favorite dhimmi talk is about how Kafirs are stupid and evil. Dhimmis always move away from the subject of Islam as soon as possible and start deprecating/trashing Christians and Western culture. Dhimmis tend to never use technical words such as jihad, but use words such as terrorist. Just as soon a terrorist is mentioned, then comes the example of that Christian terrorist, Timothy McVey. Of course, he was a self-avowed atheist, but that matters little to a dhimmi. The only Islamic history the dhimmi knows is a censored version of the Crusades and the fabricated Golden Age of Islam.

Analytic thought brings up the question of a Muslim being in the Party of Knowledge. There are two types of people in the Party of Knowledge—Kafir and Muslim. How do we distinguish them from each other? Simple, how does a Muslim and a Kafir react to Kafir suffering? One fine day, Mohammed sat beside his 12 year old wife and watched as jihadist beheaded 800 male Jews. For a Muslim, this was as day of joy and triumph. The Kafir sees the deaths of 800 Kafir Jews as a war crime and an act of evil.

There are two types of people in the Party of Knowledge, but only one kind of person in the Party of Ignorance. If you are confused, then you are a member of the Party of Ignorance.

//////

The Party of Knowledge & the Party of Ignorance

Партия знания и Партия невежества

Относительно Ислама существует ложная дихотомия. Некоторые считают, что его критикуют лишь консерваторы, а либералы / прогрессисты / демократы / левые его поддерживают. Есть еще очень консервативные христиане, которые восхищаются Исламом и поддерживают его. Существуют левоцентристские типы, которые отвергают Ислам из-за его учения и отношения к женщинам. Есть люди в обоих лагерях, которые, кто осуждает, а кто поддерживает Ислам.

Ислам имеет мало общего с левым / правым и либеральным / консервативным расколом. Ислам – это просто другая ось, и он не разделяет нормальные политические разногласия. Верно, что демократы – это текущая выгода от исламской поддержки, однако, во время первых выборов Буша, мусульмане во Флориде утверждали, что именно их поддержка способствовала его избранию. Мусульмане голосовали за обе партии.

Хотя критикующих Ислам консерваторов больше, чем либералов, корреляция не настолько сильна, чтобы быть существенной. Есть еще одна политическая ось, которая предсказывает, поддерживает ли кто-либо политический Ислам или критикует его. Этой осью является знание – знание доктрины и истории политического Ислама.

Наличие ли со стороны кафира (не мусульманина) поддержки или критики Ислама зависит не от классической политики левых/правых, а от знания. Есть две отдельных партии кафиров –Партия знания и Партия невежества.

Партия знания ознакомилась с политической доктриной и историей политического Ислама и знакома с такими понятиями, как джихад, сунна, зимми и кафир. Членам Партии знания известно, что Коран является дуалистическим документом и содержит «хорошие» и «плохие» стихи, которые оба верны. Партии знаний также известно, что самый главный ключ к пониманию Ислама – это знание Мухаммеда, а не Аллаха из Корана.

Партия невежества строит свои аргументы на том, что сами мусульмане говорят об Исламе. Они используют голоса мусульман для апологетики Ислама. Партия невежества всегда нападает на членов Партии знания, используя оскорбления, затыкание ртов, насмешки и намеки, что члены Партии знания являются фанатиками и ненавистниками. Короче говоря, Партия невежества вторит тому, что говорят мусульмане и использует личные нападки на членов Партии знания. Знание – зло; невежество – добро.

В действительности, Партии невежества абсолютно отказывается читать какую-либо биографию Мухаммеда, Сиру и ее традиции, хадисы. Партия невежества высоко ценит Коран, хотя ни у кого из Партии невежества нет ни малейшего понятия о нем. Поскольку он не доступен для понимания, он должен быть глубоким. Поскольку его нельзя понять, то из него можно цитировать все, что угодно.

Как можно назвать членов этих двух партий? Производные имена, такие как “знайки” и “незнайки”, говорят сами за себя, но есть уже готовый классический набор имен, взятых из исламской доктрины. Члены Партии знания – это кафиры, а члены Партии невежества — зимми. Естественно, кафиры знают, кто они, а зимми не знают, что означает их имя. Ирония судьбы?

Зимми – существо, созданное Мухаммедом, после того, как он расправился с иудеями Хайбара. Зимми могут жить по закону шариата, потому что они согласились никогда публично не выступать против Ислама и практиковать свою веру в частном порядке. Сегодня термином “зимми” обозначают некритичного апологета Ислама.

Как это работает в реальной жизни? В языке кафиров есть слова: Коран, Сира, Хадис и Шариат. Их язык использует такие термины, как Сунна и отмена. Кафиры используют детали истории джихада и зимми.

Зимми цитирует мусульманина или профессора-апологета, однако, любимой темой зимми является то, как кафиры глупы и злы. Зимми всегда как можно скорее уходит от темы Ислама и начинает осуждать христиан и западную культуру. Как правило, зимми никогда не используют такие технические термины, как “джихад”, но используют такие слова, как “террорист”. Как только упоминается “террорист”, приводится пример этого христианского “террориста” – Тимоти Маквея. Конечно, он был самоотверженным атеистом, но это мало, что значит для зимми. Единственная исламская история, которую знает зимми – это цензурированная версия Крестовых походов и выдуманный Золотой век Ислама.

Аналитическое рассмотрение вызывает вопрос о присутствии мусульман в Партии знания. В Партии знания есть два типа людей: кафиры и мусульмане. Как мы их отличаем друг от друга? Просто по тому, как мусульманин и кафир реагируют на страдание Кафира? Одним прекрасным днем, Мохаммед сидел рядом со своей 12-летней женой и смотрел, как джихадисты отрубали головы 800 мужчинам-иудеям. Для мусульман это был день радости и триумфа. Кафиры восприняли смерть 800 иудеев-кафиров как военное преступление и акт зла.

Если в Партии знания есть два типа людей, но в Партии невежества – только один. Если вы сбиты с толку, то вы член Партии невежества.

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink https://politicalislam.com/the-party-of-knowledge-and-the-party-of-ignorance/
Copyright © 2011 CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com

If you ask a Christian leader why he does not speak out on Islam, you get some version of: My duty is to tend to my flock, to help them become better Christians. My job is not to oppose Islam.

What if a Christian leader actually took the advice to tend to his flock? Start with the image of tending the flock. This is a Christian image of Christ tending to the flock, the church, a warm pastoral image of lambs and no violence. Jesus is the Good Shepherd.

There is a common abbreviation, WWJD, what would Jesus do? This should be a living question in a Christian’s mind. An even more important question is: What did Jesus do? It turns out that we have detailed accounting of Jesus debating and criticizing religious leaders. Even a causal observation of the gospel accountings shows two things. Jesus knew more about the subject under debate than anyone in the room. He also stood up in public and private and confronted error, even against leadership.

What would it mean if a Christian leader tried to follow Christ’s example of knowing the subject? It would mean that the leader would know the Koran and the Sunna of Mohammed. He would be able to comment on the great themes of the Koran and know it as a story. He would know the Sira, the life of Mohammed, and have detailed knowledge of the Hadith. He would know the history of the Christian dhimmi. He would know what happened to the Seven Churches of Asia mentioned in Revelation. He would know how Egypt, Turkey, North Africa, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon all went from being Christian to Islamic. This is not difficult work for a scholar. It can be done in six months with present books. Just reading Mark Durie and Bat Ye’or’s The Third Choice, would give them a running start. He would know more than 90% of all Christian leaders.

Once you get your knowledge, you need one more quality, courage. A leader would stand in public and discuss the truth of the facts of Islam. According to political correctness and multiculturalism, that would not be nice, since someone might disapprove or become upset. Nice people do not confront others. That is not nice. The modern Christian prefers the Gospel of Nice to the Gospel of Christ. As a result of the Gospel of Nice, the Christian leader does not need courage.

Does tending the flock include being able to give fact-based advice to the Christian woman who comes to him and asks if it all right to marry a Muslim? Tending the flock would mean knowing the doctrine of wife-beating found in the Sharia, Koran and Hadith. The nice thing to do is saying, “Sure marry the Muslim. We worship the same god.” That is nice, but it is a lie. That nice lie is the one that many shepherds have given their flock.

Tending the flock would mean being able to teach a Christian who is flirting with Islam the truth about Islamic doctrine. But if the leader is ignorant, how can they refute Islamic arguments for the Christian to convert?

What if the flock extended beyond the limits of the boundaries of the church building? Tending the flock would include the suffering of Christians in Africa and the Middle East. A good Shepherd would tell of the murder, rape and abuse perpetrated by Islam to Christians on a daily basis.

Would the idea of a larger flock mean inviting persecuted Christians to speak to the congregation? Should the persecuted be recognized and prayed for at church? The current nice policy is to never mention the martyrs or the oppression of the Christians in Muslim countries.

The Black Church is hemorrhaging young males to Islam. If tending the flock meant seeing the flock large enough to include the black church, then a true Shepherd would be able to give guidance to the black leaders and educate them about the cruel Islamic doctrine of slavery still in existence. Tending the flock would include the story of Mohammed as a retail and wholesale slave trader, a man who owned white slaves, Arab slaves, black slaves, and sex slaves. The wise Shepherd would tell the story of how Islam enslaved a million white Christians and murdered 120 million Africans in the process of running the Islamic slave trade on the Mediterranean coast, the east and west coast of Africa. Of course, talking about Islam and slavery is not nice. And besides, it would marginalize all that white guilt about slavery in America. The Christian leader can bemoan that history and wallow in guilt, since that is considered nice. But to talk about the 1400 year old Islamic slave trade active in Africa today would require both knowledge and courage, and that is not nice.

A Christian leader would be able to see that the Great Commission of preaching the gospel would include converting Muslims to Christianity, increasing their flock. Preaching the Gospel to Muslims may be in the Gospel of Christ, but it is excluded from the Gospel of Nice. As a result, Christian leaders avoid the Great Commission when it comes to Islam in the West.

We will never defeat Political Islam as long as our Christian leaders see their job as being nice. Some of Islam’s biggest supporters are our ignorant religious leaders. Although this article has focused on Christian leaders, let be a public record that Christian leaders are ahead of Jewish leadership. If Christian leadership is tragic, then Jewish leadership is pathetic.

A piece of advice to Christian leaders: be a real shepherd, don’t just be nurturing and caring, but be a defender of the flock as well. Stop being nice. Be like the Good Shepherd, be wise, and be courageous.

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink
Copyright © 2011 CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com

You can sort the written and spoken words about Islam into two categories–negative and apologist. Closer observation shows that the negative camp and the apologist camp use different logic, as well as come to different conclusions.

An easy way to see this is to go to a reporting source on the web such as a newspaper that has an article about Islam. Read the comments. The negative comments tend to be more based on ideas taken from the Islamic source material from the Koran and Mohammed. Or they quote a jihadi, a poll or a historical fact.

The apologist comments tend to quote a Muslim friend or establishment expert and attack those who criticize Islam. Critics are called bigots, neo-Nazis, Islamophobes or some other cruel name. In essence, having negative comments or judgments about Islam is labeled as evil. The term hate speech is even bantered about. The critic of Islam is a failed sinner who is shamed and morally condemned. It is all very personal and very much about feelings.

A good apologist will have a second attack on the problem of, “Is Islam good or bad”? Islam must be supported by something besides an attack on the person. There must be with some facts about Islam from other apologists, mainly Muslim scholars and academic types. These experts are authorities who can deliver judgment from on high. But, many times they don’t have facts, only opinions.

If you are to base your arguments on what some expert says, then what “expert” do you ask? What imam or what professor? If you quote a Jew-hating Saudi imam found on MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute) you fail the criteria of the expert the apologist needs, because the “expert” must be a moderate, at all costs. So that fire breathing Palestinian jihadi just won’t do.

If you turn to Google, you can wind up at sites like ReligionLink, a website for reporters. This looks very official, very authoritative; surely you can trust them, but if you are knowledgeable, there are organizations on the site that are associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, such as ISNA, which should raise a flag to the knowing.

It is interesting to take the ReligionLink site as an example of how the Islamic information war works. Go to what seems like a very solid choice of experts recommended on the site: a Naval Academy professor, Dr. Brannon Wheeler. Get his advice on Sharia law and when you line up what he says against what the current Muslim Brotherhood position on Sharia in America today, they match exactly. Dr. Wheeler says that Sharia is vague, not really law, an old idea, very adaptable and no country really follows Sharia. Move along, there is nothing to see here, says the apologist professor peddling the Muslim Brotherhood line.

The facts are that as far as the Kafirs is concerned, the Sharia is very clear. It is also unimportant that Sharia is not an exact analog to our laws. So far as being an old idea, the Koran and the Sunna are even older and held to be absolutely true. It is true that no nation uses the Sharia for 100% of its rule, but the law is so ruinous to women and Kafirs that any application of Sharia is not humane. And all 57 of the Islamic countries use it to some degree.

If you cannot trust a Naval Academy professor of Islamic Studies, then how do you evaluate the source of information? How can we know the true nature of Islam? Are there actual facts that nail everything down?

Islam is supremely logical. Every Muslim agrees that Islam is the doctrine found in the Koran and the Sunna of Mohammed. (Mohammed is the perfect Muslim and his words and actions have been recorded in detail.) All of Islam is founded on Allah and the pattern of Mohammed. Allah is found in the Koran and Mohammed is found in the Hadith (the Traditions of Mohammed) and the Sira (his biography). All of the doctrine of Islam is found in the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith (the Trilogy). If it is in the Trilogy, it is Islam by definition.

The Trilogy is not only an objective source of Islamic doctrine, but it is also the measure of all statements about Islam. We have an objective measure of experts. We don’t need to see what institute gave them the authority to speak as an expert. We need to compare their comments to what is in the Trilogy. If the comment agrees with Mohammed, it is true. If it disagrees with the Trilogy, then it is false.

The question is: why even ask the experts? Why not ask Mohammed and Allah and quote them? Quote the doctrine. Skip the experts and find an objective answer.

The beauty of objective Islam is that you get the same answer no matter who does the work. The subjective method gives any answer you want. So you ask the expert who gives the answer you want. Subjective Islam is garbage Islam. Objective Islam is Islam.

The problem is that no one knows there is objective knowledge about Islam. Everybody has been lied to by the media, the schools, the religious leaders and all those who listen to opinions of experts and do not know a single objective fact about Islam, i.e. doctrine. We have a choice: learn about the Koran and Mohammed or be the fools listening to a good lie told by “experts”.

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

A common complaint against Islam is that the “good” Muslims don’t condemn the Muslims who are terrorists.

Lately, an old declaration by a fiqh council has been popping up. [A fiqh council is made of Islamic jurists who are experts in Sharia law and it applications.] Dozens of imams and Islamic groups condemn terrorism by signing a fatwa [judgment]. It sounds great, but how does it look under closer examination? Take this sentence:

“Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives.”

What could be possibly wrong with this strict condemnation? The possible splinter in the banister is what specific words mean. Take “extremism” for example. The average Kafir (non-believer) thinks of terror. Terror is extreme, by definition, but what we are actually talking about is religious extremism, in particular, Islam. What is extreme Islam? Surely Islamic terrorism is extreme Islam.

Before we can examine “extreme Islam”, we must define Islam. Islam is the political/religious doctrine found the Koran and the Sunna (Mohammed’s perfect life-example.) The Sunna is found in the Sira (Mohammed’s biography) and the Hadith (the Traditions, small Mohammed stories). The Koran, the Sira and the Hadith compose the Trilogy. The Trilogy defines Islam. If it is in the Trilogy, it is Islam. If it is in the Trilogy it is normal Islam.

What is the content of the Trilogy? Murder, plots against the enemies of Islam, assassinations, mass executions, sneak attacks, torture, Jew-hatred, theft, kidnappings, open warfare, and more. Since they are in the Trilogy, these actions are normal, not extreme. September 11 attack on the World Trade Center was not extremism.

So far as terror goes, terror is as Islamic as a call-to-prayer.

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

Bukhari 1,7,331 Mohammed:
I have been given five things, which were not given to any one else before me:
1. Allah made me victorious by awe, by His frightening my enemies for a distance of one month’s journey.

The fiqh council’s fatwa includes a quote from the Koran:

Koran 5:32 whoever killed a human being, unjustly, shall be regarded as having killed all mankind.

The problem is that this quote from the Islamic scholars is taqiyya (sacred deception). Look at what they left out:

Koran 5:32 That was why We laid it down for the Jews that whoever killed a human being, unjustly, shall be regarded as having killed all mankind

That advice was for the Jews–the Jews, not the Muslims. Let’s examine the next two verses that advise the Muslims:

Koran 5:33 Those that make war against Allah and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be slain or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land. They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter: except those that repent before you reduce them. For you must know that Allah is forgiving and merciful.

Koran 5:35 Believers, have fear of Allah and seek the right path to Him. Fight valiantly for His cause, so that you may triumph.

When Muslims kill a Kafir, it is regarded as a sacred act, jihad.

Now look at the word, “innocent”. Mohammed sent out his jihadists on seven raids before they were successful on their eighth attempt to destroy the Kafirs’ caravan. It is significant that they used deception to accomplish this task. The jihadists disguised themselves as “religious” pilgrims to approach the caravan drivers. They murdered one, captured those who did not escape and stole their merchandise.

What was the guilt of the caravan drivers? They were Meccan Kafirs. That was their only guilt. We might say that they were innocent, but they were part of a group that denied the fact that Mohammed was the prophet of the only god, Allah. That is guilt enough to be murdered. No one who denies that Mohammed is the prophet of Allah is innocent.

If you know the doctrine of Islam, the entire fatwa condemning terrorism is pure deception. Why be surprised? Mohammed repeatedly advised Muslims to deceive if it would advance the Islamic cause, and the fiqh council follows the Sunna of Mohammed to the letter.

The reason that this deception works is the average Kafir politician, reporter, pastor, priest or rabbi is deliberately and willfully ignorant. It is not that Islam is so skillful; but that Kafir leaders are such ignorant, politically correct cowards who refuse to educate themselves to the detriment of their own religious faith and their own country.

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink
Copyright © 2010 CBSX, LLC, www.politicalislam.com

One of the many attacks that Muslims and their apologists make against their opponents is that Kafir (non-Muslim) critics are self-educated. They say the only way to understand Islam is to ask a Muslim or a university trained “expert”. What could be wrong with this advice?

Let’s use an actual problem; today Sharia law is being used to show how Islam works at the political level and how it is a disaster for our civilization.

Sharia is such a horror show for Kafirs that Islam and its apologists say many things to draw attention away from it. They say that Sharia is an antique from the year 1400 and no one really uses such an old text (an example is the Traveller, see below). In short, it is a relic of history; it doesn’t really apply today. Don’t worry.

A professor says that the Sharia is not really important; Sharia is flexible; it changes; there are different schools; no nation is actually ruled by Sharia. Sharia is nothing to worry about. So says the “expert”. This judgment is delivered by a “university expert”. We know this is not true. We know that Sharia is a driving force in Islam. How could an “expert” be wrong?

How do we determine the true nature of Islam? How do we prove anything about Islam? How can you refute an “expert”?

A classic Sharia text, Reliance of the Traveller, has no less than four high scholars, who say that in 1991 that the Reliance is to the benefit of the Muslim community and the path of Muslims today. The university experts dismiss the Sharia as being irrelevant today. Who are we to believe, the professors or the prominent Islamic scholars?

This question can be answered by the fact that all Sharia is based on Koran and Sunna. Sunna is pure Mohammed and Koran is the delivered by Mohammed, so we can say that Mohammed is the only standard for truth in Islam.

If an expert gives advice about Islam or Sharia that agrees with Mohammed, the expert is right. If the expert disagrees with Mohammed then the expert is wrong. Hence, the only way to know Islam is to know Mohammed. This translates into knowing Hadith (Traditions) and Sira (life of Mohammed). If you would read Hadith and Sira (which are well translated), you would not need an expert, you would be an expert.

However, the experts denigrate any knowledge based on the actual reading of Islamic texts. Sir Isaac Newton was self-educated about physics. Einstein was self-educated in relativity. Indeed, people who are self-educated in their area of advancement have done the greatest work in humanity. However, for you to be self-educated is an act of bigotry.

The highest goal of education is that the students will be able to educate themselves after school. The elites do not want any ideas that do not come from “experts”. You might get ideas that are not elitist approved. The elites all favor Islam and never advance any critical ideas.

We have to educate ourselves because the universities are bankrupt on the subject of Islam. They do not allow any teaching about Islam that is critical and uses critical thought from the standpoint of the Kafir. No debate is allowed. Only Muslims and dhimmi apologists are allowed to speak about Islam. Anyone who disagrees based on their own understanding is a bigot.

The first European universities were based on the study of authorities. One day in class the discussion was about how many teeth a horse had. Aristotle said one number and Galen said another. The way to resolve this was to establish who was the greatest man. While the argument about whether Aristotle was a greater scholar than Galen went on, a student went out into the courtyard and counted the number of teeth in a tethered horse. When he returned with the number, the teacher beat him. Knowledge that was based on experimental data and self-education was forbidden. That is the nature of the academic “authorities” and the media today.

To know which expert is right is not a matter of college credentials or religion, but knowing which expert agrees with Koran and Sunna. Islam begins with Mohammed and ends with Mohammed.

Get to know Mohammed. To know Mohammed is to be an expert. Be self-taught and read the foundational books-Koran, Sira and Hadith.

Note: Don’t think that you can pick up any biography of Mohammed and get to know the true man. Almost every biography of Mohammed is whitewashed. The Sira (Ishaq’s Sira Rasul Allah can be found in Mohammed and the Unbelievers) is the gold standard. If the bio does not include the annihilation and subjugation of the Jews, torture, slavery, plots, raids, assassinations, battles, secret agents and spies, then it is not a complete biography. Mohammed’s rise to power included an event of violence on the average of every 6 weeks for the last 9 years of his life.

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink
Copyright © 2010 CBSX, LLC, www.politicalislam.com

One of the most frequently used arguments heard in the defense of Islam is that the Bible is just as violent as the Koran. The logic goes like this. If the Koran is no more violent than the Bible, then why should we worry about Islam? This argument is that Islam is the same as Christianity and Judaism. This is false, but this analogy is very popular, since it allows someone who knows nothing about the actual doctrine of Islam to talk about it. “See, Islam is like Christianity, Christians are just as violent as Muslims.” If this is true, then you don’t have to learn anything about the actual Islamic doctrine.

However, this is not a theological argument. It is a political one. This argument is not about what goes on in a house of worship, but what goes on the in the marketplace of ideas.

Now, is the doctrine of Islam more violent than the Bible? There is only one way to prove or disprove the comparison and that is to measure the differences in violence in the Koran and the Bible.

The first item is to define violence. The only violence that matters to someone outside of either Islam or Christianity or Judaism is what they do to the “other”, political violence. Cain killing Abel is not political violence. Political violence is not killing a lamb for a meal or making an animal sacrifice. Note, however, a vegan or a PETA member considers both of these actions to be violent, but it is not violence against them.

The next item is to compare the doctrines both quantitatively and qualitatively. The political violence of the Koran is called “fighting in Allah’s cause”, or jihad.

We must do more than measure the jihad in the Koran. Islam has three sacred texts: Koran, Sira and Hadith, the Islamic Trilogy. The Sira is Mohammed’s biography. The Hadith are his traditions—what he did and said. Sira and Hadith form the Sunna, the perfect pattern of all Islamic behavior.

The Koran is the smallest of the three books, the Trilogy. It is only 16% of the Trilogy text . This means that the Sunna is 84% of the word content of Islam’s sacred texts. This statistic alone has large implications. Most of the Islamic doctrine is about Mohammed, not Allah. The Koran says 91 different times that Mohammed is the perfect pattern of life. It is much more important to know Mohammed than the Koran. This is very good news. It is easy to understand a biography about a man. To know Islam, know Mohammed.

It turns out that jihad occurs in large proportion in all three texts. Here is a chart about the results:

It is very significant that the Sira devotes 67% of its text to jihad. Mohammed averaged an event of violence every 6 weeks for the last 9 years of his life. Jihad was what made Mohammed successful. Here is a chart of the growth of Islam.

Basically, when Mohammed was a preacher of religion, Islam grew at the rate of 10 new Muslims per year. But when he turned to jihad, Islam grew at an average rate of 10,000 per year. All of the details of how to wage jihad are recorded in great detail. The Koran gives the great vision of jihad—world conquest by the political process. The Sira is a strategic manual and the Hadith is a tactical manual of jihad.

Now let’s go to the Hebrew Bible. When we count all of the political violence, we find that 5.6% of the text is devoted to it. There is no admonition towards political violence in the New Testament.

When we count the magnitude of words devoted to political violence, we have 327,547 words in the Trilogy and 34,039 words in the Hebrew Bible . The Trilogy has 9.6 times as much wordage devoted to political violence as the Hebrew Bible.

The real problem goes far beyond the quantitative measurement of ten times as much violent material; there is the qualitative measurement. The political violence of the Koran is eternal and universal. The political violence of the Bible was for that particular historical time and place. This is the vast difference between Islam and other ideologies. The violence remains a constant threat to all non-Islamic cultures, now and into the future. Islam is not analogous to Christianity and Judaism in any practical way. Beyond the one-god doctrine, Islam is unique unto itself.

Another measurement of the difference between the violence found in the Judeo/Christian texts as opposed to that of Islam is found in the use of fear of violence against artists, critics and intellectuals. What artist, critic or intellectual ever feels a twinge of fear if condemning anything Christian or Jewish? However, look at the examples of the violent political threats and murders of Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh, Pim Fortuyn, Kurt Westergaard of the Danish Mohammed cartoons, and many others. What artist, critic or intellectual has not had a twinge of fear about Islam when it comes to free expression? The political difference in the response to the two different doctrines is enormous. The political fruit from the two trees is as different as night and day.

It is time for so-called intellectuals to get down to the basics of judging Islam by its actual doctrine, not making lame analogies that are sophomoric assertions. Fact-based reasoning should replace fantasies that are based upon political correctness and multiculturalism.

Bill Warner,
Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink https://politicalislam.com/the-political-violence-of-the-bible-and-the-koran/
Copyright © 2010 CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.

By Bill Warner

August 30, 2010, posted in FrontPage Magazine

One of the most common arguments of the supporters of the Ground Zero mosque includes religious freedom as guaranteed by the First Amendment. Religion is seen as the framework to support building a mosque and community center near the site of the former World Trade Towers. Is this really about religion? Step back and look at the controversy. Do you feel like you are taking part in a religious exercise or a political fracas?

There is a vast confusion about what a religion is and is not. Currently the operative rule is that anything associated with Islam is a religious affair where all of the freedom of religion is applied to the action or event. Islam’s actions are religious and if you oppose it, you are an un-American bigot.

It is time to stop and take a look at what we mean by a religion. There are about as many Buddhists in America today as there are Muslims. When was the last time you remember a Buddhist demand of any kind? Do Buddhists set up councils to shape the textbooks and demand Buddhist finance? Does the government make a big announcement when Buddhists are appointed to high posts? Are there even any Buddhists in any White House appointments? Do Buddhists complain? Never, for these are political actions, and Buddhism has almost no political outreach. Buddhism in America is purely religious, not political at all.

Yet the media and the Internet are consumed by talk and argument about Islam. The discussion is never about how many rounds of prayer to do or whether a certain food is halal (religiously proper). No, the focus is always on something that non-Muslims are to do to accommodate an Islamic religious practice.

There is a practical working definition of religion as compared to politics. Religious practices are done by those who follow that religion and are motivated for achieving paradise and avoiding hell. Outsiders are not involved in those religious acts. If it is about going to heaven and avoiding hell, then it is religious. However, if the religion makes a demand on those outside of its own group, then that demand is political.

Most people think that the Koran is a religious text. Instead, 64% of the text (by word count) is about non-Muslims, who are called Kafirs. The Koran is fixated on Kafirs and makes many demands on them. Not the least is that Kafirs submit to the rule of Islamic Sharia law. Ultimately Sharia law is the pure expression of Islamic politics and it completely contradicts our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Under Sharia there is no freedom of speech, wives may be beaten and apostates murdered.

Mohammed had little success with Islam until he transformed it into a political system. He preached the religion of Islam in Mecca for 13 years and made about 150 converts. He left Mecca and moved to Medina. In Medina he turned to politics and jihad. In the last 9 years of his life, Mohammed was involved in an event of violence on the average of every 6 weeks. The political method persuaded every Arab to convert to Islam. The religion did not succeed; it was politics that made Islam powerful.

Bill Warner,
Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink
Copyright © 2010 CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.

When you read the comments section of an article about Islam, you will see the argument: I have some Muslim friends and they are good people. The conclusion: good Muslims mean that Islam is good. If the talk is face-to-face, the person may ask: Do you have any Muslim friends? There is a hidden implication that if you do not, then you don’t really know anything about Islam and you could be a bigot.

What is actually going on? The Kafir (non-Muslim) with Muslim friends does not know any real facts about Islam and wants to move the argument to feelings, not facts. If the Muslim friend is nice, Islam is nice. There is no need to know any facts about Islam. And, if Islam is nice, then speaking against it is bigotry.

It is amazing how much people can talk about Islam and never mention a single fact. It is easy to tell if someone is speaking about Islam factually. A fact-based discussion will include the Koran and the Sunna, which means that the words Mohammed and Allah will be heard. If there is no Mohammed or Allah, then the discussion is not about the facts of Islam; it is about opinions that come from the media, authorities and the web.

Here are questions to ask people with Muslim friends.

Do you have any Muslim apostate friends?

An apostate is one who has left Islam and under Sharia law may be murdered. Who would know more about the true nature of Islam than someone who knows it at the core of their being? The apostate knows both sides of the story.
Here are other questions to ask those with Muslim friends:

Do you have any Christian friends from the Middle East?
Do you have any Armenian, Serbian or Coptic friends?

These people have suffered cultural and religious annihilation by Islam over the past 1400 years, shouldn’t you also meet them? About 60 million Christians have been murdered over the last 1400 years, and Armenians, Serbians, Copts (Egyptians) and the rest of the Christians of the Middle East furnished the body count. Doesn’t it make sense to talk to who has personal experience in engaging Islam?

There are other questions to be asked. There are 13 verses in the Koran that say that a Muslim is not the friend of a Kafir. How can this not be talked about? According to Islam, we are Kafirs. Why can’t friends talk about such things?

Koran 4:144 Believers! Do not take kafirs as friends over fellow believers. Would you give Allah a clear reason to punish you?

What this means is that a Muslim may be friendly with a Kafir, but if a Muslim has a choice between favoring a Kafir or a Muslim, he will favor the Muslim. Why can’t this be discussed among friends?

Now to the most critical question: Is a Muslim ever really the friend of a Kafir? Any Muslim who fully accepts the doctrine of Islam cannot be the true friend of a Kafir—friendly, yes, but not a true friend. If he is a true friend, then he is not obeying the Koran and not following the Sunna of Mohammed.

The difference between friendly and a friend is that a Muslim who is true friend will sometimes choose the Kafir’s side in a dispute about it. A friendly Muslim will be pleasant, but will always choose Islam’s side in any politics or dispute about Islam. A Muslim friend who is a true friend will listen to reasonable criticisms and occasionally tell you that you have a point there. The Muslim Arabic FBI translators who cheered on 9/11 were quite friendly, but chose Islam over the Kafirs on 9/11.

This does not mean that a person, who calls himself or herself a Muslim, cannot be a real friend. They may see the Golden Rule as more attractive than Islam’s dualistic ethics. If they can see the other person as not being a Kafir, but a human being, then they can be a true friend.

It is important to see that these ideas concern implications about the practical application of Islamic doctrine. In this case the Islamic doctrine of friends is examined. These ideas are not about any particular person who calls themselves a Muslim. Generally, to be a Muslim, you must act according to Islamic doctrine. However, the term Muslim has come to mean anybody with any degree of adherence to Islamic doctrine, however if such a person adopts the Kafir Golden Rule then they can be a fine person and a fine friend.

This friend business is perhaps one of the worst parts of the Islamic ideology and shows how great the divide is between Islam and all other doctrines.

Bill Warner,
Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink
Copyright © 2010 CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.

THE CIVILIZATION OF ISLAM

One of the clearest lessons about Islam is found in the Sharia. The largest part of the Sharia is devoted to regulating the life of Muslims down to the smallest detail. There is no aspect of life that is not regulated-sex, food, art, business, education, prayer, manners, speech and how to think and not to think. There is no aspect of life that is outside the power of Sharia-religion, politics, ethics, culture are included. The Sharia is the operating manual for a complete civilization. Islam is complete within itself and needs nothing from the outside.

The Sharia has one other quality that is as important as the totality of its scope. The civilization of Sharia is not just different, it contradicts our civilization.

Inside Islam justice, religion, politics, law, human rights and compassion do not mean what they mean to us. All of these ideas are based on the principles of submission and duality as found in the Sharia.

OUR CIVILIZATION

Our civilization is based on the principles of the Golden Rule and critical thought. We do not always fulfill the principles, but they are the ideals we strive for, and can be used for debate and self-criticism to correct and improve our culture.

Our principles lead to the ideals of critical thought, self-criticism, equality of all peoples before the law, freedom of thought and ideas, freedom of religion, public debate, separation of church and state, liberal democracy and a free-ranging humor.

These are beautiful ideals and they are worth keeping and striving towards. Do we meet them? No, but what is more important they contradict the Sharia. It is one thing to fail to achieve these ideals, but it is entirely another to see them disappear as a public option under the impact of Sharia. Sharia law limits critical thought, self-criticism, equality of all peoples before the law, freedom of thought and ideas, freedom of religion, public debate, separation of church and state, liberal democracy and humor.

CIVILIZATIONAL WAR

Part of the genius of Islam is the totality of Sharia, which includes a concept of war that attacks the host civilization at every aspect of its being. In modern times the military power of Islam is weak, but this is more than compensated by its ability to attack along legal and cultural lines under the guise of being a religion.

As Sharia is applied to a society, the host civilization is annihilated in each and every manifestation of culture. This annihilation is demonstrated by a peculiar fact about the history of Islamic countries-part of it is missing. Afghanistan used to be a Buddhist civilization. We see its remnants in ruins and fragments such as the Bamiyan Buddhas that were destroyed by the Taliban. Who knows the Buddhist history of Afghanistan? Practically speaking, it does not exist. Who knows the history of how Turkey, North Africa, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq went from being Christian to Islamic?

We don’t know the history because of the total annihilation of the past cultures by Sharia law. As time goes on customs, law, art, literature, and ethics of the host culture are replaced by Islamic values under the application of Sharia. The result is that there is nothing left of the history before the implementation of Sharia law.

There is a second aspect of this annihilation-the dhimmitude of the Kafirs (non-Muslims) remaining inside Islamic society. If you talk to Christians who are left in Islamic countries, they are an abused people who are unable to fight back after centuries of suffering and degradation under Sharia law. They are not supported by other Kafirs and are left to suffer under the oppression that will eliminate their few numbers. Whatever memory they have of the past is ignored by those who should be defending them.

If we are to go down the Sharia road, history teaches that it has always led to an Islamic mono-culture. In the end, there is no such thing as a little Sharia.

Posted at American Thinker, August 19, 2010

Bill Warner,
Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink
Copyright © 2010 CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.

A favorite comeback for someone who is critical of Islam is—you are Islamophobic. Never mind that the term phobic means an irrational fear. Really, the charge is that you are irrational AND a bigot. A bigot is immoral and a hater and has no possible reason for their views.

There is a cure for bigotry. If you are a bigot, learning about the subject of bigotry can cure it. Clint Eastwood’s character in Grand Torino started out as a bigot about the Hmong Vietnamese who moved in next door. As he got to know them, he changed and gave the ultimate sacrifice of his life to help them. The cure for his bigotry was getting to know more about his neighbors, the Hmong.

Notice this does not say that as you get to know them, you will always like them better. There are people and groups that the more you know them, the less you like them. As you see what they do and how they think, you may actually start to fear them. Not being a bigot doesn’t mean that you love everybody and what they do. In the sixties, the Black Panthers had a revolutionary, “stick it to the man”, image that was cool. However, the more you got to know them and see what they did, you learned that the Panthers were serious racist thugs and dangerous to society. So just because someone is “oppressed” does not mean that they are decent people.

Want to see if you are an Islamophobe? Let’s presume that you don’t like Islamic doctrine, Sharia law as an example, and would like to take the test to see if you are a bigot. Remember, if you are a bigot, then the more you get to know Islam, the better you will feel.

Here are some concepts from Islamic doctrine, so that you can understand it better. Islam says that non-Muslims are Kafirs. Allah hates Kafirs and He even plots against them. Kafirs can be tortured, deceived, enslaved, crucified, raped and robbed. How important are Kafirs to Islam? Islam has three sacred texts: Koran, Sira (life of Mohammed) and Hadith (his traditions). Look at how much of Islam is devoted to the Kafir:

If the Kafir is “bad”, then there is a lot of “bad”. How does your cultural sensitivity feel now? Feel any closer to Islam, any less afraid?

Maybe, you need a little more exposure to become warmer towards Islam. Jihad should cure your ills. Isn’t the jihad thing overblown? There are only a few verses about that, aren’t there? Look at the statistics:

Now that you are learning more about Islam, are your fears subsiding?

Still afraid? Every Muslim will tell you that Islam was the first ideology to give women their rights. If we take everything that is written about women in the Koran and rank it according to whether the woman is held in high status, equal status and lower status, we find:

How does the women’s issue strike you? Are you feeling more simpatico? Less Islamophobic?
So, you took the Islamophobia test. Now that you know Islam better, do you now understand and realize that your Islamophobia was bigoted hatred?
Surely, this test is biased. There must be some goodness in Islam for Kafirs. If you go through the Koran and pick out every single verse that offers good words, doesn’t that prove that Islam is good?

If every single verse that seems to promise good to Kafirs is counted up, then 2.6% of the verses offer good to Kafirs. But, wait! There is that contradiction and abrogation contradiction principle. The Koran is filled with verses that contradict each other and in every case of good verses, the 2.6%, are cancelled or abrogated, by later verses. The net result is 0%, nothing, is unmitigated good in the Koran for the Kafir.

You have finished the Islamophobe Test. Feel closer to Islam? Or more afraid? If you feel closer and warmer about Islam, then you were Islamophobic, but now you are cured. If not, then your fears are real, not a phobia. Islam is like the Black Panthers—the more you know, the less you like and the more you are afraid.

Bill Warner,
Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink https://politicalislam.com/the-acid-test-for-islamophobia/
Copyright © 2010 CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.

Until now we have looked at the big picture of Sharia and then the position of women in Sharia. We now come to a new subject–the unbeliever or non-Muslim. The word “non-Muslim” is used in the translation of Sharia law, but the actual Arabic word used is “Kafir”. But the word Kafir means far more than non-Muslim. The original meaning of the word was “concealer”, one who conceals the truth of Islam.

The Koran says that the Kafir may be deceived, plotted against, hated, enslaved, mocked, tortured and worse. The word is usually translated as “unbeliever” but this translation is wrong. The word “unbeliever” is logically and emotionally neutral, whereas, Kafir is the most abusive, prejudiced and hateful word in any language.

There are many religious names for Kafirs: polytheists, idolaters, People of the Book (Christians and Jews), Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, and pagans. Kafir covers them all, because no matter what the religious name is, they can all be treated the same. What Mohammed said and did to polytheists can be done to any other category of Kafir.

Islam devotes a great amount of energy to the Kafir. The majority (64%) of the Koran is devoted to the Kafir, and nearly all of the Sira (81%) deals with Mohammed’s struggle with them. The Hadith (Traditions) devotes 32% of the text to Kafirs¹. Overall, the Trilogy devotes 60% of its content to the Kafir.

Amount of Text Devoted to the Kafir

The Sharia does not devote nearly that much to the Kafir since Sharia law is primarily for Muslims. Besides, the Kafir has few rights, so there is little to expound on.

Religious Islam is what Muslims do to go to Paradise and avoid Hell. What Mohammed did to Kafirs was not religious, but political. Political Islam is what is of concern to Kafirs, not the religion. Who cares how a Muslim worships, but every one of us is concerned as to what they do to us and say about us. Political Islam should be of concern to every Kafir.

Here are two Sharia references about Kafirs:

w59.2 […] And this clarifies the Koranic verses and hadiths about hatred for the sake of Allah and love for the sake of Allah, Al Walaa wa al Baraa, being unyielding towards the Kafirs, hard against them, and detesting them, while accepting the destiny of Allah Most High insofar as it is the decree of Allah Mighty and Majestic.

Hatred for the sake of Allah and love for the sake of Allah is called Al Walaa wa al Baraa, a fundamental principle of Islamic ethics and Sharia. A Muslim is to hate what Allah hates and love what Allah loves. Allah hates the Kafir, therefore, a Muslim is to act accordingly.

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

h8.24 It is not permissible to give zakat [charity] to a Kafir, or to someone whom one is obliged to support such as a wife or family member.

Here are a few of the Koran references: A Kafir can be mocked–

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

A Kafir can be beheaded—

47:4 When you encounter the Kafirs on the battlefield, cut off their heads until you have thoroughly defeated them and then take the prisoners and tie them up firmly.

A Kafir can be plotted against—

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

A Kafir can be terrorized—

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

A Muslim is not the friend of a Kafir—

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

A Kafir is evil—

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

A Kafir is disgraced—

37:18 Tell them, “Yes! And you [Kafirs] will be disgraced.”

A Kafir is cursed—

33:60 They [Kafirs] will be cursed, and wherever they are found, they will be seized and murdered. It was Allah’s same practice with those who came before them, and you will find no change in Allah’s ways.

KAFIRS AND THE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK

Muslims tell Christians and Jews that they are special. They are “People of the Book” and are brothers in the Abrahamic faith. But in Islam you are a Christian, if and only if, you believe that Christ was a man who was a prophet of Allah; there is no Trinity; Jesus was not crucified nor resurrected and that He will return to establish Sharia law. To be a true Jew you must believe that Mohammed is the last in the line of Jewish prophets.

This verse is positive:

5:77 Say: Oh, People of the Book, do not step out of the bounds of truth in your religion, and do not follow the desires of those who have gone wrong and led many astray. They have themselves gone astray from the even way.

Islamic doctrine is dualistic, so there is an opposite view as well. Here is the last verse written about the People of the Book (A later verse abrogates or nullifies an earlier verse.). This is the final word. It calls for Muslims to make war on the People of the Book who do not believe in the religion of truth, Islam.

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

The sentence “They do not forbid…” means that they do not accept Sharia law; “until they submit” means to submit to Sharia law. Christians and Jews who do not accept Mohammed as the final prophet are Kafirs.

Muslims pray five times a day and the opening prayer always includes:

Koran 1: 7 Not the path of those who anger You [the Jews] nor the path of those who go astray [the Christians].

LANGUAGE

Since the original Arabic word for unbelievers was Kafir and that is the actual word used in the Koran and Sharia law, that is the word used here for accuracy and precision.

It is very simple: if you don’t believe Mohammed and his Koran, you are a Kafir.

Publication notice: this book is now available to buy on our website HERE.
You can see the entire book on pdf HERE.

Bill Warner, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink
Copyright © 2010 CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.

CHAPTER 4 – FAMILY LAW

ISLAMIC SCHOLARS CLAIM: The perfect Islamic family law is sacred law since it is based upon the words of Allah in the glorious Koran and the Sunna of Mohammed. All other laws are man-made and must submit to the will of Allah; therefore, only Sharia law is suitable for Muslims. For Muslims to be ruled by Kafir laws is an abomination.

THE SHARIA:

m3.13 Guardians are of two types, those who may compel their female charges to marry someone, and those who may not.
m6.10 It is unlawful for a free man to marry more than four women.
m8.2 A guardian may not marry his prepubes­cent daughter to someone for less than the amount typically received as marriage payment by similar brides

ADULTERY

[Bukhari 3,38,508] Mohammed said, “Unais, confront this man’s wife and if she admits committing adultery have her stoned to death.”

[Bukhari 8,82,803] Ali had a woman stoned to death on a Friday and said, “I have punished her as Mohammed would have.”

ml0.4 The husband may forbid his wife to leave the home. But if one of her relatives dies, it is preferable to let her leave to visit them.
m5.0 conjugal rights, the wife’s marital obligations
m5.1 It is obligatory for a woman to let her hus­band have sex with her immediately when:
(a) he asks her
(b) at home
(c) and she can physically endure it

[Abu Dawud 11, 2138; 2139] Muawiyah said: Apostle of Allah, how should we approach our wives and how should we leave them? He replied: Approach your tilth (tilth is a plowed field, a term for the vagina) when or how you will, …

The most important thing that a woman brings to the marriage is her vagina.

[Bukhari 7,62,81] Mohammed said, “The marriage vow most rightly expected to be obeyed is the husband’s right to enjoy the wife’s vagina.”

Allah curses the woman who resists sex.

[Bukhari 7,62,121] Mohammed: “If a woman refuses her husband’s request for sex, the angels will curse her through the night.”

From the Sira, we have some more about a husband’s rights:

Ishaq 957 Mohammed sent Muadh to Yemen to proselytize. While he was there he was asked what rights a husband has over the wife. He replied to the woman who asked, “If you went home and found your husband’s nose running with pus and blood and you sucked it until it was cleaned, you still would not have fulfilled your husband’s rights.”

CHILD BRIDES
Mohammed, age 51, proposed marriage to Aisha when she was six years old. Marriage to a child is Sunna.

[Bukhari 7,62,18] When Mohammed asked Abu Bakr for Aisha’s hand in marriage, Abu replied, “But I am your brother.” Mohammed said, “You are only my brother in Allah’s religion and His Book, so it is lawful for me to marry her.”

Publication notice: this book is now available to buy on our website HERE.
You can see the entire book on pdf HERE.

Bill Warner, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink
Copyright © 2010 CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.

WOMEN—CHAPTER 3

ISLAMIC SCHOLARS CLAIM:

• Sharia laws concerning women is the rule of law in Islamic families.
• Islam was the first civilization to provide and guarantee women’s rights.
• Mohammed gave the world the perfect example of how women are pro-tected in Islam.
• Muslim women are treasured and as treasures must be protected from the evils of the kafir world.
• The rights of Muslim women come from Allah.

THE SHARIA: Sharia law has different laws for different groups of people. Women are one of its special classes.
wife beating

Islam’s grand vision about women is given in one verse of the Koran:

Koran 4:34 Allah has made men superior to women because men spend their wealth to support them. Therefore, virtuous women are obedient, and they are to guard their unseen parts as Allah has guarded them. As for women whom you fear will rebel, admonish them first, and then send them to a separate bed, and then beat them. But if they are obedi-ent after that, then do nothing further; surely Allah is exalted and great!

THE SHARIA: dealing with a rebellious wife

m10.12 When a husband notices signs of rebelliousness in his wife whether in words as when she answers him coldly when she used to do so politely, or he asks her to come to bed and she refuses, con-trary to her usual habit; or whether in acts, as when he finds her averse to him when she was previously kind and cheerful, he warns her in words without keeping from her or hitting her, for it may be that she has an excuse.

The warning could be to tell her, “Fear Allah concerning the rights you owe to me,”

or it could be to explain that rebelliousness nullifies his obligation to support her and give her a turn amongst other wives, or it could be to inform her, “Your obeying me is religiously obligatory”.

If she commits rebelliousness, he keeps from sleeping (having sex) with her and refuses to speak to her, and may hit her, but not in a way that injures her, meaning he may not bruise her, break bones, wound her, or cause blood to flow. It is unlawful to strike another’s face. He may hit her whether she is rebellious only once or whether more than once, though a weaker opinion holds that he may not hit her unless there is repeated rebelliousness.

Ishaq969 He [Mohammed] also told them men had rights over their wives and women had rights over their husbands. The wives were never to commit adultery or act in a sexual manner toward others. If they did, they were to be put in separate rooms and beaten lightly. If they refrained from what was forbidden, they had the right to food and clothing. Men were to lay injunctions on women lightly for they were prisoners of men and had no control over their persons.

[Abu Dawud 11, 2142] Mohammed said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.

[Bukhari 7,62,132] The Prophet said, “None of you should flog his wife as he flogs a slave and then have sexual intercourse with her in the last part of the day.” Most of those in Hell will be women.

THE DOCTRINE OF WOMEN

There are many ways in which the woman does not have full stature in Sharia law:

022.1 The necessary qualifications for being an Islamic judge are:
(a) to be a male freeman […]

04.9 The indemnity for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man.

[Bukhari 3,48,826] Mohammed asked, “Is not the value of a woman’s eye-witness testimony half that of a man’s?” A woman said, “Yes.” He said, “That is because a woman’s mind is deficient.”

L10.3 They divide the universal share so that the male receives the por-tion of two females.

Koran 4:11 It is in this manner that Allah commands you concerning your children: A male should receive a share equal to that of two fe-males, […]

This hadith equates camels, slaves and women.

[Abu Dawud 11, 2155] Mohammed said: If one of you mar-ries a woman or buys a slave, he should say: “O Allah, I ask You for the good in her, and in the disposition You have given her; I take refuge in You from the evil in her, and in the disposition You have given her.” When he buys a camel, he should take hold of the top of its hump and say the same kind of thing.

Women are inferior to men in intelligence and religion.

[Bukhari 1,6,301] While on his way to pray, Mohammed passed a group of women and he said, “Ladies, give to charities and donate money to the unfortunate, because I have witnessed that most of the people in Hell are women.
They asked, “Why is that?”
He answered, “You swear too much, and you show no grati-tude to your husbands. I have never come across anyone more lacking in intelligence, or ignorant of their religion than women. A careful and intelligent man could be misled by many of you.”
They responded, “What exactly are we lacking in intelligence or faith?”
Mohammed said, “Is it not true that the testimony of one man is the equal to the testimony of two women?”
After they affirmed that this was true, Mohammed said, “That illustrates that women are lacking in intelligence. Is it not also true that women may not pray nor fast during their men-strual cycle?” They said that this was also true.
Mohammed then said, “That illustrates that women are lack-ing in their religion.”

A woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man.

Koran 2:282 Believers! When you contract a loan for a certain period, write it down, or to be fair, let a scribe write it down. The scribe should not re-fuse to write as Allah has taught him; therefore, let the scribe record what the debtor dictates being mindful of his duty to Allah and not re-ducing the amount he owes. If the debtor is ignorant and unable to dic-tate, let his guardian do so with fairness. Call two men in to witness this, but if two men cannot be found, then call one man and two women whom you see fit to be witnesses. Therefore, if either woman makes an error, the other can correct her […]

FEMAL GENITAL MUTILATION, FEMAL CIRCUMCISION

It is unfortunate that the term circumcision is applied to both the re-moval of the foreskin of the male and the removal of the clitoris of the woman. There is no comparison.

[Bukhari 7,72,779] Mohammed said, “Five practices are characteristics of the ancient prophets: circumcision, shaving the pubic hair, cutting the moustaches short, clipping the nails, and depilating the hair of the armpits.”

This hadith refers to the circumcision of female genitalia. It assumes that both the man and the woman are circumcised.

[Muslim 003,0684] […] Abu Musa then said, “When is a bath obligatory?” Aisha responded, “You have asked the right person. Mohammed has said that a bath is obligatory when a man is encompassed by a woman and their circumcised genitalia touch.”

Circumcision is part of the Sharia law. Here is the deceptive transla-tion:

e4.3 Circumcision is obligatory for both men and women. For men it con-sists of removing the prepuce from the penis, and for women, remov-ing the prepuce of the clitoris (not the clitoris itself, as some mistak-enly assert).

However what the Arabic actually says is:

e4.3 Circumcision is obligatory (for every male and female) by cutting off the piece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male, but circumcision of the female is by cutting out the clitoris (this is called Hufaad).”

This deceptive translation obscures the Sharia law. This deception is called taqiyya, a form of sacred deception.

At the battle of Badr, we have a reference to the custom of removing the clitoris.

Ishaq 564 Hamza said, ‘Come here, you son of a female circumciser.’ Now his mother was Umm Anmar, a female circumciser (one who circumcised girls) in Mecca. Then Hamza smote him and killed him.

o12.0 THE PENALTY FOR FORNICATION

o12.6 If the penalty is stoning, they are to be stoned, no matter the weather, or if they are ill. A pregnant woman is not stoned until she gives birth and the child does not need to nurse.

[Muslim 017, 4206] … There came to Mohammed a woman who said: Allah’s Messenger, I have committed adultery, […] When she was delivered she came with the child (wrapped) in a rag and said: Here is the child whom I have given birth to. He said: Go away and suckle him until you wean him. When she had weaned him, she came to him with the child who was hold-ing a piece of bread in his hand. She said: Allah’s Apostle, here is he as I have weaned him and he eats food. He entrusted the child to one of the Muslims and then pronounced punishment. And she was put in a ditch up to her chest and he commanded people and they stoned her. …

HONOR KILLING

Honor killing is not directly included in Sharia doctrine. Sharia dictates that a woman is inferior to the male and allows beatings to enforce the rule of the male, but it does not accord honor killing a legal status. However, there is no penalty for killing an adulterer:

o5.4 There is no expiation for killing someone who has left Islam, a highwayman or a convicted married adulterer…

e12.8 … unworthy (those who may be killed) includes … convicted mar-ried adulterers…

This seems to include equal penalties for both men and women, how-ever, a man has many legal ways to have sex, while the woman is strictly limited to her husband alone. Hence, the woman is much more likely to be killed.

The man rules the woman, and his status in the community depends upon how his women conduct themselves. Ghira is sacred jealousy, even Allah has ghira. Ghira is also self-respect and is the basis of honor killings. Notice that in this hadith Saed’s threat to kill a man with his wife is not condemned, but supported. Violence in defense of a Muslim’s ghira is pure Islam.

[Bukhari 8,82,829; Bukhari 9,93,512] Saed bin Ubada said, “If I saw a man with my wife, I would strike him with the blade of my sword.” This news reached Mohammed, who then said, “You people are astonished at Saed’s ghira (self-respect). By Al-lah, I have more ghira than he, and Allah has more ghira than I, and because of Allah’s ghira, He has made unlawful shameful deeds and sins done in open and in secret. […]

Most honor killings come from Islamic societies.

Bill Warner, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink
Copyright © 2010 CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.

Today we have a very different newletter, not because it deals with Islam and politics, but because it is written by a politician—Vijay Kumar is running for Congress in Tennessees’ 5th District. His billboards say “Defeat Universal Jihad“. Imagine for a moment, that we had elected officials who actually knew who Mohammed was and what the true nature of jihad is. Instead, we have officials who believe Islam has been maligned and misunderstood and if we are just “nice” enough, they will love us.

Israel is the target of Islam’s Universal Jihadists, whether they come from Turkey, Palestine, Lancashire, the United Nations, Maine, or Sweden. Islam’s own Syed Qutb said it best: “A Muslim has no nationality except his belief.” The exact same statement applies to the allies and supporters of Islam’s Universal Jihadists.

That’s why all the talk about Gaza and Palestinians and Turkey and “humanitarian aid” is pure fraud and nothing but fraud, all merely part of the Islamic Universal Jihad against Israel and everything it stands for. The Muslims involved in the attacks on Israel—no matter what piece of land they call home—care nothing for manmade geographical boundaries, just as they care nothing for manmade laws, or, for that matter, human life.

What they care about is wiping Israel and everything it stands for off the face of the Earth. That is their goal. The one thing that Israel stands for that drives the Universal Jihadists of the Middle East mad—however short a trip that may be—is the right and freedom of a human being to be something other than Muslim. Universal Jihadists are dedicated to wiping such freedom from the face of the Earth. That’s why their overtly stated goal is to destroy Israel and the Jews. It is pure, seething hatred.

The “humanitarian aid” mission these Universal Jihadists and their liberal handmaidens are parading before the world press is nothing but a flotilla of pure, seething hatred, and it is a criminal fraud on Israel and on the world. It is actually a massive propaganda mission whose sole purpose is to smear and defame Israel, and weaken it for future attacks.

For those people of reason in the world who care about facts instead of hysterical Jihadist propaganda, over a million tons of humanitarian supplies have gone into Gaza through Israel in the last 18 months. That’s nearly a full ton of supplies for every man, woman, and child in all of Gaza!

So who is lying? The Jihadists and their liberal “friends” fraudulently pretending to be on a “humanitarian aid” mission are lying. That shouldn’t be a surprise: Islam demands that Muslims lie to non-Muslims if it benefits Universal Jihad and the Islamic goal of world domination.

Hamas is just one arm of Universal Jihad, and they’ve sent over 10,000 mortars and rockets into Israel. Why? Pure, seething hatred, that’s why.

Israel is completely within its legal rights under international law to have mounted the Gaza blockade, and to have enforced it in international waters by stopping the Jihadist flotilla of pure, seething hatred fraudulently calling itself a “humanitarian aid” mission.

But the Universal Jihadists surrounding Israel on every side care nothing whatsoever about “international law.” That, after all, is just more man-made law, and means absolutely nothing to the Jihadists, who honor only the allegedly “divine law” of the Quran and the Sunnah: Shariah law.

Islam’s own Syed Qutb said it clearly: “There is only one law which ought to be followed, and that is the Shariah.”

Islam’s own Syed Qutb also exposed the complete fraud being perpetrated by Hamas and the rest of the Jihadist liars claiming that Gaza, and even Israel, are somehow important for the land to Muslims: “The homeland of the Muslim, in which he lives and which he defends, is not a piece of land; the nationality of the Muslim, by which he is identified, is not the nationality determined by a government.” So it’s all Jihadist fraud, and nothing but fraud.

The real driving force behind it is the one that has perpetuated 1400 years of the same kind of aggression, invasion, war, terrorism, slaughter, propaganda, and conquest of entire civilizations, such as Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran: it is Universal Jihad, the eternal Islamic quest for complete world domination.

Israel is just the next most important target in this 1400-year war against mankind and civilization.

The “humanitarian aid” mission is a Universal Jihad war flotilla, and it is nothing else. Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkinma Partisi, AKP) is the Turkish headquarters for Universal Jihad. The 10,000 rockets and mortars thrown by Hamas at Israel are missiles of Universal Jihad. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is the American headquarters of Universal Jihad. The Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan flooding the world with heroin (which is only sold to non-Muslims) are doing their part for Universal Jihad. The Iranian madman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calling for Israel to be “wiped off the face of the map” is the voice of Universal Jihad.

Universal Jihad is not only a declared war on Israel, it is a declared war on the United States and on our Constitution.

And to our eternal shame, our own President, Barack Hussein Obama, is now aiding and abetting Universal Jihad by his words and actions, and has turned his back on Israel.

I support Israel absolutely and unconditionally. I decry and denounce Universal Jihad as the most hateful, destructive, amoral, and vicious assault on mankind and human rights and freedoms that the world has ever known.

Vijay Kumar
Vijay Kumar for Congress

Bill Warner, Center for the Study of Political Islam, Publisher
Permalink
Copyright © 2010 CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.