I would like to speak with you today about the Muslim as a Dhimmi. (Dhimmis are Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims (defined by Muslims as Kafirs) living in Islamic countries as second-class subjects with virtually no rights as citizens.) I’ve given several talks in which I try to show people that it is the Sharia and the status of “Dhimmi” (D-H-I-M-M-I) that is the root cause of the disappearance of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism in Islamic countries. And usually what I do is this: I go through something called the Dhimma, which was a “treaty granted by . . . Muhammad to the Jewish and Christian populations whom he had subjected,” which included other “peoples vanquished by the Muslims and considered to be protected by their treaty of surrender,” [See The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam From Jihad to Dhimmitude, Bat Ye’or, page 472] i.e., horrible rules that the conquered Kafirs were coerced into obeying. But in order to really drive the point home I would like to pretend that the Moslems have signed a Dhimmi Treaty with our culture, with our civilization, and let’s see what it feels like to put the shoe on the other foot. What would it be like if the Muslim were a Dhimmi in America today?
Every one of the following examples I’m going to give you were the conditions under which Christians in Islamic countries were subjugated. To start off with: Muslims are forbidden to build new mosques. Muslims are prohibited from issuing their call to prayer any louder than can be heard from the sidewalk of the mosque. (This is a corollary of the prohibition of Christians’ freedom to ring church bells loud enough to be heard by their congregation.) A minaret shall not be higher than 15 feet. Muslims cannot build houses greater in height than the height of houses owned by Christians. Muslims are forbidden from attaining any position of authority over Christians. Muslims shall not vote nor will they be recognized as citizens in any Kafir nation. Muslims are prohibited from serving in the military, police force nor hold any government position. Muslims shall not testify in Kafir courts nor will they be permitted to sue any Kafir. Muslims shall not give shelter in their mosque or homes to any jihadi. Muslims shall not teach Islam to any Kafir. Muslims shall not manifest Islam publicly and they shall not attempt to convert any Kafir and they will not prevent any Mohammedan from leaving the religion of Islam if they so wish. Muslims shall not own or carry any weapons. Muslims shall not drive cars, although they will be able to operate mopeds and ride bicycles. Muslims shall not display their books in the marketplace and Muslims will pay the Islamic tax (Jizya) of 50% of their income. Once a year they will shave their heads and kneel before the Kafir to present the Jizya. Any act of disobedience by an individual Muslim could result in collective punishment and nullify the Dhimma and cause the Kafirs to riot, murder and burn down the homes and mosques of the Muslims.
Now as you hear these rules, and it should be absolutely clear that if these laws were enacted and enforced in America Muslims would leave or they would apostatize and convert, which is exactly what Christians did in Turkey, the Balkans, North Africa and the Middle East. The same thing happened to the Buddhists and the Hindus when they were forcibly subjected to rules just like these and so, after a while, in utter desperation, they converted. It may have taken centuries, but they converted or escaped from the totalitarian Islamic countries. Now that you’ve seen how the Dhimma treats the Muslim as a Dhimmi, you can see that no Muslim would ever volunteer to immigrate to a Kafir country and allow themselves to be subjected to the same treatment to which Islamic countries subjected Christians, Jews, Buddhists and Hindus.
The enforcement of the Dhimma is a good example of the dualism of Islamic supremacist countries. In other words a Weltanschauung of “us versus them” or the Muslim over the Kafir.
Utterly lacking in Islamic culture is The Golden Rule: “do unto others as you would have others do unto you.”
This exercise of the Muslim as a Dhimmi is a juxtaposition of Dualism and The Golden Rule in reverse (i.e., we will now do unto you, what you have done unto us for centuries).
If you would like to learn more about life as a Christian, Jew or Hindu living in an Islamic totalitarian country I recommend two more fascinating books, in addition to the book cited in the footnote: The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam and Understanding Dhimmitude: Twenty-one Lectures and Talks on the Position of Non-Muslims in Islamic Societies, both by Bat Ye’or.
Bill Warner, Stephen Coughlin, Clare Lopez, and Robert Spencer team up to explore how words in Islam are twisted to deceive the Kafir.
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
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.
By Bill Warner
Slavery still stalks the American consciousness, its wounds yetfestering in many hearts. If Barack Obama were to set his mind to it,he could heal much of the damage this peculiar institution wrought onour national soul. This great and tragic error that must be givenjustice. Obama is the best person in the world who can recognize,remember and honor the deaths of 125 million and the enslavement oftens of millions of people.
Hisunique qualifications can be found in his names. Until he was 20 yearsold, he went by the first name Barry. Then he decided to be calledBarack Hussein Obama, his original birth name.
Many people seem to the names “Barack” and “Obama” are African names. They are not.
Baraq[Barack] was the name of the winged horse-like creature that tookMohammed to Paradise in the Night Journey. Baraq can also mean God’sblessing. Hussein reminds some Americans ofSaddam Hussein, and Obama’s supporters get upset if it is used. Husseinwas the name of Mohammed’s grandson. So Obama’s entire name is basedupon Islamic mythology and African conquest. Barack Hussein Obama means[Allah’s blessing] [Mohammed’s grandson] .
Obama’s name reveals a part of history thatis unknown or hidden about America, Africa and slavery. It also revealsa history of the destruction of native African civilization. His namecame from his father, a so-called Arab African. The word Arab is theclue to the hidden history.
Kafirs (non-Muslims) rarelyrefer to Islam, but call it by an ethnic name whenever they can. WhenIslam conquered the Middle East, the conquerors were not calledMuslims, but Arabs. In Eastern Europe the Muslim invaders were calledTurks. In Spain conquering Muslims were referred to as Moors. Thus itis that the Islamic culture in Africa, Arab African, is referred towith an ethnic name, Arab Africans, like Obama’s father, are Muslimswho leave behind their African culture and adopt the Arab culture.
TheArab African Muslim has always been associated with slavery becauseIslam is the driving force in the history of world slavery.
Islam’sconnection with slavery starts with Mohammed. The exact details of howslaves are taken are described in detail in the Sira, Mohammed’sbiography. The Sira is a sacred text since it relates Mohammed’s wordsand deeds, called the Sunna. Everything he did is the perfect patternof behavior for all Muslims.
Mohammed was involved inevery single aspect and detail of slavery. He bought and sold slavesboth retail and wholesale. He gave them as gifts, used them for sex,received them as gifts, stood by as slaves were beaten, attacked. Heenslaved tribes, and owned black slaves. Indeed, his rise to politicalsuccess was financed, in part, by the profit of his slave trade.
Sothe sacred pattern of Mohammed and Islam is the enslavement ofnon-Muslims, kafirs. For 1400 years Islam has enslaved all races andcultures including Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Zoroastrians,animists, and atheists. Only Muslims are free of being enslaved.
What Obama could do
Obamacould tell us that there is only one way to understand Africa andslavery and that is to understand political Islam. For 1400 years Islamhas steadily been at work in Africa. The easiest place for Americans tosee Islam’s annihilation of kafir civilization is in North Africa andEgypt. Egypt used to be a Christian and Coptic (the descendants of thePharaohs) country. North Africa was a Greek and Christian culture, andat one time a part of the Roman Empire.
The first Islamicassault on African culture was the jihad that annihilated CopticEgyptian culture and Greek culture in Northern Africa. Today theseareas are Arabic and Islamic.
That was just the thinend of the jihad wedge. Over the next 1400 years, Islam tookapproximately 25 million slaves out of Africa. An Arabic word forAfrican is abd, the same word that is used for black slave. Arabic has about 40 words for slaves. White slaves are mamluk.Islam took more than a million European slaves into slavery. Thehighest priced slave in the Meccan slave market was a white woman.
Thereis great deal of collateral damage when a slave is taken. A warringparty attacks a tribe and when enough of the protectors are killed, therest will surrender and become slaves. All of those who were strongenough to work were taken away in a forced march for days. But thereare many who are left behind — the young, the old, and the sick andinjured.
Estimates vary, but from 5 to 10 people leftbehind died as the result of taking one slave. So for 25 millionslaves, we have the deaths of 125 million Africans over a 1400-yearperiod.
When the story of slavery is told in America, as in the movie Roots, the sailors get off the boats and capture the Africans and make them slaves. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Whenthe white slaver showed up in his wooden ship, he made a business dealwith a Muslim wholesaler. Jihad was the machinery that Mohammed used,and his model worked well in Africa as slavers filled the slave pensfor the same reason that Mohammed did it: profit. Whites only tradedslaves with Islam for about 200 years. Islam was in the slave tradebefore and after selling to the West.
If you would liketo learn about the Arab African slave traders that came from the samearea of Africa that Obama’s father came from, read Tippu Tip and the East African Slave Trade(Leda Farrant, Northumberland Press, 1975). Tippu Tip looked African,but he was 100% Arab and Muslim. By the way, Arab is not a racial term,but a cultural/language term.
But the slave trade hadanother effect. Africa slowly became Islamic. Jihad worked in many waysto bring about conversion. Sometimes trade introduced Islam and ahybrid Islam/native African religion evolved. Then jihad was used topurify and remove the African culture to result in a purer Islam. Butin the end, half of Africa fell to Islam.
The oddestthing is that many people have the idea that an Arab African is thesame as African. When the Arab culture replaces the native Africanculture the culture is not African. African culture is no more Arabthan Hindu culture is Arab. Sharia law is just as foreign to nativeAfrican culture as it is to ours.
The magnitude of thisproblem is seen in Darfur, where Arab Africans are destroying Africanswho are not yet Arab enough. This is a centuries-long jihad toannihilate the native African culture. This process is no differentthan the process by which Coptic Egypt became Arab Egypt. Islam is nota religion but a complete civilization whose stated goal is to replaceall other civilizations. There has never been a historical example of acountry that kept its native culture after Islam entered. So Africa isan ordinary historical example.
The ignorance about thehistory behind Obama’s names is the root of why he can achieve such animpact. Obama represents the chance to help heal the curse of slaveryin America by revealing its complete history. He is a descendant of awhite woman who had slave owners in her ancestry. His African fatherdescended from those who enslaved the Africans. Obama is descended fromslave owners and slave traders, but he does not have a single drop ofslave blood in him.
Since race trumps all, everyone seeshim as being representative of America’s slave descendants. It becomestrue simply because in a race/culture-obsessed society, some want it tobe true. Obama’s slave ancestry is a fiction and not reality.
SoObama is half enslaver, by ancestry, and half slave, by choice. He isthe most uniquely positioned to tell the truth, the complete truthabout Islam, Africa, America and slavery.
Now here isthe last little twist to Obama’s name. He called himself Barry, anIrish name, for many years in America. He changed what he wanted to becalled after he went to Pakistan for a three-week stay. He left Americaas Barry and returned as Barack.
Some whites may havebought slaves from Islam for 200 years, but after that, their culturewas first to outlaw slavery. So Obama changed his name from a culturethat abolished slavery to a name from a culture that has enslavedothers for 1400 years and has a highly detailed doctrine of slavery.
Thisis the world that Obama spans: from slavery abolition to the eternalenslaver. He represents hope to many American descendants of slaves,but his ancestors were never enslaved. No one else could tell the storythat Obama knows. He could tell the story of how 125 million Africansdied. He could tell the story of how 25 million Africans became slaves.
There is an enormous irony that descendants of the slaves that hisancestors created now look to him for justice. And he could give themreal justice by telling the complete truth of their enslavement. Onlyhe has the power to make others listen.
Obama has declared himself to be a world citizen with his speech in Berlin, and hisspeaking the truth of the complete story of slavery would be historic,and could reverse centuries of ignorance and lies. He can stand up andtell the world the true complete story of slavery. It would changehistory far beyond the election cycle.
Bill Warner is director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam.
Page Printed from: American Thinker
THE DHIMMI DALAI LAMA
By Bill Warner and Pamela Carruthers
September 24, 2008
The modern Dhimmi – a non-Muslim apologist for Islam
The Dalai Lama is revered around the world, and not just by his Tibetan Buddhist followers who believe he’s the incarnation of the Buddha of Compassion. He is a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize who preaches non-violence toward the Chinese communists who invaded and now run his country. The Dalai Lama, living in India, is also a tragic Ghandi-esque political leader-in-exile whose government is not recognized by any nation. He describes himself as a simple monk.
The Dalai Lama has accumulated much good will and his influence is far-reaching. He has no power from material wealth, no army, no country. His power is spiritual. This is why in this age of decadence, many people respect and listen to him and believe what he says.
Mischief or Jihad?
This year, at a lecture at Lehigh University, the Dalai Lama said that “it’s totally wrong, unfair” to label Islam a violent religion.
This is not the first time he publicly has made such remarks about Islam and its sixth pillar, jihad.
In 2006 in San Francisco, after getting a desperate message for help from American Muslims, the Dalai Lama attended an inter-faith event titled A Gathering of Hearts Illuminating Compassion and spoke out for the “Religion of Peace.” There he defended Islam and said that only ‘a few mischievous people’ are to blame.
In June, 2008 in his role of political/religious leader, his pronouncements at the Delhi Conference on World Terrorism were shocking. Once again, the Dalai Lama defends the Muslim religion and says that:
· Muslims are one of the most peace loving people . . .
· Muslims cannot be terrorists. If a person is a terrorist, he cannot be a Muslim.
· Some mischievous people and their deeds generalize (the) whole religion. Because of these incidents, it creates (the) impression that Muslims are militants. It is wrong.
Examine what the Dalai Lama says. His few mischievous people have killed thousands of people around the world in the past ten years. And again, he calls men who blow up themselves and other innocent humans – mischievous. He says it is mischief to maim and murder? No, mischief is a child being naughty. Blowing up innocent people is evil!
Why does the Dalai Lama think that a person who engages in terrorism can’t be a Muslim when the jihadis brag publicly how they kill for Allah, and quote verses from the Koran that command Muslims to instill terror in kafirs’ hearts, to smite them at their necks (behead them like Daniel Pearl).
He also said, “Now days to some people, the Muslim tradition appears more militant. And I feel that’s totally wrong. Muslims like any other traditions [have the] – same message, same practice. That is a practice of compassion.” The Dalai Lama received this information on Islam from his Muslim friends, not from knowledge of the actual doctrine.
Ignoring Islamic Doctrine
Unfortunately, the Dalai Lama, who feels Muslims aren’t militant and who listens to his Muslim friends, is the one who is wrong. He repeats his mantras about Islam without his investigating the doctrinal root causes of the tactic of terror and its ‘mischievous’ perpetrators.
At the New Delhi conference he said: “Every action comes from some motivation. We have to address and deal with the motivation which creates terrorist actions.”
Islam’s actions are motivated by their sacred texts of the Koran, the Hadith, the traditions of Mohammed and the Sira, the biography of Mohammed. As a Buddhist scholar, surely the Dalai Lama understands how the foundational texts of any religion are the root cause and the prime motivator for the words and deeds of the religious follower. But the Dalai Lama seems to be ignorant of the sacred texts of Islam and the doctrine of Mohammed and his god, Allah. Otherwise, how could he, a Buddhist who espouses pacificism and non-violence, defend Islam, a political ideology of violence and war? Now, how does he, a rationalist and scholar, justify not knowing the Islamic doctrine?
The Dalai Lama uses hearsay, what Muslims tell him, not factual, doctrinal or historic evidence to back up his words. And says we generalize bad things about the Muslims. However, close examination of the thoughts, speech and deeds of Mohammed, the perfect man Muslims are encouraged to imitate, shows that Muslims can threaten to take our lives (as they did to the Dalai Lama in 2007), lie to us, steal from us, attack and murder us. We have proof in the doctrine and the actions of recent events. This violence and aggression originate in the Islamic trilogy of the Koran, Sira and Hadith. There is no generalization. There is only the truth. Islamic doctrine breeds violence and aggression.
The Actual Doctrine – of Dualism
The Dalai Lama says that just because some Muslims are violent, all of them aren’t. Islam has only one nature, he contends and it can’t be violent. Therefore, according to his point of view, the jihadis practice a false doctrine. However, Islam has two “natures.” There are two Korans and two Mohammeds, the Meccan or religious and the Medinan, the political, including its dualistic ethics with one set of rules for Muslims and one set for unbelievers, kafirs. This dualism also includes acting nice when Islam is weak and acting violent when it is strong. The Dalai Lama denies this dualistic reality of Islam due to his ignorance of the actual doctrine.
The Dalai Lama doesn’t know that according to Islam, he is the worst kind of kafir, a polytheist, who is cursed and sent to hell by Allah. No, he maintains an arrogant ignorance and says that all religions are good. That’s ridiculous. Students of history and anthropology know that many ancient cultures sacrificed their own loved ones due to religious belief. All religions are not necessarily good!
But the Dalai Lama’s greatest intellectual failing is that he confuses cause and effect. He acts and speaks as if Muslims create Islam, that they are the cause and Islam is the effect. But actually, it is the doctrine of Islam that creates the Muslims. The doctrine creates those ‘mischievous few’ who desire to kill kafirs in the way of Allah. His greatest moral failing is that he arrogantly remains ignorant and passes this ignorance on to the world giving it the stamp of his spiritual authority.
The cure for his ignorance is the understanding of dualism and submission. Islam means submission and the Dalai Lama submits.
His Friends
Let’s look at the Dalai Lama’s moderate Muslim friends that advise him on Islam at the conferences on terrorism and inter-faith love fests and lectures on enlightenment. One of them in the U.S. is Sheik Hamza Yusuf who backed Nation of Islam murderer Rap Brown and the blind Egyptian Sheik Rahman, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Tower bombing. He associates with members of militant Islamic organizations like the ICNA and the Muslim Brotherhood’s Muslim American Society.
The Dalai Lama’s high profile friend at the Gathering was Sayyid Syeed, a high level member of the ISNA, which has close ties to Saudi Arabia supported organizations as well as the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. The Muslim Brotherhood wants to replace the U.S. Constitution with Islamic sharia law. Here is the Brotherhood motto:
Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader.
The Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way.
Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.
In New Delhi, his Muslim friends came from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Shri Lanka, Indonesia, and other bastions of freedom and peaceful co-existence to a conference on terrorism sponsored by the largest mosque in India, Jama Masjid. Ahmed Bukhari, who is the imam there, stated publicly that the United States is a terrorist (nation), that the Jews are responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and that Until Bin Laden is proved guilty by Islamic law, Muslims should stand with him.
The Dalai Lama calls these men with terrorist ties his friends (when their doctrine says they must not be friends with kafirs) and proudly defends the faith that fuels them.
The Dhimmi
As Balbir Punj writes in his article “Islam in the Eyes of the Dalai Lama”:
There can be no more bitter irony than a Buddhist monk defending Islam as a religion of compassion. Except for mountainous pockets like Ladakh, Tibet, and the Chittagong Hills Tracts, Buddhism disappeared from India under the Sword of Islam.
Islam destroys all vestiges of Buddhism where ever it goes. It may take centuries but eventually, like the Bamiyan Buddhas, all traces of its practice will be reduced to rubble and erased from history. Allah says Buddhists are less than the Jews and Christians whom he calls apes and pigs.
But for now, Mohammed and Allah only want the Dalai Lama’s goodwill. And he gives it eagerly, freely and lovingly, ignoring discriminating wisdom as he moves forward, taking his followers down the way of dhimmitude, a path of suffering and annihilation. He is now officially a deluded dhimmi whose Buddhist ethics fall away as he defends an Islamic doctrine of death and destruction.
Of course the Dalai Lama is only acting like a typical politician, but due to his spiritual stature, we expect something better from him. We expect the truth. We expect a bit of discriminating wisdom. Surely he knows the history of Buddhism in Central Asia. Surely he knows that Buddhists cannot live and practice their religion freely in Islamic countries. But he doesn’t speak out about these things.
The Dalai Lama could remain silent but he speaks out in favor of Islam at every possible public event. It is not clear why he so willingly takes on the role of the deceiver. But, whatever the reasons, he gives refuge to our enemies who are his enemies too. Shame on the Dalai Lama!
(Article originally published in Chronicles magizine)
Dr. Bill Warner is the director of The Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI) and has a web site, www.politicalislam.com.
Pamela Carruthers is a researcher for CSPI.
Copyright 2008 CBSX, LLC
permalink: https://politicalislam.com/the-dhimmi-dalai-lama/
www.politicalislam.com
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