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.
Kenneth Roberts, Associate Writer
What causes a Muslim woman to honor-kill the children she has borne and raised? The explanation is ‘the Stockholm Syndrome’. It is one of the secret keys of political Islam and Mohammed’s greatest discovery.
The Stockholm syndrome or ‘capture bonding’ is a psychological paradox in which hostages develop empathy and positive feelings towards their captors, even to the point of adopting the captor’s oppressive ideology. One would expect captives to experience resentment and hatred towards an abuser, but that is not what occurs in the Stockholm syndrome.
Rather, the Stockholm syndrome takes hold in a few days as a result of captors performing small acts of kindness towards their doomed captives. The threat of certain death in contrast with kind gestures is thought to bring about the syndrome. The confused captive soon begins to identify with the cruel psyche of the captor in order to survive.
This push-pull dynamic of terror alternating with moments of relative benevolence produces this delusion in the mind of the captive. The captive then begins to believe the far-fetched justifications for brutality and murder that bend the minds of her or his terrorist captors.
The Stockholm syndrome is a severe form of a psychological phenomenon known as dissociation. It is the mind’s survival mechanism, the way trauma victims convince themselves that “this isn’t happening”. Mohammed discovered it by accident.
Why ‘Greatest Discovery’
The discovery of the Stockholm syndrome changed Mohammed’s life. Before discovering the Stockholm syndrome, Mohammed preached religion for 13 years and collected about 150 followers. After his discovery of capture bonding, Mohammed’s political movement grew exponentially.
How did Mohammed’s great discovery occur? It began with a problem.
Omar’s Revelations
After leaving Mecca, Mohammed’s small, impoverished movement began to pick up ruffians to assist in pillaging the Meccans. Mohammed had previously been living in a polite, middle class, business environment. He and his followers were not used to the rough, rude manners of the pillaging ‘Ansaris’ (auxiliaries) that Mohammed had hired in exchange for a share of booty on his vengeful raids against the Meccans. Even the manners of Ansari women were rough and insubordinate. The women of Mohammed’s group began to pick up the highly assertive manners of the Ansari women. At first, Mohammed took no notice, but Omar bin Khattab did. Omar pushed Mohammed to receive a revelation from Allah.
Allah soon sent Mohammed an eternal revelation that men should beat their wives into submission. Were these original Muslim women beaten ‘lightly’ as recommended by modern mullahs? Apparently not. Aisha (Mohammed’s preteen bride) later said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women.” (Bukhari 7:72:715)
Veiling and Isolation: Ingredients of Stockholm Syndrome
Veiling is another important contributor to the Islamic Stockholm syndrome. Veiling causes isolation from perspectives other than those of the captor.
Veiling came about when Omar yet again provoked a crisis, this time by following Muslim women to the privies. Omar noted that free Muslim women, if left unveiled, could not be distinguished from unveiled slaves. Since Mohammed permitted his men to ‘molest’ slaves, Omar demanded action “…as he desired eagerly that the verses of al-hijab may be revealed. So Allah revealed the verses of “al-Hijab” (Sahih Bukhari 1.14.148). Allah swiftly gave an eternal command about veiling, so that married women (including Omar’s wives) could no longer be ‘misidentified’ as kafirs and ‘molested’ by jihadists (Koran 33.59). According to Allah, unveiled women don’t get protection from rape.
Mohammed’s Prisoners
By limiting women’s independence of movement and making them indistinguishable one from another, veiling produces permanent isolation of women, a necessary condition for the Stockholm syndrome. The combination of isolation, beating and the veil turn Muslim women into passive, isolated, malleable non-persons. Muslim women live in a permanent state of dissociation and denial.
Because of Omar, the freedom of Muslim women has not increased at all in the last 1400 years, while everywhere else women’s rights have steadily evolved. Muslim women are still restricted to a form of house arrest as ‘domestic animals’ or ‘prisoners’, forced to interact only with their husbands and children (read ‘Mohammed’s Final Sermon’).
Choosing Compliance as an Alternative to Death
As the Stockholm syndrome takes hold, victims perceive they can either resist the perpetrator and meet certain death or they can comply and hope to live. The threat of certain death is a necessary factor in the Stockholm syndrome. Islam provides this permanent threat to women through the eternally existing Koran, Mohammed’s Sunna (perfect example) and sacred Sharia law.
No Islamic doctrine depends on a single verse, but on the Koran, Mohammed’s example and the canonical decisions of Islamic jurists. They create a three-dimensional picture of conduct that all Muslims must follow. Tragically, Islamic law provides broad loopholes for the honor killing of women.
The Koran says that if a Muslim woman obeys her male owner after a beating, no further action should be taken. The words ‘take no further action’ (Koran 4.34) are highly significant, since they imply that actions beyond beating may be taken, perhaps mutilation, perhaps starvation or death through honor killing. The choice of ‘further action’ is up to the male owner of the chattels. Modern mullahs often try to tone this down for Western audiences, but such moderation is not in foundational Islam. Koran 4.15 & 34 offer the basis for honor killing of women, since a husband needn’t feed a woman if her performance is unsatisfactory. She may be locked up and starved in her home.
Mohammed’s sacred example approves of a blind man who murders the mother of his children because she blasphemed Mohammed.
Sharia law also makes ample room for honor killing of women by omitting any punishment for the murderer of an apostate or the murderer of disobedient children or grandchildren. In the context of cousin marriage, Sharia leaves the door open to the honor killing of women with the blessing of the couple’s common grandparents (Reliance of the Traveller, o1.2, 1-5). Such honor killing is perfectly legal under Sharia, there being no punishment for it.
Honor killing is eternally permitted (though not commanded) in Islam. Such violence against women is part of jihad, the ‘struggle’ to force women and ‘others’ to submit without resistance to Muslim males.
Dhimmitude: a Captivity Contract
Dhimmis capitulate to Islamic rule. Captive Muslim women (as well as entire captive nations) are given the stark choice of being beaten (or dead) prisoners…or living, compliant semi-slaves to Islam. Since it is difficult to endure the despair of permanent captivity, Islam’s captives dissociate and ‘voluntarily’ choose compliance. This condition of surrender to Islam is called ‘dhimmitude’. When entire kafir nations submit to Islamic supremacism, they become pacified kafirs or ‘dhimmis’ under a humiliating ‘dhimma’ (protection) agreement. Nevertheless, if dhimmis resist their Muslim overlords even a little, they are deemed to have broken their contract of ‘protection’ and they revert to being unprotected ‘kafirs’ or ‘harbis’ who must be ‘fought’.
Sharia’s logic is that a Muslim woman who resists her owner has become an apostate from Islam, a ‘kafir’ or even a ‘harbi’ who may lawfully be murdered, since she has abandoned the rules of Islam. Under Sharia, no blood indemnity is required in the murder of an apostate, so killing defiant women is permitted. This is easily done with the consent of the parents or grandparents in a cousin marriage.
A majority of Muslim women actually marry a first cousin, so family-directed violence against women is rife in Islam. Cousin marriage places a secure sociological noose around the majority of Muslim women. Thanks to Sharia law and cousin marriage, Muslim women are Mohammed’s prisoners having no escape from violence and death.
Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink: https://politicalislam.com/mohammeds-greatest-discovery-part-1/
Copyright © 2013 CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com
Use as needed, just give credit and do not edit.
www.politicalislam.com
If you are a student of Islam, then you might have gathered that Islam has a doctrine of eternal hatred of Kafirs and their civilization. A student of Islam might also gather that after a 1400 year history of hostilities, murder, rape and enslavement that Islam was at war with us. But, the White House, the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, FBI and CIA have informed us that this is not the case.
It started when Steve Emerson and Steve Coughlin were going to give talks about political Islam to the FBI and Homeland Security . Then the White House informed them that not only were they not going to talk about the Islamic doctrine and history of jihad, but that henceforth, no Kafir could talk to any Federal agencies, unless they were vetted by the Muslim Brotherhood.
Now, Eric Holder, the Attorney General, has ordered a purge of all Department of Justice manuals and training of all material that will “offend” Muslims. “I recently directed all components of the Department of Justice to re-evaluate their training efforts,”
Deputy Attorney General James Cole announced during the Washington conference. U.S. Attorney Dwight Holton explained that FBI training materials that even remotely link Islam to violence will be banned.
“I want to be perfectly clear about this: Training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive and they are contrary to everything this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for,” he told Muslim activists gathered at the George Washington University law school. “They will not be tolerated.”
The president and the Department of Justice do not stand for critical thought, an examination of all sides of a problem. The White House wants to see that Muslims are never offended. Notice that the White House does not say that the Kafir analysts are wrong in their facts and data. Instead, they say that facts have no place at the table. Our government no longer stands for logical thought, but only wants to insure that Muslims are not offended by Kafirs. The way for Muslims to not be offended is for the Kafirs to keep silent. This is pure Islamic doctrine, Sharia law.
Let’s go back to the time of Umar II, a caliph of Islam. Under Sharia law, the Kafir is to be made completely harmless to Islam and there are two parts to this mental castration. Here are two of the many oppressive terms of the dhimmi (a dhimmi is a Kafir who agrees to obey Sharia law) treaty that deal with Kafir knowledge:
The Pact of Umar, 9th Century CE, includes:
We [Christians] will not teach our children the Koran.
We will not make a show of the Christian religion nor invite any one to embrace it.
Kafirs must not have knowledge of Islamic doctrine. Kafirs must not make their civilization attractive to Muslims. Kafirs must submit to Islam, not the other way around. This is why we are changing how our textbooks explain America because Muslims will read them. Islam must be praised and the West denigrated.
You might wonder why they would not want Kafirs to read the Koran. After all wouldn’t they want the Kafir to read the wonderful Koran and become a Muslim? No, Islam wants for you to listen to a Muslim explain the Koran. A Koran reading Kafir might apply critical thought to the text and that would be a disaster. Only Muslims are allowed to know Mohammed and Allah under Sharia law.
So, as good Kafirs, we must remain ignorant and submit to Islam. We can become Islamic, but we should never try to convert the Muslim to our civilization and Western religions. Submission only runs one direction.
The Obama administration has invoked an ancient treaty, the Pact of Umar, and applied it to our nation. Our law enforcement agencies have now been made full dhimmis under Sharia law. Critical thought and knowledge of Islam have entered the first step of making any knowledge about Islam a hate crime that will be prosecuted to the full extent of a Fascist state. Now they deny truth. Next they will criminalize truth that offends Islam
Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink https://politicalislam.com/the-dhimmi-is-forbidden-to-read-the-koran/
Copyright © 2011 CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com
M. Lal Goel
Professor Emeritus of Political Science, www.uwf.edu/lgoel
Pro-Islamic and anti-Hindu mindset known as dhimmitude (described more fully later) is prevalent in sections of the American academy. The case in point is the recent book by Dr. Wendy Doniger [1] , The Hindus: An Alternative History, The Penguin Press, 2009.
Doniger’s 779-page tome is laced with personal editorials, folksy turn of the phrase and funky wordplays. She has a large repertoire of Hindu mythological stories. She often narrates the most damning mythical story—Vedic, Puranic, folk, oral, vernacular—to demean, damage and disparage Hinduism. After building a caricature, she laments that fundamentalist Hindus (how many and how powerful are they?) are destroying the pluralistic, tolerant Hindu tradition. Why save such a vile, violent religion, as painted by the eminent professor? There is a contradiction here.
This review focuses on Doniger’s discussion of Islamic incursions into India. Islam entered south India in the 7th Century with Arab merchants and traders. This was peaceful Islam. Later, Islam came to India as a predatory and a conquering force. Mohammad bin Qasim ravaged Sindh in 712. Mahmud Ghazni pillaged, looted and destroyed numerous Hindu temples around 1000 AD, but did not stay to rule. The Muslim rule begins with the Delhi Sultanate, approximately 1201 to 1526. The Sultanate gave place to the Mughal Empire, 1526-1707. Doniger makes the following dubious points regarding the Muslim imperial rule in India (1201-1707).
Muslims marauders destroyed some Hindu temples, not many.
Temple destruction was a long-standing Indian tradition. Hindus destroyed Buddhist and Jain stupas and rival Hindu temples and built upon the destroyed sites.
Muslim invaders looted and destroyed Hindu temples because they had the power to do so. If Hindus had the power, they would do the same in reverse.
The Jizya—the Muslim tax on non-Muslims—was for Hindu protection and a substitute for military service.
Hindu “megalomania” for temple building in the Middle Ages was a positive result of Muslim demolition of some Hindu temples.
The Hindu founders of the Vijayanagara Empire double-crossed their Muslim master in Delhi who had deputed them to secure the South.
Hindus want Muslims and Christians to leave India for Hindustan is only for Hindus.
Let us take each point in turn to examine Doniger’s mistaken views.
Muslim invaders beginning with Mahmud Ghazni in 1000 CE looted, pillaged and destroyed not few but many Hindu and Buddhist temples. Muslim chroniclers describe the humiliation and utter desolation wrought by the Muslims on the kafirs (unbelievers). Alberuni, the Muslim scholar who accompanied Mahmud to India, describes one such event: “Mathura, the holy city of Krishna, was the next victim. In the middle of the city there was a temple larger and finer than the rest, which can neither be described nor painted. The Sultan was of the opinion that 200 years would have been required to build it. The idols included ‘five of red gold, each five yards high,’ with eyes formed of priceless jewels. . . The Sultan gave orders that all the temples should be burnt with naphtha and fire, and leveled with the ground. Thus perished works of art which must have been among the noblest monuments of ancient India.” [2]
At the destruction of another temple, Somnath, it is estimated that 50,000 were massacred. The fabulous booty of gold, women and children was divided according to Islamic tradition–the Sultan getting the royal fifth, the cavalry man getting twice as much as the foot soldier. Hundreds of Hindu and Buddhist shrines were destroyed.
Dr. Doniger asserts that Hindus too persecuted minority Jain and Buddhist religions and destroyed their shrines. She narrates the now discarded story about the impaling of Jains at the hands of Hindu rulers in the Tamil country. Then she says that “there is no evidence that any of this actually happened, other than the story.” (p 365). Then why narrate the story? Hindu sectarian violence pales in comparison to what happened either in Europe or in the Middle East. The truth is that both Jainism and Buddhism were integrated into Hinduism’s pluralistic tradition. The Buddha is accepted as one of the Hindu Avatars (God in human form). Exquisite Jain temples at Mt Abu at the border of Gujarat and Rajasthan built around 1000 CE survive in the region dominated by Hindu Rajput rulers, falsifying notions of Hindu carnage of Jain temples.
Doniger says that Hindus would do the same to Muslims if they had the power to do so. Hindus did come to power after the death of Emperor Aurangzeb in 1707, when the Mughal rule rapidly declined. The Marathas were the strongest power in Western and Southern India in the 18th and 19th centuries, as the Sikhs were in North India. There is no account of large scale demolition and looting of Muslim places of worship either by the Marathas or the Sikhs. If a copy of the Quran fell into the hands of Maharaja Shivaji during a campaign, the same would be passed on to a Muslim rather than being burned.
Contrary to what Doniger says, Jizya is a long held Muslim tradition. It was levied to begin with on the defeated Christians and Jews, the People of the Book, as a price for the cessation of Jihad. Hindus, not being one of the People of the Book, did not deserve to live by paying the special tax. If defeated in battle, their only option was Islam or death. This was the position taken by the Islamic clergy. Unlike the clergy, however, the Muslim governors were practical men. If they had killed the Hindus en masse for failing to adopt Islam, who would build their palaces, fill their harems, cut their wood and hue their water? [3]
Doniger argues that Hindu ‘megalomania’ for temple building resulted from Muslim destruction of some Hindu temples. In other words, because the Muslims destroyed some of the Hindu temples, the Hindus went on a building spree. If Doniger’s argument is accepted, Hindus should thank Islamic marauders for looting and desecrating their shrines. The truth is that in northern India which experienced 500 years of Islamic rule (1201-1707), few historical temples of any beauty remain. In contrast, temple architecture of some beauty does survive in southern India, the region that escaped long Muslim occupation.
That the Hindu founders of the Vijayanagara dynasty in the South double-crossed their Muslim master in Delhi is one among the innumerable editorial negative portrayal of Hindu character. One may ask: why wouldn’t a slave double cross his oppressor?
The view that Muslims and Christians should leave India is not one held by most Hindus, only by a small minority on the extreme fringes. Muslim population has increased in India from about 9 percent at the time of Independence to about 13 percent now (1947-2009). In contrast, in Pakistan, Hindu population has declined and now constitutes less than one percent. In Muslim Bangladesh in the same period the Hindu population has declined from 29 percent to less than 10 percent. Muslims hold important positions in government and business in contemporary India, which is 83 pct Hindu. The richest person in India has been a Muslim, Premji; the most popular film stars are Muslim; Christian and Muslim chief ministers and governors head several of the states. The single most important leader in India is an Italian-born woman Sonya Gandhi and the Prime Minister is a Sikh, Dr. Manmohan Singh. The past President APJ Kalam was a Muslim and before that K R Narayanan, a lower caste. In Federal and State civil service, 50 percent of the jobs are reserved for backward classes and Untouchable, in order to compensate for past discrimination. India has moved.
Let us look more closely. Doniger describes the invasion of Sindh by Arab soldier of fortune Muhammad bin Qasim as follows:
Qasim invaded Sindh in 713. The terms of surrender included a promise of guarantee of the safety of Hindu and Buddhist establishments. “Hindus and Buddhists were allowed to govern themselves in matters of religion and law.” Qasim “kept his promises.” The non-Muslims were not treated as kafirs. Jizya was imposed but only as a substitute for military service for their “protection.” He brought Muslim teachers and mosques into the subcontinent. (paraphrased)
From Doniger’s assessment, Qasim should be regarded as a blessing. Contrast Doniger’s description with that written by Andrew Bostom in “The Legacy of Islamic Jihad in India.” [4]
The Muslim chroniclers al-Baladhuri (in Kitab Futuh al-Buldan) and al-Kufi (in the Chachnama) include enough isolated details to establish the overall nature of the conquest of Sindh by Muhammad b. Qasim in 712 C.E. . . . Baladhuri, for example, records that following the capture of Debal, Muhammad b. Qasim earmarked a section of the city exclusively for Muslims, constructed a mosque, and established four thousand colonists there. The conquest of Debal had been a brutal affair. . . Despite appeals for mercy from the besieged Indians (who opened their gates after the Muslims scaled the fort walls), Muhammad b. Qasim declared that he had no orders (i.e., from his superior al-Hajjaj, the Governor of Iraq) to spare the inhabitants, and thus for three days a ruthless and indiscriminate slaughter ensued. In the aftermath, the local temple was defiled, and “700 beautiful females who had sought for shelter there, were all captured.”
Distinguished historian R. C. Majumdar describes the capture of the royal Fort and its tragic outcome:
Muhammad massacred 6,000 fighting men who were found in the fort, and their followers and dependents, as well as their women and children were taken prisoners. Sixty thousand slaves, including 30 young ladies of royal blood, were sent to Hajjaj, along with the head of Dahar [the Hindu ruler]. We can now well understand why the capture of a fort by the Muslim forces was followed by the terrible jauhar ceremony (in which females threw themselves in fire kindled by themselves), the earliest recorded instance of which is found in the Chachnama. Cited in Bostom.
Doniger extensively footnotes Romila Thapar, John Keay, Anne Schimmel and A. K. Ramanujan as her sources for Islamic history, providing an impression of meticulous scholarship. Missing are works of the distinguished historians: Jadunath Sarkar, R. C. Majumdar, A. L. Srivastava, Vincent Smith, and Ram Swarup.
Doniger writes at page 458: when Muslim royal women first came to India, they did not rigidly keep to purdah (the veiling and seclusion of women). They picked the more strict form of purdah from contact with the Hindu Rajput women. Doniger finds much to praise in Muslim women during this period: some knew several languages; others wrote poetry; some managed vast estates; others set up “feminist” republics within female quarters (harems) some debated fine points on religion; some even joined in drinking parties (chapters 16, 20). Such descriptions are patently negated by distinguished historians. See The Mughal Harem (1988) by K S Lal, available free on the Internet.
If Hinduism is the source of strict purdah among Muslim women, as Doniger contends, how does one explain the strict veiling of women in the Middle East, a region far removed from Hindu influence? Or, the absence of it in southern India, a region that escaped Islamic domination?
Doniger writes at page 627, “the Vedic reverence for violence flowered in the slaughters that followed Partition.” And, Gandhi’s nonviolence succeeded against the British. But it failed against the tenaciously held Hindu ideal of violence that had grip on the real emotions of the masses.
What is one to make of these weighty pronouncements uttered in all seriousness by the author? These are an expression of the hurt feelings on the part of a scholar. While discussing the Hindu epic Ramayana in London in 2003, Doniger put forth her usual gloss: that Lakshman had the hots for his brother Rama’s wife Sita, and that sexually-charged Sita reciprocated these feelings. An irate Hindu threw an egg at her and conveniently missed it. This incident is her cause célèbre.
DHIMMITUDE
Doniger’s uncritical review of the Islamic marauding raids in India (712-1200) and later the Islamic empire (1201-1707) suggests dhimmitude. The concepts of dhimmi and dhimmitude were developed by the Egyptian born Jewish woman writer, Bat Ye’or (Daughter of the Nile), who fled Egypt in 1958 in the wake of Jewish persecution following the Suez Canal crisis. Her meticulous research puts to rest the myth of peaceful expansion of Islamic power in the countries of Middle East and Eastern Europe. [5]
Dhimmitude is a state of fear and insecurity on the part of infidels who are required to accept a condition of humiliation. It is characterized by the victim’s siding with his oppressors, by the moral justification the victim provides for his oppressors’ hateful behavior. The Dhimmi loses the possibility of revolt because revolt arises from a sense of injustice. He loathes himself in order to praise his oppressors. Dhimmis lived under some 20 disabilities. Dhimmis were prohibited to build new places of worship, to ring church bells or take out processions, to ride horses or camels (they could ride donkeys), to marry a Muslim woman, to wear decorative clothing, to own a Muslim as a slave or to testify against a Muslim in a court of law.
Ye’or believes that the dhimmi condition can only be understood in the context of Jihad. Jihad embodies all the Islamic laws and customs applied over a millennium on the vanquished population, Jews and Christians, in the countries conquered by jihad and therefore Islamized. She believes that dhimmitude was once the attribute of defeated Christian and Jewish communities under Islam. Now it is a feature of much of the Western world, Europe and America. Her theory of dhimmitude applies to many Hindus in India. Whereas dhimmitude in previous centuries resulted from real-life powerlessness and humiliation, modern dhimmi syndrome results from some combination of the following.
The corrupting power of oil money to influence think tanks, lobbyists and academic institutions.
De-Christianizing of Europe. It is now also happening in the U.S. See Pew research reports.
Guilt feelings in the West on account of the Crusades to liberate the Holy Land (1095-1291).
Multiculturalism: the belief that all cultural practices and ways of life are equally valid.
Violence by radical Muslims is on account of being poor and exploited by colonial hegemony.
Islam provided the West its basis for advancement in math and science.
The rising number of Muslim populations in Europe and America.
The rising level of alienation from one’s own culture in the West.
Doniger’s inflammatory book on the Hindus makes sense only in the light of a larger global trend—a trend that seeks to re-package Islamic history as a force for tolerance and progress. Doniger is not alone in holding such views. Dhimmi attitudes of subservience have entered the Western academy, and from there into journalism, school textbooks and political discourse. One must not criticize Islam. For, to do so would offend the multiculturalist ethos that prevails everywhere today. To do so would endanger chances for peace and rapprochement between civilizations all too ready to clash. See, http://www.dhimmitude.org/archive/by_lecture_10oct2002.htm
The field of Middle East Studies in the U.S. is now controlled by pro-Middle East professors, according to Martin Kramer, editor of the Middle Eastern Quarterly. “The crucial turning point occurred in the late 1970s when Middle East studies centers, under /Edward/ Said’s influence, began to show a preference for ideology over empirical fact and, fearing the taint of the ‘orientalist’ bias, began to prefer academic appointments of native-born Middle Easterners over qualified Western-born students,” contends Kramer. The book is summarized at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_17_119/ai_90989239/.
In contrast, the field of Hinduism studies is controlled by non-Hindus and anti-Hindus, with some notable exceptions of course. Hindu gods and goddesses are lampooned and denigrated. Hindu saints are described as sexual perverts and India in danger of being run over by Hindu fundamentalists. In these portrayals, Doniger is joined by Martha Nussbaum, Paul Courtright, Jeffrey Kripal, Sarah Caldwell, Stanley Kurtz, to name a few of the leading academicians. For a critique of the American academy, see Rajiv Malhotra at www.sulekha.com, and a 2007 book titled, Invading the Sacred. [6]
Doniger is quite harsh on the British record in India (1757-1947). She compares the British argument that they brought trains and drains to India to Hitler’s argument that he built the Autobahn in Germany (p. 583). Censuring Britain and giving a pass to the more draconian Islamic imperialism in India fits with the dhimmi attitude that I have described.
Consequently, attitudes of concession and appeasement are on the rise. A reversal of language occurs. Jihad is called ‘struggle within’ or struggle for liberation. Dhimmitude is called tolerance. Jizya is called protection. Tony Blair declares Islam is a religion of peace and that the terrorists are not real Muslims. Parts of London have been ceded to the control of radical mullahs. Sharia arbitration courts are now part of the British legal system. Melanie Phillips tells that London is becoming Londonistan. [7] Anti-Semitism is on the rise in Europe. The destruction of life and property caused by Islamic extremists in the last thirty years is simply horrendous. Of course, distinction must be made between moderate Muslims and radicals who wish to bring back the 7th century version of Islam.
The British helped abolish the horrible practice of Suttee (widow burning) in India in the 19th century. At its peak in the 19th century, the practice of Suttee claimed the lives of 500 to 600 women a year in India. The honor killing of women, genital mutilation, and the caning of girls for minor sexual impropriety raises only a limited protest in the 21st century. Amid the rising level of alienation, multiculturalism and the feelings of guilt in the West, the moral compass has been lost.
[1] Dr. Wendy Doniger is a distinguished professor of the History of Religions at the University of Chicago. She has written some 30 books, several dealing negatively with Hinduism. Her writing has been described as “rude, crude and very lewd” by the BBC.
[2] Vincent Smith, The Oxford History of India, Delhi, 1981, pp. 207-08. Smith derives his account of Mahmud’s raids from the account written by Alberuni, the Islamic scholar who traveled with Sultan Mahmud to India.
[3] See Ram Swarup’s Hindu View of Christianity and Islam, 1992. And, Andrew Bostom, The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims, 2005, at: http://www.andrewbostom.org/loj/.
[4] Published in 2005 in the American Thinker by Andrew Bostom and available at: http://www.islam-watch.org/Bostom/Legacy-of-Islamic-Jihad-terrorism-in-India.htm
[5] Bat Ye’or’s writings include: Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2001. The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1996. Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2005.
[6] Krishnan Ramaswamy; Antonio de Nicolas; Aditi Banerjee ed. Invading the Sacred: An Analysis of Hinduism Studies in America, Rupa and Co., Delhi, 2007.
[7] Phillips, Melanie, Londonistan: How Britain is creating a terror state within, Encounter Books, 2006. See summary at:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/07/britians-war-ag.html
Permalink
Copyright © 2009 CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com
Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.
After the Mumbai jihad a friend received a letter from someone who works in counter-terrorism. The friend is an apologist for Islam. The counter-terrorism friend poses their dhimmitude (apologies) so skillfully that it is worth countering their arguments.
The argument goes on for a full page. The conclusion is that Islam is not anyone’s enemy, but radical Islam is a threat to everyone. The argument does not include a single fact taken from Islamic doctrine. Everything is based upon what some Muslims have told them. In a court of law, such “proof” is called hearsay. In short, the argument can be summarized by: I know some good Muslims; hence, Islam is good.
The background for my argument is the doctrine of Islam. Every Muslim, without exception, will tell you that the Koran is the perfect, complete, universal word of the only god, Allah. The Koran insists that Mohammed is the perfect model, pattern, of behavior for all Muslims. Mohammed’s behavior is so important to Islam that it has a special name, Sunna. The Sunna is found in two texts, the Sira (Mohammed’s sacred biography) and the Hadith (the sacred traditions of Mohammed). All of Islamic doctrine is based upon three texts: the Koran, the Sira, and the Hadith, the Trilogy.
I will not quote from the letter, but will summarize the points. They are the same points of all the other “experts.”
“Moderate Muslims are not silent.”
Well, we have to grasp the thick end of the wedge first. What is a “moderate Muslim?” What defines moderate? There are two references for moderation. The counter-terrorism friend’s reference is “nice.” A moderate is a nice person who won’t harm a kafir (an unbeliever).
But we are talking about a Muslim, so the only valid reference for moderation is Islam, not “nice.” It is the model of Mohammed who determines what Islam is. So if a Muslim imitates the Sunna of Mohammed, then they are moderate. Sunna is the words and deeds of Mohammed, the perfect pattern for all Muslims. The Koran says over 70 times that all Muslims are to imitate Mohammed in every detail of their life. To that end Islam has an enormous literature about Mohammed in the Sira (his sacred biography) and the Hadith (his sacred traditions).
At this point we meet the main sticking point in understanding the doctrine of Islam. Muslims are to be Mohammedans and follow the Koran. But which Mohammed and which Koran do they follow? Mohammed preached the religion of Islam in Mecca for 13 years and gained 150 followers. In Mecca the Koran is generally religious.
Then Mohammed moved to Medina and became a politician and warrior. In 10 years time he annihilated the Jews of Medina, who were half of the town’s citizens. Then he turned to attacking all kafirs. In the last 9 years of his life he was involved in a violent event every 6 weeks, on the average. He died without a single enemy left in Arabia. The Koran in Medina is political in nature and very violent.
So there are two Korans-the Meccan Koran and the Medinan Koran. In the same way there are two Mohammeds-Meccan Mohammed and Medinan Mohammed. The confusing thing is that the two Mohammeds and the two Korans contradict each other. But the Koran gives a rule for resolving the contradictions-the later is better and stronger than the earlier. So Medina abrogates Mecca. The bad news is that jihad developed in Medina and all the “nice” verses are weaker than the intolerant verses.
But the earlier “nice” verses are still true. After all, the Koran is the exact words of Allah, who never lies. So Islam holds two contradictory positions on all politics. This is dualism. But the dualism is very confusing. Islam must be one or the other. Right? No. It is both at the same time. There is an Escher print that illustrates this dualism very well. Look at the print. Do you see angels or devils? Notice that you can’t see both at the same time.
The Western mind has been trained that both sides of a contradiction can’t be true. So the question arises? Which of the two Korans is the real Koran? Which of the two Mohammeds is the real Mohammed? We see this when people say: that is not the real Islam. Or: he is not a real Muslim. The entire question of which is the real Islam misses the point that Islam embraces both sides of the contradiction. Islam is killing kafirs. Islam is being tolerant of kafirs. Islam is both tolerant and peaceful and intolerant and murderous.
Go back to the Escher illustration. Does it make any sense to ask if it is a picture of angels? Or to ask if the devils are the “real” illustration? No, it is about both and any attempt to argue one over the other misses the point. Both of them are needed for the illustration to work. In the same way, Islam can only be BOTH Mecca and Medina.
Let’s return to the point of the “moderate” Muslim. Now we have to ask the question: is this Muslim a moderate of the Meccan variety or of the Medinan variety? Mohammed Atta, who was the lead jihadist on September 11, 2001, was a moderate of the Medinan sort. Just like Mohammed. Or is the “moderate” Muslim of the Meccan, generally religious and nice, type? The counter-terrorism expert does not make it clear which type she actually means, since it could be either.
The term “moderate” Muslim has no meaning because it does not identify which side of Islam the moderate is.
But we all know that what is meant is that moderate Muslims speak nicely and we are not afraid of them. They mean a Meccan Muslim when they use the word “moderate.” Let’s tackle his claim that the moderate Muslims are not silent. They may not be silent in dealing with kafirs, but they are silent in dealing with Medinan Muslims. Why? Two reasons. Medina was violent and most people are afraid of violence. That is the reason violence works. But there is a second reason. Remember that the Medinan jihadic Koran is better than the Meccan version. Medina trumps Mecca and Muslims know this.
“Radical Islamic groups”
What does “radical” mean? Killing, robbing, enslaving, assassination, torture, deceiving, jihad? As long as those behaviors occur with the kafirs on the receiving end, they are all acts that were performed by Mohammed. If Mohammed did them then they are not radical. Mohammed defines the middle of the road–normative behavior.
What happened in Mumbai, India, the World Trade Towers and Beslan, Russia was not radical. Each and every action at those sites was based upon the Sunna of Mohammed.
It is time to dwell a moment on the word “kafir.” The strict meaning of kafir is unbeliever, but unbeliever is a neutral term. The Koran defines kafir by its usage. Kafirs can be robbed, raped, crucified, tortured, deceived, enslaved, plotted against, insulted and more. Kafir is the worst word in human language. Our counter-terrorism expert is a kafir and does not know it.
“moderates are using the Koran to prove the radicals to be wrong”
Anytime anyone only references the Koran when they are talking about Islam, you are dealing with a deceiver or an ignorant person. The Koran is only 16% of the Islamic canon. The Koran does not have enough in it to accomplish even one of Islam’s vaunted Five Pillars. The Sira and the Hadith compromise the 84% of Islamic canon that shows a Muslim how to be a Muslim.
The Hadith devotes 20% of its text to jihad. The Sira devotes 75% of its words to jihad. Which “moderate” can deny those facts?
The Meccan Koran devotes 67% of its words towards kafirs, not Muslims. The Medinan Koran devotes 51% of its material to the kafir. Out of all this material in the Koran some of it in Mecca seems to promise goodness to the kafir, but the later Koran takes away the chance of goodness.
The “radicals,” the Medinan Muslims, are right. The Meccan Muslims are deceivers, perhaps of themselves, but certainly deceivers without any doctrinal basis.
Let’s vet the Muslim experts. If anything they say agrees with Mohammed then they are right. If anything the Muslim says disagrees with Mohammed then they are wrong. So who needs a Muslim? Go straight to Mohammed, the Sira and the Hadith. We don’t need hearsay; we need facts, Mohammed’s facts, and not Islamic gossip.
I don’t care about what any Muslim says, except Mohammed. Actually, there is one, and only one, Muslim who will give you the straight truth-an apostate, one who has left Islam. But apostates tell us that no one believes them. Obviously, our counter-terrorism expert has never talked with any apostates.
“I don’t think maligning Islam’s holy man is proper behavior”
Since when is quoting from the Sira and Hadith maligning? Mohammed gave out the rules for rape in jihad. He owned sex slaves, told Muslims it was good to beat their wives, laughed when his enemy’s heads were thrown at his feet. It’s in the book. Such behavior goes on for page after page, year after year. Why is referring to facts maligning?
“The counter-terrorism expert is a Jew and gives two incidents of how Muslims have helped Jews. In Albania some Muslims did not turn Jews over to Nazis, some Muslims helped a Jewish kid on the NY streets and became good friends.”
Sure, many Muslims have been good to kafirs. Dualism allows for that. But let’s examine what Mohammed did to the Jews; that is Sunna.
In the Mecca Mohammed portrayed himself in the line of Jewish prophets and that his angel was Gabriel, a Jewish angel. Large parts of the Meccan Koran are derived from the Old Testament, but all of the stories have been modified to preach that Allah destroys all of those who do not listen to his prophets. Other than that Mohammed is the Jew’s best friend.
Then he moved to Medina, which was half Jewish, and they told him that he was not a prophet. Both Mohammed’s and the Koran’s attitude changed about the Jews. (It is interesting how well the Koran tracks Mohammed’s political progress. This parallel might cause the cynic to wonder if Mohammed wrote the Koran.)
In Medina Mohammed attacked, robbed and exiled the first two Jewish tribes. The third tribe was enslaved, sold for profit to be used for jihad and the 800 male members were executed in one day. Before that Mohammed had two different Jews assassinated for speaking against him. After every Jew was gone in Medina, Mohammed went 100 miles out his way to attack the Jews of Khaybar. They had done nothing to Mohammed. (Does this remind you of the Jews in Mumbai?)
After he had crushed them, he tortured the Jewish leader to death (does this remind you of Mumbai?), took their land and made the Jews Islam’s first dhimmis. Dhimmis had no civil rights and had to pay a tax of half of all their income to Islam. Then on his deathbed, Mohammed banished the Jews from Arabia. His annihilation of the Jews in Arabia was 100%, better than Hitler
.
Hitler hated Jews, but it was not until the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem gave him the idea of extinction (taken from the Sunna of Mohammed when he annihilated the Jews of Medina), that the death camps were planned. Only 6.8% of Mein Kamph is Jew hatred, whereas, 10.6% of the Medinan Koran is involved in Jew hatred. So the Koran of Medina has more Jew hatred than Mein Kamph, but who is counting?
That is the Sunna of Mohammed.
Andrew Bostom’s seminal encyclopedia, The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, is 766 pages of disgusting bigotry by Islam. But for this Jew in counter-terrorism, his three examples show that Islam is the friend of the Jews.
There are 14 verses in the Koran that say that a Muslim is not the friend of the kafir. Here is one about the Jews:
Koran 5:51 “O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.”
But let’s be clear here. Isn’t it strange that people assume that a Muslim is only influenced by Islam? Every Muslim actually has three parts: Meccan Muslim, Medinan Muslim and kafir-Muslim.
To the degree a person is ruled by Islam, they are not a kafir’s friend. But “Muslims” are also influenced by the Golden Rule (the Golden Rule is not part of Islamic dualistic ethics) and can actually be a friend of a kafir, because the kafir-Muslim is not following Islamic ethics, but kafir ethics.
So if the Muslim is actually your friend, then in that moment he is not Islamic. But there is another possibility. Mohammed repeatedly told Muslims to deceive kafirs when it would advance Islam. So the friendship may be deception. Tragic, isn’t it? (Please do not respond and say that Islam has a Golden Rule. Give me the quote from the doctrine. Islam has two sets of rules-one for Muslims and a second for kafirs. The very word for all non-Muslims, kafirs, denies the Golden Rule. Mohammed treated Muslims one way and kafirs another way. Ethical dualism is Sunna.)
The counter-terrorism expert is not unique. Their arguments are the same as Bush, Kennedy, Pelosi, the FBI chief and the rest of the politicians, media experts and religious leaders. His arguments are standard Government Issue.
Here is the problem. All of my arguments are based upon the actual doctrine. When I talk about Islam I use the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith. Their arguments are based upon hearsay and opinion. But according to the media and university intellectuals I am a hate[-]filled bigot and they are a beacon of goodness. Lies are good. Truth is bigotry. Can we say Orwellian?
I can defend my statements. I believe in critical thinking and facts. I want our government “experts” to give an argument to defend their doctrine of hearsay and opinion. What is the argument for not reading the Koran, Sira and Hadith? What is the argument for deliberate ignorance?
Don’t argue that the doctrine of political Islam is too hard to understand. The bookstores and web are filled with the information about the Islamic Trilogy. Look it up. This argument is only five pages long.
The counter-terrorism expert believes that they hold the high ground on knowledge and morals. Their position is the highest one because they do not indulge critical thinking. They accept hearsay as not just a better source of knowledge about Islam, but also the true source of knowledge. Hearsay is the only moral position. Those who argue from facts from the Islamic doctrine and history are bad people who contradict “nice” people. Facts must submit to feelings in political correctness.
Ignorance has become the high moral ground. Not just the high moral ground, but the only moral ground. Those who quote the Koran, Sira and Hadith should be maligned, and no discussions of the fact-based philosophy should be allowed in any venue of respectability among the government, universities, or the media.
Notice that nowhere in this argument do I deny anything he has said. I merely offer some more facts that I want to add to the balance sheet. Their arguments are not wrong, but tragically short of all the information. That is all that is needed-all the facts. But knowing all the facts is bigotry. The experts say that facts are to be suppressed and act accordingly.
Our counter-terrorism experts are doctrine deniers. They deny that Islam has a doctrine and that it should ever be read. Two kinds of people know the doctrine of Islam-Muslims and kafirs. It is the dhimmis who deny the doctrine of Islam-dhimmi doctrine deniers.
Today the complete source material for all of political Islam can be held in one hand and easily read. Therefore, it all boils down to the question: How can any “expert” justify the first statement about Islam without having read the Koran, Sira and the Hadith?
Bill Warner
Permalink https://politicalislam.com/refuting-counter-terrorism-dhimmitude/
Copyright © 2008 CBSX, LLC
Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.
Mohammed and the Unbelievers
The First Dhimmis
CHAPTER 21
[Ed.: A dhimmi is a kafir who is a second-class citizen in an Islamic country. There are many legal restrictions on dhimmis, such as not being able to testify against a Muslim. In addition, they must pay a special tax, jizya, which can be as high as 50 percent. The wealth of Islam came from the tax on the dhimmis.]
KHAYBAR
I756 After the treaty of Hudaybiya, Mohammed stayed in Medina for about two months before he collected his army and marched to Khaybar, a community of wealthy Jewish farmers who lived in a village of separate forts about a hundred miles from Medina.
B4,52,41 I asked Allah’s Apostle, “O Allah’s Apostle! What is the best deed?”
He replied, “To offer the prayers at their early stated fixed times.”
I asked, “What is next in goodness?”
He replied, “To be good and dutiful to your parents.”
I further asked, “What is next in goodness?”
He replied, “To participate in jihad in Allah’s Cause.”
I did not ask Allah’s Apostle anymore, and if I had asked him more, he would have told me more.
I757 When Mohammed raided a people, he waited until the morning. If he heard the call to prayer, which meant the people were Muslims, he would not attack but if there was no Muslim call to prayer he attacked. When he rode up with his army, workers were coming out to work in the fields. When they saw Mohammed and his army, they fled. Mohammed said, “Allah Akbar! Khaybar is destroyed. When we ar-rive in a people’s square, it is a bad morning for those who have been warned.”
M19,4437 The Messenger of Allah raided Khaybar. One morning we offered prayers in the darkness of early dawn near Khaybar. Then the Messenger of Allah mounted his horse. Abu Talha mounted his and I mounted behind Abu Talha on the same horse. The Prophet of Allah rode through the streets of Khaybar and I rode so close to him that my knee touched the thigh of the Prophet of Allah. The wrapper got aside from his thigh, and I could see its whiteness .
When he entered the town, he said, “Allah Akbar! Khaybar shall face de-struction. When we descend in the city-square of a people, it is a bad day for them who have been warned and have not taken heed.” He said these words thrice.
The people of the town had just come out from their houses to go about their jobs. They said, in surprise, “Mohammed has come.”
We captured Khaybar by force.
I757 When the Ghatafan Arabs heard that Mohammed was going to attack Khay-bar, they thought to confront him there. However, as they left they heard that their homes might be attacked and so they returned for security of their own property.
M31,5917 Suhail reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that Allah’s Messenger said on the Day of Khaybar, “I shall certainly give this standard in the hand of one who loves Allah and his Messenger and Allah will grant vic-tory at his hand.”
Umar said, “Never did I cherish for leadership but on that day. I came before him with the hope that I may be called for this.”
But Allah’s Messenger called Ali, and he conferred this honor upon him and said, “Proceed on and do not look about until Allah grants you victory.”
Ali went on a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice, “Allah’s Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the peo-ple?”
Thereupon the Prophet said, “Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his Messenger, and when they do that, their blood and their riches are inviolable from your hands but what is justified by law and their reckoning is with Allah.”
M19,4450 When we reached Khaybar, its king named Marhab advanced, brandishing his sword and chanting:
“Khaybar knows that I am Marhab,“A fully armed, and well tried warrior“When the war comes spreading its flames.” My uncle, Amir, came out to combat with him, saying:“Khaybar certainly knows that I am Amir,“A fully armed veteran who plunges into battles.”
They exchanged blows. Marhab’s sword struck the shield of Amir who bent forward to attack his opponent from below, but his sword recoiled upon him and cut the main artery in his forearm which caused his death.
Salama said, “I came out and heard some people among the Companions of the Holy Prophet saying: Amir’s deed has gone waste; he has killed him-self.”
So I [narrated by Ibn Salama’s father] came to the Holy Prophet weeping and I said, “Messenger of Allah. Amir’s deed has gone waste.”
The Messenger said, “Who passed this remark?”
I said, “Some of your Companions.”
Mohammed said, “He who has passed that remark has told a lie; for Amir there is a double reward.” Then he sent me to Ali, who had sore eyes, and said, “I will give the banner to a man who loves Allah and His Messenger or whom Allah and His Messenger love.”
So I went to Ali and brought him, and he had sore eyes, and I took him to the Messenger of Allah, who applied his saliva to his eyes and he got well. The Messenger of Allah gave him the banner and Ali went to meet Marhab in single combat.
Marhab advanced chanting:
“Khaybar knows certainly that I am Marhab,“A fully armed and well tried valorous warrior hero“When war comes spreading its flames.”
Ali chanted in reply:
“I am the one whose mother named him Haidar, “I am like a lion of the forest with a terror-striking countenance. “I give my opponents the measure of sandara in exchange for sa’ [i.e., return their attack with one that is much more fierce].”
Ali struck at the head of Mirhab and killed him, so the capture of Khaybar was due to him.
I758 Mohammed seized the forts one at a time. Among the captives was a beautiful Jewess named Safiyah. Mohammed took her for his sexual pleasure. One of his men had first chosen her for his own slave of pleasure, but Mohammed traded him two of her cousins for Safiyah. Mohammed always got first choice of the spoils of war and the women.
I759 On the occasion of Khaybar, Mohammed put forth new orders about forcing sex with captive women. If the woman was pregnant she was not to be used for sex until after the birth of the child. Nor were any women to be used for sex who were unclean with regard to Muslim laws about menstruation.
I759 One of the Muslim jihadists came to Mohammed to complain that he had re-ceived no spoils of war. Mohammed explained that there was none left to give him but held out hope that the next fort would be the richest in food. Sure enough, the next day Allah captured a rich Jewish fort and the man got his treasure.
B2,14,68 During the night Mohammed said the Fajr prayer, mounted his beast, and said, “God is great! Khaybar is destroyed! When we ride against a nation that has ignored our warning, they are in for the most terrible morn-ing.”
As the people emerged from the city and saw our forces, they screamed the warning, “Mohammed and his army are here.” Mohammed crushed them, killing their warriors and seizing their women and children. Dihya Al-Kalbi took Safiyah, although she was later given to Mohammed, who married her and gave Safiyah her freedom from slavery as a wedding present.
I764 Mohammed knew there was a large treasure hidden somewhere in Khaybar so he brought forth the Jew he thought knew the most about it and questioned him. This Jew was Kinana, the husband of Safiyah, Mohammed’s soon-to-be new bride. Kinana denied any knowledge. But another Jew said he had seen the man around one of the old ruins. The search was made, and a great deal of the treasure was found but not all of it. Mohammed told one of his men, “Torture the Jew until you extract what he has.” So the Jew was staked on the ground and a small fire built on his chest to get him to talk. The man was nearly dead but would not talk, so Mohammed had him released and taken to one of his men whose brother had been killed in the fight, and the Muslim got the pleasure of cutting the tortured Jew’s head off.
I760 When one fort had fallen, Bilal, Mohammed’s freed black slave, brought Safi-yah and another beautiful woman to Mohammed. He brought them past the dead and dying Jewish defenders, including their husbands. The woman with Safiyah be-gan to shriek and pour dust on her head. Mohammed said to Bilal, “Take this she-devil away from me.” Then he said to Bilal, “Had you no compassion, Bilal, when you brought the two women past their dead husbands?”
I764 The Jews of Khaybar were Mohammed’s first dhimmis. After the best of the goods were taken from the Jews, Mohammed left them to work the land. His men knew nothing about farming and the Jews were skilled at it. So the Jews worked the land and gave Mohammed half their profits.
M10,3762 Allah’s Messenger returned the date-palms of Khaybar and its land to the Jews of Khaybar on the condition that they should work with their own wealth, seeds, and implements and give half of the yield to Allah’s Messenger.
I765 When the killing and capturing were done, the men rested. The next night a Jewess named Zaynab prepared the evening meal of roast lamb for Mohammed. She asked what was Mohammed’s favorite joint and learned that it was the shoulder. She poisoned that joint and served the lamb to Mohammed and his companions. He tasted the meat and spit it out. It did not taste right, but another of his men wolfed down some of the lamb, fell ill, and died. Mohammed called her up and asked for an explanation. She told him he had killed her kin. If he was a king he would die from the poison and if he was a prophet it would not harm him, as he would know.
B4,53,394 When Khaybar was conquered, a roasted poisoned sheep was presented to the Prophet as a gift by the Jews. The Prophet ordered, “Let all the Jews who have been here be assembled before me.” The Jews were col-lected and the Prophet said to them, “I am going to ask you a question. Will you tell the truth?”
They said, “Yes.”The Prophet asked, “Who is your father?”
They replied, “So-and-so.” He said, “You have told a lie; your father is so-and-so.”
They said, “You are right.” He said, “Will you now tell me the truth, if I ask you about something?” They replied, “Yes, O Mohammed; and if we should tell a lie, you can re-alize our lie as you have done regarding our father.” On that he asked, “Who are the people of the Hell Fire?”
They said, “We shall remain in the Hell Fire for a short period, and after that you will replace us.” The Prophet said, “You may be cursed and humiliated in it! By Allah, we shall never replace you in it.”
Then he asked, “Will you now tell me the truth if I ask you a question?” They said, “Yes, O Mohammed.”
He asked, “Have you poisoned this sheep?” They said, “Yes.”
He asked, “What made you do so?” They said, “We wanted to know if you were a liar in which case we would get rid of you, and if you are a prophet then the poison would not harm you.”
I765 On the way back to Medina, one of Mohammed’s slaves was removing Mo-hammed’s saddle when a stray arrow hit and killed him. The Muslims congratulated him for dying a martyr. Mohammed said the slave would burn in Hell, since the cloak he was wearing had come from the spoils of war and he had stolen it. It was Allah’s pleasure for the Muslims to take property in jihad, but if a Muslim stole any of the spoils before it was divided he would burn in Hell.
B8,78,698 We fought alongside Mohammed at the Battle of Khaybar, and although we did not receive any gold or silver as spoils of war, we did get miscellaneous property like clothes. However, a tribesman of the Bani Ad-Dubaib, Zaid, gave Mohammed a slave named Midam.
In the Al-Qura valley, Midam was killed by an arrow shot by an unknown person. Some people said, “Congratulations to Midam for getting to Para-dise.”
Mohammed cried, “No, Midam is not going to Paradise. By Allah, the sheet that he stole from the Khaybar spoils of war is burning over him in Hell.” When the people heard what Mohammed had to say, one man re-turned a couple of leather straps that he had taken from the spoils of war. Mohammed said to him, “One strap of fire or two straps of fire for you.”
I766 On the way back Mohammed had one of the Muslim women prepare Safi-yah (she was the Jewess he had picked for his pleasure) for her wedding night with Mohammed. That night one of his men marched around his tent for the whole night with his sword. The next morning Mohammed asked what he was doing and the man replied, “I was afraid for you because of the woman. You have killed her father, her husband, and her kin, so I was afraid for you on her ac-count.” Mohammed blessed him.
I770 While Mohammed was besieging Khaybar, a shepherd who worked for a Jew came over and asked him about Islam. The shepherd decided to become a Muslim and then asked Mohammed what to do about the sheep. Mohammed told him to send them back to their owner. The shepherd joined the raiders and was killed that day without ever praying a single prayer. Still, he went straight to heaven as a martyr. Mohammed said the shepherd now had two houris for wives in heaven. Mohammed said that, when a martyr is slain, his new wives pet him and wipe the dust from his face and say, “May Allah put dust on the face of the man who put dust on your face and slay him who slew you.”
B8,77,603 We witnessed along with Allah’s Apostle the Khaybar campaign. Allah’s Apostle told his companions about a man who claimed to be a Mus-lim, “This man is from the people of the Fire [Zoroastrian].”
When the battle started, the man fought very bravely and received a great number of wounds and got crippled. On that, a man from among the com-panions of the Prophet came and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Do you know what the man you described as of the people of the Fire has done? He has fought very bravely for Allah’s Cause, and he has received many wounds.”
The Prophet said, “But he is indeed one of the people of the Fire.” Some of the Muslims were about to have some doubt about that state-ment. So while the man was in that state, the pain caused by the wounds troubled him so much that he put his hand into his quiver and took out an arrow and committed suicide with it. Off went some men from among the Muslims to Allah’s Apostle and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Allah has made your statement true. So-and-so has committed suicide.”
Allah’s Apostle said, “O Bilal! Get up and announce in public: None will enter Paradise but a believer, and Allah may support Islam with a wicked man.”
B9,83,29 We went out with the Prophet to Khaybar. A man from the com-panions said, “O Amir! Let us hear some of your camel-driving songs.” So he sang some of them [a lyric in harmony with the camels’ walk].
The Prophet said, “Who is the driver of these camels?”
They said, “Amir.”
The Prophet said, “May Allah bestow His Mercy on him!”
The people said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Would that you let us enjoy his com-pany longer!” Then Amir was killed the following morning. The people said, “The good deeds of Amir are lost as he has killed himself.”
I returned at the time while they were talking about that. I went to the Prophet and said, “O Allah’s Prophet! Let my father be sacrificed for you! The people claim that Amir’s good deeds are lost.”
The Prophet said, “Whoever says so is a liar, for Amir will have a double reward as he exerted himself to obey Allah and fought in Allah’s Cause. No other way of killing would have granted him greater reward.”
I770 A Meccan named Al Hajjaj became a Muslim and took part in the capture of Khaybar. After the conquest he asked Mohammed’s permission to go to Mecca and finish up his affairs and collect his debts. He then asked Mohammed if he could tell lies to get his money. The prophet of Allah said, “Tell them.” So he set out for Mecca. When he got there the Meccans were asking for news from Khaybar. They did not know that the man had converted and so trusted him. He told them the Muslims had lost and that Mohammed had been captured. He said the Jews of Khaybar were going to bring Mohammed to Mecca so they could kill him.
I771 The Meccans were elated. He then asked them to help him collect his debts so he could return to Khaybar and profit from the confusion there. In good spirits they helped him collect the debts. He had been gone three days when they found out the truth of Khaybar and the fact that he was now a Muslim.
THE DIVISION OF THE TREASURE OF THE JEWS
I774 There was a total of eighteen hundred people who divided up the wealth taken from the Jews of Khaybar. A cavalry man got three shares; a foot soldier got one share. Mohammed appointed eighteen chiefs to divide the loot. Mohammed got his fifth before it was distributed.
B5,59,537 On the day of Khaybar, Allah’s Apostle divided the spoils of war of Khaybar with the ratio of two shares for the horse and one share for the foot soldier.
FADAK
I777 The Jews of Fadak panicked when they saw what Mohammed did to Khaybar. They would be next, so they surrendered to Mohammed without a fight. Since there was no battle Mohammed got 100 percent of their goods, and they worked the land and gave half to Mohammed each year. They became dhimmis like those of Khaybar.
COLLECTING THE TAXES OF KHAYBAR
I778 The first tax collector of Khaybar was killed after one year and a new man was appointed. The new tax collector was killed as well. He was found in a pool of water with a broken neck, and there was no proof of who killed him. His relatives went to Mohammed and asked for blood money and revenge. When Mohammed asked them who should pay they did not know. He then asked if they would accept fifty oaths from the Jews that they were innocent. They said, “The oath of Jews is worthless. Their infidelity is so great that they are habitual liars.” Mohammed resolved the issue by paying the blood money himself to the relatives.
I779 When Mohammed lay dying, his last words were that neither Jew nor Chris-tian should remain in Arabia. When Umar became caliph he expelled all Jews and Christians, including those of Khaybar.
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
Dhimmi and Dhimmitude
After Mohammed had destroyed the three tribes of Jews in Medina, he attacked the Jews of Khaybar, a hundred miles away. After they surrendered, he made them dhimmis. A dhimmi was a non-Muslim who agreed to resist nothing about Islam in law, customs, art or any public writing. In short, the culture became Islamic and the Jews could be Jews only in their homes and in the synagogue.
So today, a dhimmi is a kafir (non-Muslim) who goes along with Islam and even defends Islam. Examples of dhimmitude are ministers and rabbis who attend multicultural meetings with imams and say they worship the same god. A dhimmi never reads any of Islam’s source texts. When schools fail to teach the history of 270,000,000 killed in jihad, the school is practicing dhimmitude.
Since ignorance causes dhimmitude, knowledge of the doctrine of political Islam will change a dhimmi into a kafir.
Here is one dhimmi treaty with Christians:
1. We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, churches, convents, or monks’ cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.
2. We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.
3. We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor hide him from the Muslims.
4. We shall not teach the Koran to our children.
5. We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.
6. We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.
7. We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments.
8. We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our persons.
9. We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.
10. We shall not sell fermented drinks.
11. We shall clip the fronts of our heads. [An Arabic sign of shame, a beaten man]
12. We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists.
13. We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.
14. We shall not build houses higher than the houses of the Muslims.
Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact.
(from Al-Turtushi, Siraj al-Muluk, pp. 229-230)
Chief of the Dhimmis
Sun Tsu speaks of two kinds of enemies in The Art of War. There is the “far enemy” and the “near enemy”. Islam defines itself to be the far enemy of all kafirs (unbelievers). The near enemy is the dhimmi. A dhimmi is a kafir who serves Islam. In the beginning of the jihad against our kafir civilization, most of the actual work of attacking our civilization is being done by the near enemy, the dhimmi.
When the State department starts controlling the language of memos and forbids the use of the word “jihad“, that is an action by non-Muslims, dhimmis. It was not a Muslim who issued the directive. The dhimmi is the puppet of Islam. It is not that Islam is so strong, but that kafirs are so weak and ignorant that they become dhimmis.
There is a hierarchy of dhimmis. At the top of the dhimmi-chain are names such as Bernard Lewis, a Jewish scholar of Islam, and Karen Armstrong, a biographer of Mohammed. But none can top John Esposito in dhimmitude.
In this newsletter we are fortunate to have Dr. David Bukay give us a detailed analysis of Esposito’s betrayal of kafir culture. [We are also unfortunate in that the superscripts that go with the endnotes did not move into the HTML editor. If you want the specific references, contact me and I will send you the Word version that has the superscripts and endnotes.]
The Esposito School: Islamic Apologists in Action, or Who is the “Near Enemy”?
David Bukay – School of Political Science
The University of Haifa, Israel
John Esposito is one of the foremost apologists of radical Islam in the academia. The term apologist means denying or even justifying events and activities, while blaming others. It is characterized by whitewashing reality and omitting facts unintentionally (selective perception and cognitive biases) or intentionally (for political or economic or other objectives). According to Esposito’s own words, The Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding is concerned with Islam and the West and Islam in the West, addressing stereotypes of Islam and Muslims. However, we shall prove to him and his school that, in fact, stereotypes, misconceptions and perhaps deceptions are theirs.
It is typical that John O. Voll, claims in his article found in Center’s homepage: “The Impossibility of the Clash of Civilizations in a Globalized World,” that someone who speaks about sounds is like a person who does not read the news. Yet, it is typical to the Esposito School to accuse others of not reading the news, while all evidence shows that they themselves do not watch TV to see the horrors of Islamic fanaticism; they do not read newspapers to understand Islamic terrorism; and they do not listen to the radio to experience Islamic “tolerance.” The world is filled with clashes and significant conflicts, Voll says, but he ignores the fact that at least 70 percent of them are by and among the Arabs and Muslims.
A vivid example of the blindness of the Esposito School can be found in Natana Delong-Bas, who teaches at Boston College. Her best and perhaps not surprising declarations are found in an interview with the London al-Sharq al-Awsat, where she declared, Wahhabism is not extremism, and the Muslim Brotherhood and Sayyid Qutb have nothing to do with jihadism. She further stated that there may be a Western conspiracy against the Arab and Islamic world, and said that she knows of no evidence that Osama bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks. Her response to criticism of her declarations was that she was misquoted: she does not deny that Bin Laden was behind the attacks, but only that he had no role in the logistics or the planning of the attacks themselves.
It is not surprising that her doctoral dissertation, Wahhabi Islam: From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad, a total defense of Wahhabism, has been highly recommended by the Saudi Embassy in Washington, D.C., since her book was partially funded by Saudi sources. In her book she claims that Wahhabism is not a radical movement, and Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab was the one who was the most correct in faith, the easiest to reconcile with the teachings of the Qur’an and hadith, and the most capable in matters of interpretation. Jihad as holy war was not the primary purpose of the Wahhabi movement, and Ibn Abd al-Wahhab did not promote martyrdom or call for jihad. By no means had he promoted violence against those who did not follow his teachings.
But history tells us clearly that the Wahhabis conquered the Arabian Peninsula by Jihad wars, eliminating others. Delong-Bas says that Ibn Abd al-Wahhab believed in the need for ijtihad (innovation). But academic research concludes that Wahhabism is the most puritan sect in contemporary Sunni Islamic Jurisprudence. According to Delong-Bas, women were not presented as inferior human beings in Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s writings, which are evidence of his high respect for women and how they were granted absolute rights. But Wahhabism is perhaps the most extreme and intolerant religious ideology concerning the inferiority of women. The book does not introduce or analyze Wahhabi teachings and practices but rather, defends them. In fact, it is not a critical account of Wahhabism at all, but a response to Western criticism mounted in the post-9/11 era. Above all, the controversial teachings and practices of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab have been glossed over throughout the book.
Along the same line, one finds Noah Feldman, a Jewish law professor at Harvard University, whose book, After Jihad: America and the Struggle for Islamic Democracy, explores the prospects for democracy in the Islamic world, using the same arguments as Esposito’s School. Even after the 9-11 terrorist attacks, Feldman argues that the age of violent jihad is past, and Islamism is evolving in new, more peaceful and democratic directions; The Islamists are the best hope for democracy. They never got a chance to govern, although they are committed democrats and that Islam and democracy are deeply compatible. The experiment of Islamic democracy deserves to be run. Islamic democrats are the best hope for the future of the Muslim world-and they deserve our admiration and our support. Islamist parties in power mean much improvement over the situation today. The Islamists are not inevitably or unalterably opposed to the United States, which by allying itself with autocratic regimes in the Middle East is not only mistaken by choosing the wrong rulers but by betraying its own values too. No comment is the best comment to these vanities, just because reality shows the almost totally opposite.
Perhaps the best way to properly evaluate and estimate John Esposito’s attitudes and views is to quote his assertions from his book, What Everybody Needs to Know about Islam; which represents one of the best propaganda sources of how to show a sweet, synthetic and detached view of the reality of Islam.
As to the question “is Islam intolerant to other religions?” (pp. 70-73) Esposito claims that theologically and historically, Islam has a long record of tolerance. Muslims did not try to impose their religion on others or force them to convert. All that remains is to tell this story to the original peoples of the Middle East and North Africa, mainly Christians, who were Arabized and Islamized by force; to the peoples of the Balkans and Eastern Europe who were exterminated, depressed and humiliated; and to the tens of millions of Africans who became slaves, tortured and deported from their lands.
In our generation, Esposito should tell this to the Armenians, the Christians of Iraq (Assyrians), the Christians of Lebanon, the Christians of Palestine, and especially the peoples of Southern Sudan who suffer a policy of extermination and genocide. These indeed prove Islamic tolerance.
Esposito ends his “refreshing” analysis by claiming that the Constitution of Medina accepted the co-existence of Muslims, Jews and Christians. Muhammad granted freedom of religious thought and practice to the Jews and Christians, setting a precedent for peaceful and cooperative interreligious relations. By that, Esposito probably refers to the Jewish tribes in Arabia, who during Muhammad’s lifetime, were deported and massacred; their children were taken as slaves, their women as concubines, and their property was expropriated. Today, Esposito narrated, Muslims mainstream and extremist, conservative and progressive, struggle to balance the affirmation of the truths of their faith with the cultivation of a pluralism and tolerance rooted in mutual respect and understanding. Indeed, we can witness these highly esteemed words in today’s Saudi-Arabia, Iran and Sudan; three Islamic regimes, and the Muslim behavior in the West.
As to the question “why do Muslims persecute Christians in Muslim countries”? (pp. 76-79), perhaps Esposito has forgotten his words on Islamic tolerance before, where he states: Muslim-Christian relations have deteriorated over time under the influence of conflicts and grievances, from the Crusades and European colonialism to contemporary politics. Indigenous Christians were favored by and benefited from the colonial rule. The product of European missionaries that converted local Muslimsâ�¦ the creation of the state of Israel has contributed to the deterioration of relations and Christian fundamentalists like Robertson, Graham and Falwell have been the source of intolerance, persecution, violence and terrorism.
It is very easy – Christians are to blame for all Islamic behavior. Had they continued to be massacred, enslaved and converted to Islam, like in Egypt and in Spain (in the Seventh-Eighth centuries), and the Balkans during the Ottoman Rule, as only few examples, harmony would have continue to exist in the Muslim-Christian relationship. Indeed, one should wonder, what do the Christian expect? To create the State of Israel and not to be exterminated by Muslims? To live on Islamic lands and not to be massacred? And, when asking Esposito about the genocide in The Sudan, his reaction is that there is no problem, actually the majority of the South is animist and the struggle has been political and economic as much as religious. They are not Christians, and this sums up the whole issue.
As to the question: whether Jews and Christians have always been enemies of Islam (pp. 79-86), Esposito refreshes our memory: the Jews of Medina had political ties to the Qureish tribe of Mecca, so they resisted Muhammad’s overtures. The Jewish population was granted the right to internal religious and cultural autonomy in exchange for their political loyalty and allegiance to the Muslims. The Jews backed Muhammad’s Meccan rivals, judged as traitors for the support of his enemies, many were attacked and killed.
Again, the historical facts are different compared to Esposito’s analysis; Muhammad massacred the Jews of Arabia immediately after his military successes. As for the Jews of Haybar, they were massacred and persecuted and their fertile lands were taken after the Hudaybiah agreement with the Meccans, without any “provocations.” The Palestinians today sing: “Haybar, Haybar ya-Yahud, sayf Muhammad sa-ya`ud” (Haybar Haybar, ho Jews, the sword of Muhammad will be back), but is it possible that Esposito has not studied this chapter in Islamic history?
He continues: other Jews became Dhimmis and thrived under the protection of Islam. {However} the establishment of the State of Israel was a turning point in relations between Muslims and Jews, and severely strained their relations in Muslim countries. As for the Christians, the Muslim conquerors proved to be far more tolerant than Imperial Christianity had been, granting religious freedoms to the indigenous Christian Churches. Pluralism is the essence of Islam as revealed in the Qur’an and practiced by Muhammad and the early caliphs, rather than a purely Western invention or ideology. How nice, now one can understand why the Christians are a rare species and under extinction in the Middle East. The irony is that Esposito brings John of Damascus who held a position of prominence in the royal court, as proof of the integration of Christians, but John of Damascus had written perhaps the most devastating book of the massacre of Christians under Islam as a first-hand witness.
Esposito then clings to the Golden Age in Spain from 756 to approximately 1000 as a period of interfaith harmony. The only problem is that this was a myth invented by the Jews in the 19th century, as Bernard Lewis and others hve proved. Even the great Jewish exegete, physician and philosopher, Maimonides, described Islam as the worst enemy of Judaism, and he had to escape from Spain taking refuge in Morroco and Egypt.
Yet, the best of Esposito, is his declaration that, The Ottoman Empire is a prime example of the positive treatment of religious minorities in a Muslim-majority context. It seems there were two Ottoman Empires: The original Ottoman Empire was the worst in treating minorities in the Balkans and Eastern Europe; kidnapping millions of children and converting them to Islam (Devshirme system) bringing millions of slaves and concubines from Eastern Europe, mainly Ukraine and Hungary; massacring Christians, like the Armenian holocaust, to mention only a salient example. The Balkan Wars in the 20th century and the deep hatred and the reciprocal massacres are due to the Ottoman Empire past policies and behavior. But perhaps there was another Ottoman Empire according to Esposito, coming directly from the lands of the fairytales.
Esposito is at his best when analyzing “violence and terrorism” (pp. 117-138). Jihad is struggling against the evil in oneself and to be virtuous and moral. It also includes the right, indeed the obligation, to defend Islam and the community from aggression. Western governments are propping up oppressive regimes and exploiting the region’s human and natural resources, robbing Muslims of their culture and to live in a more just society. This is the reason for the use of Jihad. The Qur’an does not advocate or condone terrorism. Muslims are merciful and just. Islam does permit Muslims only to defend themselves and their families, religion and community from aggression. To prove this, Esposito brings verses from the Qur’an (22:39-40; 48:17; 9:91; 2:192; 47:4; 8:61; 4:90).
There is only one tiny problem with this: all the verses Esposito has quoted have different meanings and objectives. Qur’an 22:39-40 was revealed in year 624, and it gave the believers permission to fight against their enemies for the first time. It opened the second stage of Muhammad’s career of defensive fighting against his Quraysh enemy. But this verse was abrogated by 9:5, at Muhammad’s third stage, the age of Messianism, the era of total fight against all the idolaters started after year 626. Qur’an 48:17 and 9:91 give permission to those among the believers not to go to war, since Muhammad promised those who fight to enter the gardens of Eden. These verses have nothing to do with peace with the unbelievers. Qur’an 2:192 is connected to 2:190-191, that give permission to those who fight the believers (2:190 – conditional), and fight all the unbelievers whenever they are found (2:191 – unconditional). Then 2:192 states that if the unbelievers desist (meaning, accept Islam or submit to Islam) then Allah is forgiving and kind. As for Qur’an 47:4, one can only be amazed by Esposito’s distorted misuse, by declaring that it deals with how to treat prisoners. It is one of the most horrible verses in the Qur’an. It says: “when you clash with the unbelievers smite their necks until you overpower them, then (the rest who submit) hold them in bondage. Then either free them graciously or, after taking a ransom, until war shall come to an end (there will be no more unbelievers, or they will submit to Islamic rule). Qur’an 8:61 is again mistakenly quoted, for it is tightly connected to verses 8:59-60 which deal with the infidels and the command is to strike terror in the enemies of Allah and fight them ceaselessly. Indeed, this is the Islamic tolerance. Only then comes 8:61: if they are inclined to peace (after submitting to Islam), make peace with them. Qur’an 4:90 is connected and conditional to 4:89, which commands the Muslims to “seize the unbelievers wherever they are and do away with them.” Only then comes 4:90: “accept those who take refugee or those who weary of fighting you or their people, come over to you.
It is for you in the West to evaluate how Esposito distorts the verses to suit his political views. But Esposito’s propaganda industry reaches to the highest level when he deals with Qur’an 9:5 and 9:29, the vicious and murderers’ verses. He declares, in fact however, the full intent of “When the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters whenever you find them” is missed or distorted when quoted in isolation. For it is followed and qualified by: “but if they repent and fulfill their devotional obligation and pay the Zakat, then let them go their way, for God is forgiving and kind” (9:5). The same is true for another quoted verse (9:29), which is often cited without the line that follows: “until they pay the tax with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”
Indeed, as nice as it sounds, so is the reality horrible. The true definition of 9:5 is, they have the conditional option: either to convert to Islam (“but if they repent and fulfill their devotional obligation and pay the Zakat, then let them go their way”) or be slayed. The clause thus becomes more coercive than conditional. It suggests than a non-Muslim must convert to Islam or be slain. In 9:29, (to pay the tax with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued), means submission to Islamic rule, losing independence, and paying the tax with humiliation. Can we assume that Esposito believes this is peaceful and tolerant Islam? Can we assume that perhaps he does not know all this?
If Esposito does not know the Qur’an commandments to the believers, here is the up-to-date list: fighting is prescribed upon the believers (2:216). It is jihad in the cause of Allah (2:244 and many other verses) against the powers of Satan (4:76), the unbelievers and the hypocrites (9:5; 9:73; 66:9), and the People of the Book (9:29). The order for the believers is to smite their necks (47:4; 8:12) and to strike terror in their hearts (3:151; 8:60), including the People of the Book (59:2) for the hereafter world (4:74). For this the Jihadi believers will earn paradise (3:195: 9:72: 13:22-23; 47:4-6), and their reward will be black-eyed virgins (44:51-54; 52:17-20; 56:22-24), and the utmost tiding is that they are not dead, but alive, staying and living beside Allah (2:154; 3:169-171). The Islamic “tolerance” is also practiced by Hadiths, attributed to Muhammad: “Whosoever disputes a single verse of the Qur’an, strike off his head” (Sunan Ibn Majah) “The Prophet said, whosoever changes his religion, kill him” (Sahih al-Bukhari) and “There is no community from which you cannot bring me Muslims from them, and the best I like is, that you kill the men and bring me the women and children” (al-Tirmidhi).
Regarding the question “why do they hate us?” which so disturbs the West, Esposito’s answer is very clear and concise: the establishment and the support of the State of Israel. America’s record of overwhelming support of Israel – witnessed in its level of aid to Israel, the US voting record in the United Nations, and official statements by the administration and the State Department – have proved to be a powerful lightning rod for Muslim anger over injustice. You see, it is so simple: remove Israel from the Middle East and there will be no Islamic anger and hatred to the West, and peace will prevail upon the whole area. Moreover, if Israel disappears, all the malaise found in the Middle East would have been prevented: The Islamic revolution in Iran; its nuclear program; its hatred of the Big Satan (US) the authoritarian regimes and the despotic patrimonial leaders; the inter-Arab rivalries; the conflicts and wars between and among the Arabs; the millions of Arabs and Muslims being killed by Arabs and Muslims; the Shiite-Sunni historical rift that threatens to erupt to an apocalypse; the emergence of al-Qaeda and all Islamic barbaric atrocities around the world. All these and many others would have not come to the world if only the State of Israel was denied. Is this what you mean, Professor Esposito?
A concise summary of Esposito’s views concerning his book, Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam, can be found in his interview with Joanne Myers, on May 7, 2002:
In his own words, he tried in his book to contextualize and ask: Where does extremism come from; where does this notion of engaging in a holy war à la Osama bin Laden come from; how widespread is it; what are the possibilities with regard to the future; and to what extent is this an unholy war rather than a holy war; to what extent is this a hijacking of Islam?
His answers are clear and really horrifying. To the question, what is the world situation concerning the threat of fanatical Islam? Esposito’s answer is simple. Osama bin Laden was raised with the Wahabi interpretation of Islam. Being very pro-Palestinian, his motivations include: his concern about the Arab-Israeli conflict; -his opposition to the West coming in, not only to the Holy lands of Islam; but he hates the involvement of the United States because it has inherited England and France as a neo-colonial power; and for its oil interests.
Not a word on Islam. Everything is so simple – Israel and the US are to blame, and if only the US would withdraw from the Middle East and Israel would perhaps disappear, there would not be a problem with radical Islam in the West at large. However, Bin Ladin utters his totally different objectives very clearly, in three stratified stages: a) to topple the Jahili Arab and Islamic regimes and establish Islamic rule according to the Shari`ah; b) to bring back the regions which once belonged to Dar al-Islam, from India to Spain; Andalusia (Spain), being the diamond in the Islamic crown; c) to commence the apocalypse of the clash of civilizations: Dar al-Islam against Dar al-Harb.
In response to the question concerning Islamic terrorism by Jihad around the world, Esposito’s answer is simple: Jihad means to be a good Muslim. It means to strive, the effort that it takes to be virtuous, to be a good believer. Jihad also means that in being a good Muslim you have the right and, indeed, the obligation to defend Islam and yourself if you are under siege, the struggle against an unjust government. This is a “just war.”
But Jihad has proven time and again clearly in the Qur’an and Hadith: it is the holy war against the infidels. Jihad is rooted in the Islamic religion and culture. It is pervasive, conclusive, and operative. Again Esposito rushes to clarify: from the early days of Islam, you have always had a minority of extremists that the mainstream body has rejected, extremists who have used or hijacked their religion to justify their actions, just as in other faiths. This is precisely what happened. So you have the globalization of jihad within mainstream Islam as well as among the extremists.
Where does the Wahhabi ideology and threat come in? Again Esposito is clear: it is an exclusivist worldview, but it does not mean that it is violence. Wahhabi Islam, as a puritanical theology, is very conservative and can be seen as extremist but not necessarily violent. The Saudis use their oil money to promote Islam, to build mosques, to pay the salaries of preachers all over the world, but it does not promote terrorism.
How and why is the US to blame? Esposito clarifies and simplifies: What sets up a problem for us is that when we went in, the Secretary of State said, “We are only going after Osama and Al-Qaeda; we are not going to take Afghanistan down.” Then we developed a rationale for it. But then we began to talk about “second frontiers,” and an “Axis of Evil.” We have also gone into the southern Philippines. We have talked about going into Indonesia. You want to see anti-Americanism? You will see it in spades. And it is not just going to be there; it will be all over the world.
Another issue is that we must have a parity of rhetoric and policy. We do not have that in the Arab-Israeli conflict. We do not have it on the whole issue of the promotion of self-determination, democratization, and human rights. In the Muslim world we have been very slow to promote democratization and human rights. Muslim countries must get the message. They must start opening up that system. Unless there is more political participation, unless there is the development of a strong civil society, and freedom of the press, you will see a perpetuation of the culture of authoritarianism and violence.
If you have that kind of society, it will feed anti-Semitism and extremist thought, because the society creates an extreme condition or situation. The more repression that is used, the more they radicalize. This would happen if you had only secular opposition, let alone religious opposition. Esposito clearly states that the United States should not in principle object to implementation of Islamic law or involvement of Islamic activists in government. Of course, the result of accepting Esposito’s misleading recommendations would be the example of Iran and the Sudan.
Anti-Americanism is very broad-based because of these issues and it is rooted deeply in grievances of the Islamic opposition against their government. They also blame us because we are seen as supporting their government, as providing arms for their government. People within Egypt or Saudi Arabia who want to bring down their governments blame us because we provide massive support for it. If you look at most Arab governments now, most Central Asian governments, post-9/11 they have become more oppressive. Post-9/11 they are looking for aid and support with no strings attached, and they want us to look the other way when they deal with their opposition, whether mainstream or extremist. We cannot give a green light.
Everything in Washington now gets framed in terms of terrorism. You have a meeting on food, and you add the term “terrorism” to the title of any conference. The danger is that if you frame not only the question but the way you approach it in too heavy-handed and overt a way, you will have a problem.
So you see, according to Esposito, Islamic terrorism is not a problem, and instead of dealing with the real issues, Washington bothers itself with nonsense. But it is much worse: Esposito actually blames the US for all the evils: a) the rise of Islamic radicalism in the West; b) acting impartially and supporting Israeli existence in the Middle East; c) the lack of self-determination, democratization, and human rights in the Middle East; d) supporting Arab and Islamic regimes to oppress the radical Islamic democratic opposition; and e) the worsening situation in the Arab and Islamic lands in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks.
However, Esposito’s comments to his criticism appear in an interview with Al-Ahram Weekly. He acknowledges that he is an “apologist for Islam and soft on Muslims,” and that he is accused of having misinformed the US administration about the true dangers of Islamist groups. He dismisses these charges as “ideologically-inspired”. After 9/11, there were growing fears that people would talk about the root causes and that they would focus on the Arab-Israeli crisis and if they focused on it some Americans would want to address this imbalanced approach. He believes that he represents an alternative school of thought within American academia — what America is truly about, free speech, open dialogue, and a multiplicity of views. Indeed, if we take the Soviet Union analogy, these highly treasured values of “free speech, open dialogue, and a multiplicity of views” come exactly under the title of Pravda.
Summary
According to Stanley Kurtz, there is reason to believe that the academy’s multiculturalist and post-colonial blinders represent more than a sad and silly waste of intellectual energy – more, even, than the spiritual corruption of a generation of America’s youth. Moreover, there is reason to believe that the reigning multiculturalist foolishness of the American academy may be directly connected to the intelligence failure that led to September 11. Of the scholars who dominate Middle Eastern Studies – most of them are deeply hostile to American foreign policy and Israeli existence – having long stigmatized and ostracized academicians who work with the American government and they are ideologically biased against the US foreign policy.
The analogy to the 1930s is obvious. There is much evidence that Chamberlain was encouraged in his appeasement policy by the academia of Oxford and Cambridge, and the communication media headed by The Times of London – both warmly supported the Munich Agreement. Today, the American government’s branches are facing a misleading onslaught by these multiculturalist and post-colonial blinders toward a policy of appeasement, and in fact subordination to the forces of evil.
The problem is not the Esposito School as such, but the views they proliferate under the cover of academic expertise; the spread of multiculturalist and post-colonial vanities, intertwined with false moral relativism, and the huge misquotations and the mere propaganda in their publications.
More dangerous is the multiplication of new generations of academia members with the same misconceptions and the march of stupidity. It is one thing to be wrong in the classroom, but it can be far more dangerous when such wrong-headed theories begin to affect policy. As long as the academia continues to be the main source of spreading such ideas, it will continue to deteriorate intellectually; it will stop being relevant to reality; and above all it will continue to mislead political leaders and policies, and by doing so, will contribute to national disasters. The worst danger is the growing irrelevance of academia to the day-to-day life, to improving political values and norms, rather than being a reliable source of knowledge to public opinion and people at large.
Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), December 21, 2006. See Also: http://www.saudi-american-forum.org/Newsletters2004/SAF_Item_Of_Interest_WahhabiIslam1.htm
http://media.www.thejusticeonline.com/media/storage/paper573/news/2007/01/23/Features/Culture.And.Controversy-2668582.shtml?sourcedomain=www.thejusticeonline.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com
Natana Delong-Bas, Wahhabi Islam: From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad, New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
http://www.saudiembassy.net/2006News/Statements/SpeechDetail.asp?cIndex=595.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,245384,00.html
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/779/bo6.htm. See also her interview: http://www.saudi-american-forum.org/Newsletters2004/SAF_Item_Of_Interest_WahhabiIslam1.htm. See also:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2004/08/08/the_real_wahhab?pg=full
Noah Feldman, After Jihad: America and the Struggle for Islamic Democracy, New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2003. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/11/international/worldspecial/11FELD.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0508/p18s01-bogn.htm. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2976993.stm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/stake/feldman.html
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/137.html
See also his: “Jihad: The Struggle for Islam.” In Jacob Neusner and William Scott Green, (eds.) Introduction To Religion: What Religions Do. Westminster: John Knox Press, 1995. See: Jihad not necessarily a call to religious war – http://world.std.com/~camera/docs/oncamera/ocmm.html
See also his: “Globalization of Jihad.” In Barbara Segaert (ed.) Christianity, Islam and Judaism: How to Conquer the barriers to Intercultural Dialogue? Brussels; Peter Lang Publishers, 2004.
See also his: “Islam and the West: Muslim Voices of Dialogue,” (with John Voll). In Fabio Petito and Pavlos Hatzopoulos (eds.), Religion in International Relations: The Return from Exile. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.
See also for section e his: “Post 9/11: Civilizational Dialogue or Conflict?” In Stanley D’Souza, S.J. (ed.) Ethical Approaches to Population, Poverty and Conflict: With Special Reference to Islam. New Delhi: Indian Social Institute, 2004. And the same: “Islam and the West after Sept. 11: Civilizational Dialogue or Conflict?” In Malik Aftab (ed.) The Empire and the Crescent: Global Implications for a New American Century. Bristol, UK: Amal Press, 2003.
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/645/intrvw.htm
http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/kurtz120301.shtml
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-esposito-school/
If you are willing to do some math that is no harder than counting how many apples you have in your shopping cart, you can measure the core of Islamic political doctrine found in Mohammed’s biography, the Sira, a sacred text. What is surprising is that once you have a measure (metric) for Mohammed, you also have a measurement of our dhimmitude. It is an ugly and disgusting result.
THE SIRA: The totality of Islam is belief in the perfect truth of the Koran and following the Sunna of Mohammed. The Sunna is the actions and words of the perfect pattern of life, Mohammed. The Sunna is contained in the Sira and the Hadith (the Traditions of Mohammed). The Sira is half of the defining, foundational texts that determine the Sunna. The other half of the Sunna is the Hadith. The Islamic “Bible” is the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith.
The Sira is the life of Mohammed. There are three versions of the Sira given by three authors–Ibn Ishaq, al-Tabari, and Ibn Sa’d. They tell the same story, except for small details. Ishaq’s Sira is the oldest and the most authoritative.
Ishaq’s Sira is a large book that starts with a history of Arabia before Mohammed. The overwhelmingly important part of the book is the story of Mohammed as the prophet of Allah. He becomes a prophet on page 106, so that is where the story really begins. There are a 110 pages of notes at the end. The remaining 621 pages of text are about Mohammed as a prophet.
When you read the Sira, you find that violence fills its pages. The first form of violence is verbal. After Mohammed’s first revelation, it only takes 12 pages until there is a fight and a Muslim bloodies a kafir. From that point on, Mohammed argues, threatens, curses, preaches, and condemns. So 98% of the text of Mohammed’s prophecy contains verbal violence against the kafirs (unbelievers).
Jihad starts 281 pages into his prophet-hood and it never stops for the next 409 pages. So 72% of the Sira’s report of his prophecy involves some form of jihad. Of course, the verbal abuse runs right along with the killing, torture, rape, theft, deceit and assassinations.
The Sira is not only a biography, but also a sacred text that contains the model for the perfect Islamic life. Again and again the Koran directs every Muslim to imitate Mohammed’s every word and deed. The Sira contains Islam’s grand political strategy.
There was peace for 2% of the Sira. That means that 98% of the Sira is devoted to ill will or with some form of argument, insults and curses against the kafirs. Put another way, 98% of the Sira is devoted to the suffering of the kafirs.
MOHAMMED, THE FILM: If the Sira were a 2-hour movie of Mohammed as a prophet, it would go like this:
Mohammed has his first revelation in the first scene. The first fight starts 2 minutes into the movie. After that it is plotting, shouting, arguing, threatening and preaching. Even when the scene is in Mohammed’s camp, the backdrop is always the struggle with the kafirs. Then 34 minutes into the film, the first killing happens and killing continues for the next 1 ½ hours. Armed raids, assassinations, plots, spies, executions, torture, rape, battles, and on and on. Kafirs (non-Muslims) die and lose. Mohammed dies. Islam triumphs. End of film.
DO THE MATH: The Sira defines Mohammed. The Sira IS Mohammed. Mohammed is Islam. Sira = kafir hatred = Mohammed = Islam. Therefore, Islam = kafir hatred.
DHIMMITUDE AND JEW HATRED: Let’s analyze a best-selling biography of Mohammed by Karen Armstrong. The Sira is the gold standard for Mohammed’s life and we have measured what its focus is. Let’s use the Sira to measure Armstrong’s biography. Whereas, the Sira devotes 72% of its length to the jihad phase of Mohammed, Armstrong only allots 27% of her text to Mohammed’s jihad. Her total material devoted to Mohammed as a prophet is 183 pages, out of which 49 are jihad. There should be 132 pages of jihad to match the Sira. She eliminated 83 pages of jihad in order to make Mohammed look less violent.
She does the same thing with the Jew hatred/jihad. In the Sira, 5.3% of the text relates to the destruction of the Jews-assassinations, executions, rapes, torture and exile. This 5.3% only includes the physical harm, there are many other pages of Jew hatred that do not involve violence. In Armstrong’s biography, the destruction of the Jews is 2.7% of the text. She omits half of the Jew hatred material.
Basically, Armstrong censors half of the Jewish destruction and two-thirds of the jihad in her biography of Mohammed.
The Sira contains two kinds of negative material about the Jews. I have mentioned the 5.3% devoted to physical violence, but there is much material that is a verbal violence against the Jews. If you add the verbal violence to the physical violence, the Sira is 8.6% Jew hatred.
Hitler’s Mein Kamph devotes 6.8% of its material to Jew hatred, but no actual violence. If you remove that 6.8% of Jewish rants you are left with a political treatise that is no worse than any of the current political propaganda. With the right editing, Hitler was no more than a German politician. If you published a Mein Kamph without the 6.8%, you would be criticized. But Armstrong’s book was critically acclaimed. Why is censoring the kafir/Jew hatred from Mohammed cheered, whereas the removal of the Jew hatred from Hitler would be condemned? It is simple, we think that European Jew hatred is evil, but that Islamic Jew hatred needs to be understood and ignored. What is astounding is that this argument is put forward by most Jews.
Of course, her bias does not stop with just censoring the material. Oh no, Armstrong cheers when the Meccan kafirs die. Every death of a kafir is wonderful, since it advances the glory of Mohammed. She justifies the destruction of the Jews and says that Christians have done worse.
Ms. Armstrong is a dhimmi. She is a loud and sympathetic cheerleader for Mohammed and insults the kafir Arabs. She represents the perfect dhimmi-centric writer.
TOTAL DHIMMITUDE: Now let’s measure the dhimmitude of the Republicans, Democrats, professors and the rest. Armstrong deletes most of Mohammed’s cruelty, but at least she is willing to show Mohammed to be a little evil. That is more than Department of Homeland Security, FBI, public education, Pentagon, ACLU or the local police do. You will search a long time to find a rabbi or pastor who knows nearly as much as Ms. Armstrong will admit. Almost all of our leaders are 100% dhimmi, since they deny all evil found in the doctrine of Islam.
Everyone hates Mein Kamph, without having actually read it, and will condemn Hitler and the Nazis, but try finding a kafir who hates the Sira and who will condemn Mohammed. Yet, the Sira contains 8.6% Jew hatred, Mein Kamph is 6.8% Jew hatred.
Do the math of dhimmitude. If those percentages were mortgage rates, everyone would understand the math because it involves money. But when it involves the survival of our civilization, we read the statement as–no problem with the Sira or Islam, but we need to talk about those Nazis.
As bad as Armstrong is-and she is dreadful-she is not as bad as the dhimmis in Washington, DC, the churches, synagogues, universities and the media. And the dhimmitude is the same in Europe, India, Canada and the rest of the world.
NOTE–POINT-OF-VIEW: There are always three points-of-view about Islam. The first is the believer-centric, Muslim, view. The second view is kafir-centric. A kafir has only one qualification-a kafir is anyone who does not believe that Mohammed is the prophet of Allah. There is a third view, the dhimmi-centric view. It is the believer-centric view except it is written by an apologist kafir.
This analysis is kafir-centric. Kafir-centric sees Islam from the standpoint of what happened to the kafir, how the kafir is treated. Today the history of the victim is popular fare for the colleges-African slave and native American history, for example. Kafir history is the history of the victim of Islam. When will this history be taught in our schools?
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/measuring-mohammed-and-dhimmitude/
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/
Of Interest:
Sharia law in action in Afghanistan.
From that moderate Islamic nation of Malaysia:
Three Little Pigs unfortunately lived in Britain.
The Three Little Pigs and Dhimmitude
When Mohammed launched his first jihad attack against the Meccans it was defensive, since the Meccans had “offended Allah”. The Meccans had not hit anybody or spilt any blood; they had merely said that they did not believe Mohammed. Not believing Mohammed was an offence against Allah. Moral of the story—don’t offend Islam.
The British are very careful not to offend Islam. The fairy tale, the Three Little Pigs has been part of English culture since the early 18th century. But the Pigs are going to have to go. When a version of the Three Little Pigs was put into a digital version and was submitted for an education award, the judges said that the story might offend “Asians”.
The word “Asian” means Muslim in England. Why not use Muslim? The Brits follow a long tradition of dhimmis. When Islam burst out of the desert, the Christians called them Saracens, not Muslims. When Islam invaded Spain, it was a Moorish invasion. When Islam invaded Eastern Europe, it was the Turks. The kafirs have never in 1400 years been able to mouth the words, Islamic invasion. It is said that in Victorian times no word was ever used to speak directly about sex. That is prudish. When you can’t name the invader, that is dhimmitude.
This naming affects thinking. If you are in Britain and criticize political Islam, you are called a racist. Racist? What has race got to do with a political philosophy? Nothing, but now if you criticize political Islam you can be called a racist. This shows how political correctness controls words in order to control thoughts.
And this is not the only pork problem in England. Some banks have stopped an old custom of giving piggy banks to the young. Why? Piggy banks offended Islam.
What will be next? That is hard to guess, but some Muslims have started talking about how the British flag offends Muslims. It has no less than two crosses on it. But there is another cultural annoyance that will have to go one day. Big Ben, the clock that faithfully proclaims the time by the ringing of a bell will be silent one day in England-stan. Mohammed said, “The bell is Satan’s musical instrument.”
One of the principles involved here is civilizational annihilation. When people call Islam a religion, they miss the point. Islam is a complete civilization and nothing in it is the same as ours. Over time, every single aspect of the native civilization must vanish. In Turkey it took about 400 years to conquer all of Turkey and another 400 years to eliminate the Christian Greek culture of what had been called Anatolia. Islam thinks of time as being nothing. Mohammed said that patience is a virtue in jihad.
When you look at how much England has been Islamisized over the last 20 years, it does not take much imagination to see what will happen over the next 400 years. But dhimmis don’t worry about centuries. Dhimmis just think about giving up just a little more to please Islam. It works like a ratchet. Once it goes Islamic, it does not go back. Those banks will never have piggy banks again.
The boar was a totem animal to the Celts who helped to form British culture. The Celts were warriors, and the boar was one of two animals who would charge the hunter when wounded. (The bear was the other.) So the wild boar was the perfect totem animal for the warrior. But the dhimmi does not need a warrior totem, because the dhimmi is devoted to “peace”. A peace at any price, including the loss of an ancient and great culture. But Christian Greek Anatolian culture was great at one time. Today Turkey is 99.7% Islamic. Do the math. Good bye, Three Little Pigs. Good bye, British culture. Hello, England-stan.
Copyright © 2008 politicalislam.com
Use this as you will, but don’t edit and give us credit.
Of Interest:
Christmas Greetings and Gifts from the religion of peace inTurkey, Pakistan and the Phillipines
Diversity and Dhimmitude
The Society of Professional Journalists has rules of “truthiness” and diversity in reporting. Some highlights:
- When writing about Islamic terror, be sure to include references to white supremacists and radical anti-abortionists.
- Don’t use terms like “Islamic terrorist” or “Muslim extremist”.
- Jihad means exertion to improve ones self or Islam.
- Get Muslims to vet the article.
These guidelines are a mere formality, since they have informally been in place for some years now. Even the Republicans have been sure to mention the Oklahoma bombing and abortion doctor killings when speaking about jihad (the war jihad, not the improvement jihad). Since the comparison is made, look at the details.
How many events and deaths have been caused by supremacists and abortion doctor shootings since September 11, 2001? Fewer than 20 events and (throwing in the 1995 Oklahoma bombing for good measure) fewer than 300 killed.
And how many events and deaths by jihad and Islamic terror (yes, we used the forbidden terms) since 9/11? We have had 8708 attacks, 57,749 killed, 86,096 injured in over 42 countries. Hmmm.
The Society is right, they should be compared. But the media does not make any numbers comparison. No, one killing by a white Christian is morally equivalent to 57,749 deaths by brown Muslims. Take the town you live in. If one abortion doctor is killed today is that really morally equivalent to the terror of killing 57,949 in one day? Yes, according to the Society.
But it is not the numbers that are disturbing. All of the non-jihad killing by “white” people are random acts with no unifying thought. They are wackos. All of the jihad terror is based upon a formal doctrine that is at the core of Islam. A jihadist is not a wacko, but a Muslim who is carrying out orders from Mohammed and Allah.
Islamic violence is very coherent over time and place. It is so uniform since it springs from a central doctrine. What else can explain the consistency? A jihadist is executing a script he was taught since he was a child. He is not a wacko, but a fighter in the path of Allah.
Let’s look at item 3, jihad is personal exertion for self improvement. Luckily, we do not have to depend on our media to get the right answer. We can go to Mohammed and the doctrine of political Islam. Every mention of jihad in the Koran refers to killing the kafirs. All of the jihad in the Sira (Mohammed’s biography and a sacred text) refers to jihad as killing the kafirs. In Bukhari’s Hadith, 3% of the hadiths refer to jihad are inner struggle for improvement; 97% of the jihad hadiths are about killing the kafirs. So inner struggle/jihad is less than 1% of the total doctrine, but it defines the whole doctrine according to the Society of Professional Journalists. They know that jihad is all self-improvement.
But, let’s be fair here. The members of the Society don’t know that there is a doctrine. They are merely parroting what the different Islamic groups demand of them. If the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) says that jihad is inner struggle, then the dhimmis at the Society make it the media law.
They may not know Islamic doctrine, but they know Orwell’s 1984 and “newspeak”. If you control the language, you control thought. That is what the Society of Professional Journalists are doing–controlling language and thought. But they are not using analytic thought or logic.
In further rebellion against the Professional Journalists newspeak, this article was not vetted by Muslims. At Political Islam.com we are kafirs, not dhimmis.
Copyright © 2008 CSPI, LLC
Of Interest:
Islam must always dominate over all aspects of life. It is a nation unto itself and has no borders. Here is what can happen when Islamic politics collides with a country’s sovereignty.
Here is another example of Islam trying to dominate in the workforce, a political move veiled in a religious accommodation.
Everything you ever wanted to know about jihad from the horse’s mouth. Read this article very carefully as the language is very ‘slippery.’
An Honest Muslim Among the Dhimmis
Report:
Arutz Sheva, Nov. 16, 2007 [An Israeli newspaper]
Key items:
Work by Muslims is threatening the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.
Mr. Majadle, a government minister, is called an Arab.
He declares that he is a Muslim before he is an Israeli citizen.
Israel has a Muslim government minister, Raleb Majadle, who does not object to the destruction of Jewish most sacred site, the Temple Mount. He goes further to say that Israel has no say in the matter. He also says that he is a Muslim first and an Israeli second.
Notice that the report doesn’t even call him a Muslim. No, he is called an Arab. This is a form of denial. Mr. Majadle’s behavior has nothing to do with being an Arab and everything to do with Islam.
Islam claims control over the Temple Mount because Mohammed had a dream called the Night Vision that involved being at the Temple Mount and going to Paradise. On the basis of Mohammed’s dream, Islam claims possession of the Temple Mount and has built the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa mosque on it.
Islam always takes over the host country’s sacred sites to build mosques. This is a manifestation of Islam’s principle of making the kafirs submit. The Jews have submitted to Islam on the issue.
The most famous theft of sacred sites is in India. The Taj Mahal was a Hindu temple devoted to Shiva. After Islam invaded they converted it to an Islamic site. The number of Hindu temples in India that have been destroyed and mosques built on the sites is beyond counting.
When jihad conquered the Greeks in Anatolia (now Turkey) they converted the famous Saint Sophia cathedral into the Hagia Sofia mosque. Throughout the Middle East the churches became mosques after the triumph of Islam.
As soon as Mohammed had conquered Mecca, he destroyed all religious art. Next, he sent out his best warrior to destroy the temple sites of the native religions near Mecca. This is Sunna (the example of the ideal man, Mohammed) and has been followed by Islam ever since. Remember when the Muslims destroyed the Buddhas in Afghanistan? Same principle.
Mr. Majadle clearly states that he is a Muslim first and an Israeli citizen second. His understanding of the doctrine of political Islam is perfect. What is not perfect is that the Israelis would have any other expectation.
When a Muslim soldier, FBI agent, or policeman in the US swears to serve and protect the Constitution, what he means is that he will serve the US as long as it does not conflict with his highest priority–Islam. A Muslim must serve Islam first and foremost. A Muslim is a member of the ummah (Muslim community as a political nation and community) first and a citizen of the US last.
Hillary Clinton’s closest advisor is a Muslim woman, Huma Abedin. Huma’s first allegiance is to Islam and her advice will always reflect this. So when Hillary gets inside advice on how to deal with Islam, Islam will be served first.
George Bush, the FBI and the military are no different. They all have Muslim advisors whom they trust to serve America first.
Hillary, Bush, the Israeli politicians have no knowledge about the doctrine and history of political Islam. Their ignorance is vast.
Israel, Bush, the military, the FBI and Hillary all act from an implicit understanding of the Golden Rule and think that if you treat others well, they will treat you well. That is a fallacy. The one who is treated well will treat you in the same way, if and only if, they also follow the Golden Rule. Put another way, an honest man is a con man’s dream. They are all decent people who are ignorant of Islam’s dualistic ethics and its political doctrine. Islamic ethics actually deny the truth of the Golden Rule and its politics are to make the kafirs submit on all political issues.
So what will happen with the Temple Mount? Nothing. The usual suspects will continue to try to please Islam so Islam will become reasonable. The usual suspects will remain as ignorant as before. Islam will continue to dominate and the dhimmis will continue to submit. The assumption that Islam is like us, will go forward. A 1400-year-old history of ignorance is not about to change the doctrine of denial.
Islam is a political, cultural, and religious system. Only the political system is of interest to kafirs (non-Muslims) since it determines how we are defined and treated.
Ruben Firestone, Ph. D. and a Jewish rabbi has written the perfect dhimmi book on jihad, Jihad, Holy War. Firestone and his book are typical of the academic approach to Islam.
Firestone delights in small details but has managed to write a book on jihad that does not include a single remark about the Jews.
Firestone does not remark on:
- Mohammed stealing all of the goods of the Banu Qaynuqa (a Jewish tribe) and driving them out of Medina.
- Mohammed had the Jew, al Ashraf, assassinated (he wrote a poem that Mohammed did not like).
Mohammed crushed the b. al Nadir Jews. Their wealth was taken and they were driven out of Medina. - Mohammed ethnically cleansed the Qurayzah Jews. First, Mohammed sat all day long, beside his child-wife, and watched 800 adult male Jews be beheaded. It took until nightfall (they worked by torch light) and then they buried them in a mass grave in the marketplace. The children were kidnapped and given to Muslims to be raised as Muslims. The women were raped and sold into slavery as domestic slaves and sex slaves. Mohammed took the most beautiful Jewess for his own sexual gratification and then took all of their wealth.
- Abu Rafi, a Jew, was assassinated at Mohammed’s orders.
- Mohammed then went a hundred miles and attacked the Jews of Khaybar. After defeating them, he tortured their leader by building a small fire on his chest to find out where he hid the money. After the leader would not tell where the money was, Mohammed turned him over to a jihadist to be beheaded. The most beautiful Jewess was given to Mohammed for his pleasure. Mohammed then issued (along with Allah) the rules for rape in jihad.
The Jews of Khaybar became dhimmis. They gave half of what they earned to Mohammed and lost all civil rights. - When Mohamed was on his deathbed, he issued orders that not a single Jew be left in Arabia. Mohammed’s annihilation of the Jews of Arabia was 100% complete. Not even Hitler was as efficient.
- After Mohammed the only relationship between the Jews and Islam was that of a dhimmi. Every Jew in Islam was a dhimmi, no exceptions.
Not one word of this is found in Firestone’s book on jihad. Not one word. In Firestone’s book, not a single Jew was injured in the production of Islam.
All right, so it’s a book of poor scholarship by a university “scholar”. So what? Well, Rabbi Firestone makes appearances at synagogues, Jewish community centers and universities where he delivers the same message. Islam is good.
Firestone tells his audience that Islam has treated the Jews better than the Christians. In his mind, 1400 years of dhimmitude does not count. He teaches that Allah is the same god as Jehovah. Any analytic study of the Torah and the Koran shows this is not supported by the texts. He hints that all of Islam’s troubles with the America are because we have treated Islam badly.
How do we improve our relations with Islam? Firestone says we should teach tolerance and do more business with Muslims.
Here is a suggestion–all of the Jewish community centers should use Islamic security guards to replace the ones they have now. That would kill two birds with one stone.
Notice that Firestone says we should teach tolerance to improve relations with Islam. He does not say that we should teach the facts about the history and doctrine of Islam. Firestone is consistent. As a dhimmi he avoids facts and discourages that anyone else seek them.
Firestone is a deluded man. What is tragic is that he is part of a academic industry of the dhimmi approach to Islam. He is the typical dhimmi “expert”.