Dr Bill Warner: Islam claims to have the supreme ethical system in the Sharia. Exactly, what is the system of Sharia and how does it compare with the UN Declaration of Human Rights of 1948?
Under the Sharia:
• Humans are not equal
• Critical thought is rejected
• Torture is allowed
• Only Muslims have the right to life
• There is one law for Muslims, another law for Kafirs
• Children can be brides
• A Muslim woman cannot marry a Kafir
• Apostates can be killed
• There is no freedom of speech
• Inbreeding is encouraged
• Wife beating is allowed
Conclusion: Sharia rights are inhuman and inferior to the UN Declarations of Human Rights.
To learn more about Sharia and how it affects the non-Muslim, read SHARIA LAW FOR NON-MUSLIMS: https://politicalislam.com/product/sharia-law-for-non-muslims/
To receive my latest updates, sign up for our newsletter: https://politicalislam.com/signup/
Follow:
Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/politicalislam
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/billwarnerauthor/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/PoliticalIslam
Podcast: https://soundcloud.com/user-460569656
Bookstore: https://politicalislam.com/shop/
Of Interest:
Apostasy in Islam is a dangerous decision.
Islam’s Advance: Huge surprise here. Saudi textbooks teach hate!
Islam and Democracy
It is election season in America and time to look at one the of the dhimmis‘ favorite myths-the democratization of Islam. Great blood and treasure have been spent in Iraq to bring democracy to Islam.
But it makes no difference how much blood and treasure are spent; Islam is no more compatible with democracy than pigs are with flight. Islam has an entire doctrine of politics and government that was laid out by Mohammed. And just like pigs were not made for flight, Islamic political doctrine was not made for democracy.
The reason for this is the perfect example of Mohammed. Mohammed achieved success only when he became a politician and warrior. We may have politicians who invoke religion as part of their political persona, but we do not have any politicians who actually speak for god. Mohammed spoke for god. All Muslims did what they were told. Mohammed did not operate any kind of primal democracy; Mohammed and Allah ruled absolutely down to the smallest detail.
It is at this stage of the argument that Muslims like to invoke the idea of Mohammed’s consulting with his Companions as a model for democracy. At the battle of Badr, one of the men asked Mohammed if his battle orders were from Allah? Mohammed said that it was his own opinion, not Allah’s. The man pointed out that if the troops were placed in front of the well, it would be to Islam’s advantage and Mohammed followed his advice.
The argument is that Mohammed listened to the voters. Hence, Islam is democratic. But when you read the entire Sira (the biography of Mohammed) and the Hadith, such “votes” by the Companions are extremely rare.
Here is an example of how non-democratic Islam is.
Abu Muslim Book 020, Number 4573:
[…] Shouldn’t we overthrow them [the worst of rulers] with the help of the sword? Mohammed said, “No, as long as they establish prayer among you. If you then find anything detestable in them you should hate their administration, but do not withdraw yourselves from their obedience.”
In short, as long as a leader is a Muslim, obey him, even if he is a tyrant. Does that sound like a democratic view? What if the tyrant is Sadam Hussein? Obey him.
But this is not the real reason that Islam cannot ever have democracy. The real reason is found in the word-kafir, a political word. The Muslim is superior to the kafir in politics and culture and the kafir must submit to the will of Islam in public affairs. Democracy is based upon the idea of the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule leads to equality in law and politics. But a Muslim and a kafir are not equal in political Islam. Votes are equal. We have a contradiction and democracy submits to Islam and tyranny.
There is a third reason why Islam is not capable of being democratic. Democracies are the source of the idea of human rights. Islam does not grant human rights to kafirs.
Christians are 3% of the population in Iraq and are 30% of those fleeing Iraq. Why? Persecution by political Islam. About 1300 years ago Iraq was Christian. Soon it will be 0% Christian. The tragedy is that this is of no importance in the media or houses of worship.
But we digress. The point is that Islam only gives full rights to Muslims. Kafirs, Christian and otherwise are second-class citizens, basically semi-slaves. This inequality is built into the doctrine of Islam and is fully supported by the example. If Mohammed wanted democracy he would have practiced democracy as a sacred example. But his sacred example was supreme, unquestioned ruler.
Islam is perfect, universal, complete and eternal. It does not have a reform option. Democracy is a kafir form of politics and is anti-Islamic.
Bill Warner
Permalink https://politicalislam.com/islam-and-democracy/
Copyright © 2008 CBSX, LLC
Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.
Of Interest:
A short primer on the role of African slavery in Islam
Bernard Lewis writes on Race and Slavery in the Middle East.
The Legacy of Arab-Islam in Africa, a video. To order the book.
Islam, Kafirs and Slavery
We received an interesting comment about our work from a Muslim.
“And another thing about slaves, yes, they are kafir, but that is because they were not Muslims yet. And before the arrival of Islam, the kafir had slave-girls, who were kafirs. Basically, you’re attacking Islam without telling people of the underlying behavior of the kafir.”
This is just one of the paragraphs, but it is very revealing.
“they are kafir, but that is because they were not Muslims yet” The word “yet” means that he agrees that one of the desired effects of slavery is the submission of the slave to Islam. The word “agrees” is used since it is Sunna to only take kafirs as slaves. Since the taking of slaves is always done with deadly violence, i.e. slaves are taken after the protectors are killed, then violence is again part of making the kafir submit to Islam. Slavery has always been part of jihad.
It is true that before Islam, kafirs held slaves and even held slaves after Islam. This simple statement is absolutely true. We do not find a single culture that did not at one time use slaves. Whites, blacks, Asians, aboriginal Americans, everyone used slaves.
The difference between kafir slavery and Islamic slavery is that kafir slavery could be stopped, by force if necessary, and also by doctrine. There is no kafir culture that has a doctrine that supports slavery today. Islamic culture can never eliminate slavery from its doctrine because both the Koran and the Sunna are eternal, universal, complete and perfect.
Mohammed is the perfect model for slave traders and slaveholders. Mohammed was involved in every single aspect of slavery. He had kafir men killed so their women and children could be made slaves. He gave slaves away for gifts. He owned many slaves, some of them black. He passed around slaves for the purpose of sex to his companions, men who were his chief lieutenants. He stood by while others beat slaves. He shared the pleasure of forced sex with women slaves after conquest. He captured slaves and wholesaled them to raise money for jihad. One of his favorite sexual partners was a slave, who bore him a son. He received slaves as gifts from other rulers. The very pulpit he preached from was made by a slave. He ate food prepared by slaves. He was treated medically by a slave. He had a slave tailor. He declared that a slave who ran away from his master would not have his prayers answered. And he approved an owner’s having sex with his slaves.
There is no one in history who was more involved in slavery than Mohammed. It is Sunna.
This case illustrates the difference between the ethics of the Golden Rule and the ethics of Islam. No one volunteers to be a slave. That is the reason that the Golden Rule prohibits slavery-hence the kafir prohibition of slavery. But Islam has one set of rules for the Muslim and another set of rules for the kafir, ethical dualism. Islam denies the truth of the Golden Rule. One of the ethical rules of Islam is that kafirs can be enslaved–hence, Islamic slavery.
One defense of Islamic slavery is that “kafirs did it too”, which is the argument by the Muslim gentleman here. The other version of the defense of Islamic slavery is to say that slavery was prevalent in Mohammed’s day and it the reason that he did it. But this is a total misunderstanding of Sunna. Nothing that Mohammed did was by historical accident. No, he was guided by Allah, not history. If it were just an historical accident then Mohammed could be excused.
Think of what would happen if you could annul Mohammed’s slavery or the slavery rules in the Koran. If you delete it–because you don’t like it–what else from the Sunna and Koran can you ignore? Prayer? Charity? The Sunna and the Koran are perfect, eternal, complete and universal. You don’t get to pick and choose.
According to Islam, there is no good in kafirs or their culture. Kafir culture is jahiliya (ignorance). Good only comes from Allah and so Islam is pure goodness and wisdom. How can anything about Islam be justified by kafirs? Goodness can never be based on evil and wisdom can never be based upon ignorance. Islam stands alone and no comparison to kafir culture is valid. In short, Islam is independent from kafir culture. To say that Islam does something because kafirs do it is to deny the origins of Islam in Allah and Mohammed.
Slavery is pure Islam. It is the power of the kafirs that keeps Islam from having full-blown slavery, instead of only in a few places in the world today.
Permalink https://politicalislam.com/islam-kafirs-and-slaves/
Copyright © 2008 CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.
1. A. Guillaume, The Life of Mohammed, London: Oxford University Press, 1982, pg. 466
Then the apostle divided the property, wives, and children of B. Qurayza among the Muslims, and he made known on that day the shares of horse and men, and took out the fifth. A horseman got three shares, two for the horse and one for his rider. A man without a horse got one share. On the day of B. Qurayza there were thirty-six horses. It was the first booty on which lots were cast and the fifth was taken. According to its precedent and what the apostle did the divisions were made, and it remained the custom for raids.
2. A. Guillaume, The Life of Mohammed, London: Oxford University Press, 1982, pg. 499
The same informant told me that the apostle gave him in compensation Bir Ha, today the castle of B. Hudayla in Medina. It was a property belonging to Abu Taiha b. Sahl which he had given as aims to the apostle who gave it to Hassan for his blow. He also gave him Sirin, a Copt slave girl, and she bare him ‘Abdu’l-Rahman. ”
3. A. Guillaume, The Life of Mohammed, London: Oxford University Press, 1982, pg. 516
. The apostle had a slave which Rifa’a b. Zayd al-Judhami, of the clan alDubaybi, had given him (763). He was laying down the apostle’s saddle when suddenly a random arrow hit him and killed him. We congratulated him on paradise, but the apostle said, ‘Certainly not. His cloak is even now burning on him in Hell. He had surreptitiously stolen it on the day of Khaybar from the spoil of the Muslims.’ One of his companions heard this and came to him saying, ‘I took two sandal thongs.’ He said, ‘Two thongs of fire will be cut for you like them.’
4 A. Guillaume, The Life of Mohammed, London: Oxford University Press, 1982, pg 593
Abu Wajza Yazid b. ‘Ubayd al-Sa’di told me that the apostle gave ‘Ali a girl called Rayta d. Hilal b. Hayyan b. ‘Umayra b. Hilal b. Nasira b. Qusayya b. Nasr b. Sa’d b. Bakr; and he gave ‘Uthman a girl called Zaynab d. Hayyan; and he gave ‘Umar a girl whom ‘Umar gave to his son ‘Abdullah.
5 A. Guillaume, The Life of Mohammed, London: Oxford University Press, 1982, pg 295
the apostle was standing praying. They said, ‘We are the watermen of Quraysh; they sent us to get them water. ‘The people were displeased ,at their report, for they had hoped that they would belong to Abu Sufyan, so they beat them, and when they had beaten them soundly, the two men said, ‘We belong to Abu Sufyan,’ so they let them go. The apostle bowed and prostrated himself twice, and said, ‘When they told you the truth you beat them; and when they lied you let them alone. They told the truth; they do belong to Quraysh. Tell me, you two, about the Quraysh.’1 They replied, ‘They are behind this hill which you see on the farthest side.’ (The hill was al-‘Aqanqal.) The apostle asked them how many they were, and when they said, ‘Many,’ he asked for the number, but they did not know; so he asked them how many beasts they slaughtered every day, and when they said nine or ten, he said, ‘The people are between nine hundred and a thousand.’ Then he asked how many nobles of Quraysh were among them. They said: “Utba, Shayba, Abu’l-Bakhtari, Hakim, Naufal, al-Harith b. ‘Amir, Tu’ayma, al-Nadr, Zama’a, Abu Jahl, Umayya, Nabih, Munabbih, Suhayl, ‘Amr b. ‘Abdu Wudd.’ The apostle went to the people and said, ‘This Mecca has thrown to you the pieces of its liver!’2
6 A. Guillaume, The Life of Mohammed, London: Oxford University Press, 1982, pg 511
The apostle seized the property piece by piece and conquered the forts one by one as he came to them. The first to fall was the fort of Na’im; there Mahmud b. Maslama was killed by a millstone which was thrown on him from it; then al-Qamus the fort of B. Abu’l-Huqayq. The apostle took captives from them among whom was Safiya d. Huyayy b. Akhtab who had been the wife of Kinana b. al-Rabi’ b. Abu’l-Huqayq, and two cousins of hers. The apostle chose Safiya for himself.
7. A. Guillaume, The Life of Mohammed, London: Oxford University Press, 1982, pg 466.
Then the apostle sent Sa’d b. Zayd al-Ansari brother of b. ‘Abdu’l Ashhal with some of the captive women of B. Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons.
8 William Muir, The Life of Mohammed, AMS Press, pg. 425.
9 William Muir, The Life of Mohammed, AMS Press, pg. 425.
10 Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 440:
Narrated Jabir: A woman said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Shall I get something constructed for you to sit on as I have a slave who is a carpenter?” He replied, “Yes, if you like.” So she had that pulpit constructed.
11 Bukhari Volume 3, Book 34, Number 295:
Narrated Abu Mas’ud:
An Ansari man, called Abu Shu’aib, came and told his butcher slave, “Prepare meals sufficient for five persons, for I want to invite the Prophet along with four other persons as I saw signs of hunger on his face.” Abu Shu’aib invited them and another person came along with them. The Prophet said (to Abu Shu’aib), This man followed us, so if you allow him, he will join us, and if you want him to return, he will go back.” Abu Shu’aib said, “No, I have allowed him (i.e. he, too, is welcomed to the meal).”
12 Bukhari Volume 3, Book 36, Number 481:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
The Prophet sent for a slave who had the profession of cupping, and he cupped him. The Prophet ordered that he be paid one or two Sas, or one or two Mudds of foodstuff, and appealed to his masters to reduce his taxes:
13 Bukhari Volume 7, Book 65, Number 344:
Narrated Anas:
Allah’s Apostle went to (the house of) his slave tailor, and he was offered (a dish of) gourd of which he started eating. I have loved to eat gourd since I saw Allah’s Apostle eating it.
14 Abu Muslim Book 001, Number 0131:
Jarir b. Abdullah reported it from the Holy Prophet: When the slave runs away from his master, his prayer is not accepted.
15.Abu Muslim Book 008, Number 3383:
Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) reported that a man came to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: I have a slave-girl who is our servant and she carries water for us and I have intercourse with her, but I do not want her to conceive. He said: Practise ‘azl, if you so like, but what is decreed for her will come to her. The person stayed back (for some time) and then came and said: The girl has become pregnant, whereupon he said: I told you what was decreed for her would come to her.
FRONTPAGE ARTICLES
Islam, Slavery and Rape
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, November 23, 2007
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Bill Warner, the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI) and spokesman for politicalislam.com. CSPI’s goal is to teach the doctrine of political Islam through its books and it has produced an eleven book series on political Islam. Mr. Warner did not write the CSPI series, but he acts as the agent for a group of scholars who are the authors. The Center’s latest book is The Submission of Women and Slaves, Islamic Duality.
FP: Bill Warner, welcome back to Frontpage Magazine. This is the second part in our two-part series with you on the Center’s most recent book. In the first part we discussed Islam and its doctrine on the submission of women. In this second and final part we will discuss the matter of slavery. Welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Warner: It is a pleasure to work with Frontpage.
FP: So tell us in general where Islam stands on slavery.
Warner: Islam’s stand on slavery is based on its political principles of submission and duality. The principle of submission could not be clearer. By definition a slave is the most submissive of all people. You become a slave only when you have no more choices. A slave has completely submitted to a master.
The principle of duality is shown by the fact that Islam does not enslave Muslims, only kafirs (non-Muslims). Since only kafirs are enslaved, it assures that more of the world submits to Islam.
Islamic slavery is based on the Trilogy of the Koran, the Sira (Mohammed’s life) and the Hadith (the Traditions of Mohammed). All three texts say that slavery is permitted, ethical, desirable and a virtue. There is not one single negative word about slavery.
Slavery is seen as a process that brings kafirs to Islam. It is a virtue to free slaves, but Mohammed only freed slaves who submitted to Islam. If the kafir slave does not submit, then their children will. So given enough time, slaves convert to Islam. That is one of the reasons that Islam sees slavery as a positive.
Of course, there is another reason that Islam sees slavery as being so “good” and that is the money. Mohammed and the other jihadists made a fortune out of enslaving kafirs. Mohammed used the money for more jihad. So slavery financed the spread of Islam and jihad from the beginning.
FP: What were the ingredients of Mohammed’s own life in terms of slavery?
Warner: Mohammed is the perfect pattern for all humanity and his life was saturated in slavery. When his mother died, it was a freed slave who nursed him. His first wife owned slaves. One of his first converts was a slave. His closest friend, Abu Bakr, traded one of his black kafir slaves for a Muslim who was enslaved by a kafir.
But all of this was small change compared to his envolvement with slavery once he turned to jihad. In his first major battle at Badr, he stood by and prayed as his henchmen beat and tortured captured slaves to get information about the enemy kafirs.
Slaves made Mohammed’s pulpit. Slaves mended his cloths, cooked his food, and did every thing that a slave does for the master. He gave away slaves as gifts and received them as gifts. He went to war to kill the males so that the remaining people would surrender to be sold as slaves. Mohammed sold slaves on both the retail and wholesale markets.
He offered captured slaves their freedom if they would first agree that he was the prophet of Allah. A kafir slave then became a slave of Allah, because all Muslims are slaves of Allah. For a slave, the religion of Mohammed started and ended with slavery.
FP: Can you talk a bit about Islam and sexual slavery?
Warner: All morality in Islam is patterned after the example of Mohammed. Everything that he did and said defines what is permitted or “good”. Mohammed repeatedly sanctioned forced sex (rape) with kafir females after they were captured. The Hadith clearly reports that he got first choice of the women. In one case, he repeatedly demanded one particular woman for himself and swapped two other kafir slave women for his choice. So if Mohammed was involved in the rape of kafirs, then rape is a virtue, not a sin or error.
When Mohammed destroyed the B. Qurayza tribe, all of the adult male Jews were beheaded, so that no husbands were left. Mohammed then took the children and gave them to Muslims to raise as Muslims and he sold off the Jewish women as slaves.
We know from another story that the women were divided into sex slaves and domestic slaves. In one scene, a jihadist is trying to obtain a high ransom for a woman and he is told that her breasts are flat and her mouth is cold, so her value was less. In short, she was only good for work around the house, not in the bedroom.
The Hadith tells of another story where the Muslims used coitus interruptus to avoid impregnating the kafir sex slaves. The reason was purely for business. If the kafir sex slave was pregnant, then she was worth less money.
Islamic doctrine says that kafir women should not be used for prostitutes, only for the pleasure of the master.
When Mohammed attacked the Jews at Khaybar, many moral precedents were set. Sexual slavery received an entire set of rules. Muslims were not to rape pregnant or menstruating women until they had delivered the child or finished their periods. At Khaybar, Mohammed’s god Allah, announced that even married women were fair game for rape.
Mohammed only killed some of the Jews at Khaybar. The male and female survivors were needed to work the land as dhimmis. (The original dhimmis were semi-slaves with no civil rights. Today, dhimmis are ignorant kafirs who apologize for Islam.) Since Islam needed the men to work, husbands were left alive. That was the reason that the Koran said that in this case, even with the husbands looking on, it was good to rape the women.
Sexual slavery was not only fun and profitable for the Muslim men, but rape was a powerful tactic of war, then and today. The women are forced into submission to Muslim men and the husbands are humiliated. Humiliated men are weakened men, so more kafirs were less able to resist Islam.
For some time Mohammed’s favorite sex partner was a Christian slave from Egypt named Mary. One of Mohammed’s wives caught him in some state of intimacy with Mary in the wife’s bedroom and raised hell. Mohammed promised to not do it again and moved Mary to her own apartment in Medina.
Mohammed had received Mary and her sister as gifts. He gave her sister away to a Muslim poet. He was used to giving away sex slaves. He gave several of his top lieutenants kafir sex slaves. Umar, who later became caliph, gave his sex slave to his son. [As an aside, when he was caliph, his son got drunk and Umar beat him to death.]
FP: This institution of Islamic sexual slavery isn’t just a reality of the past is it?
Warner: Everything that has been said up to now is not only history; it is Sunna (the example of the perfect pattern of action and morality found in Mohammed). So today we don’t have a beautiful blonde Christian girl on the block in Mecca, but we have continuous and ongoing rapes by Muslims in kafir cities. This goes on everywhere that Islam goes because it is Sunna.
This is a continuous 1400-year history of jihad. In every detailed history that comes from the original documents from history, rape is a constant. You have to look in the original documents, since our historians refuse to report it in so-called history books.
Rape is Sunna. Rape is not a sin. Rape is permitted and encouraged by Mohammed and the Koran. Islam is the only political system in the world that includes rules for rape and war. Rape is jihad. How good can it get? A Muslim gets to rape a kafir girl and get heaven credits. All jihad is a ticket to Paradise.
The most disgusting aspect of the Islamic rape of kafirs is not the rapes, but the kafir response. Kafirs become dhimmis by ignoring the rapes. I challenge you to find one, even one, mention of Islamic rape in the history books.
Islamic rape is more taboo than the N-word in the media. At least the N-word is acknowledged to exist. Even unicorns exist in media fantasy. But Islamic rape is forbidden to even exist as a fantasy.
And to reach a fevered rant: our so-called “feminist” scholars are absolutely intellectually and morally bankrupt hypocrites. They are traitors to our culture and a shame and a disgrace. They remain silent in the face of heinous crimes against women. They are arch-dhimmis when they refuse to speak of the Sunna, history and current rapes of our daughters, mothers, and sisters.
And our tax dollars support their evil in our public universities.
FP: Mohammed was a white man and had black slaves, correct? Isn’t there a racism here? Where is all the leftist indignation against Islam on this issue?
Warner: The relationship between blacks and slavery is ironic. A standard approach of Islam to blacks is that Christianity is the religion of the white man and Islam is the natural religion of the black man. They add that Mohammed’s second convert was a black slave, Bilal, who was Mohammed’s companion and the first muezzin (the man who calls to prayer).
The Hadith, however, goes out of its way, many times, to tell the world that Mohammed was a white man. The Hadith also tells us the race of the kafirs that Mohammed enslaved. And Mohammed had many black slaves in his household. One of his slaves was a black man called, Anjasha.
Mohammed owned black slaves. It is that simple. His favorite wife, the child Aisha, had a black slave. But to be fair to Mohammed, he was not a racist about slavery. He enslaved Arabs, Africans, and Greeks. Islam enslaves all kafirs, independent of race.
Mohammed was politically incorrect about blacks and called them “raisin heads” in the Hadith. Thus it would be a compliment to call a black Muslim a “raisin head.” It would be Sunna and not offensive. Mohammed also said that Muslims are to obey the Islamic leader, “even if they were black.” A left-handed compliment, at best.
Mohammed used his robe to shield Aisha, so she could watch black slaves perform a martial arts routine in the mosque. The Hadith tells of a prophecy about a black man bringing evil to Islam. Black men were prophesized to destroy the Kabah.
But when Muslims preach to blacks they only say that Islam’s first muezzin was a black man. They don’t tell the rest of the story.
FP: Can you give us a brief synopsis of the history of Islamic slavery?
Warner: It all started with Mohammed and then went worldwide.
When Islam burst out of Arabia into the kafir world, they took the wealth and slaves. Slavery was an unapologetic part of jihad.
The Arabic language is a good place to see how important slavery was. In The Submission of Women and Slaves, we collected over 30 Arabic words that deal with slavery. We think that Arabic has more words for slaves than any other language.
Both a black African and a black slave have the same name, abd. The historical reason for this is that African slavery was so important to Islamic economics. Language reflects history. Islamic legal history is filled with the complaints by African Muslim jurists about how Arabic Muslim slave traders captured African Muslims and sold them on the auction block.
History records around 11,000,000 Africans being sent to the Americas and about 13,000,000 being sent to Islamic countries for a total of 24,000,000 African slaves. To get one slave, many others have to be killed for the tribe to surrender to enslavement. The old, sick and children are left behind to starve. These collateral deaths are conservatively estimated to about 5 to 1. So that implies that over 1400 years, 120,000,000 million Africans have been killed to furnish Islam with its profits.
The accepted history of race in the U.S. is that white men captured Africans, brought them to the U.S. and sold them as slaves. This is wrong. When the white slavers showed up on the west coast of Africa, they didn’t capture Africans. They looked them over in the pens, gave the Muslim slave traders their money, took their bills of sale, and loaded their purchases into their boats.
The Muslims had been plying the trade of war, capture, enslavement, and sale for a thousand years. Mohammed was a slave trader. Long after the white slave traders quit, the Muslims continued their African slave trade. It still exists today.
And to put a fine point on it, many African slaves were castrated by removing both testicles and penis. Castrated slaves brought more on the slave block. Castrated blacks were the traditional keepers of Mohammed’s mosque in Medina.
African slaves were called abd; white slaves were called mamluk. Most black slaves were used in mining and heavy fieldwork. White slaves were used more for skilled trades. White slaves were even promoted to leadership positions, if they converted. Only one black slave was promoted to leadership. He ruled Egypt and was a eunuch.
Over a million white slaves were taken from Europe. Our word, slave, comes from Slav. A white woman was the highest price slave for 1400 years on the Meccan auction block. The Muslim who could not afford a white sex slave choose an Ethiopian woman at a third of the price.
The most revolting enslavement of whites was how Turkish Muslims took as a tax, one out of five Christian children in Islamic ruled Eastern Europe. These male children were taken back to Turkey where they became the janissaries, elite soldiers for the sultan. The Turkish sultans did not trust tribal Muslims to be the elite palace guards, since they all harbored ancient tribal rivalries. We see the same distrust of Muslim tribal politics in Afghanistan, where kafirs are used as presidential guards.
The Hindus were enslaved, but we don’t have the number. We do know that jihad took half of ancient Hindustan and killed 80,000,000 Hindus. We have accountings of Hindus being enslaved by the hundreds of thousands at a time.
Muslims enslave everyone, but no one enslaves Muslims. This knowledge is part of Islam’s arrogance and superiority. They know the history; it is the dhimmis (kafir apologists) who are ignorant of the doctrine and history of Islamic slavery.
FP: The violent capture and enslavement of black Africans by Muslim Arabs continues to this today. The root of this modern-day slavery is, of course, Islamic doctrine.
Warner: The enslavement of Africans is happening today. The only reason that Islam stopped enslaving whites and Hindus is that Islam is too weak to resist the social pressure. The Sunna of slavery has not changed, just the ability to use their law.
In the African countryside Muslims are still using jihad to enrich themselves. I have spoken with a Sudanese slave who escaped. The Muslims killed his parents and took him and his sister. Each night the jihadists gang raped his sister. Remember, rape is Sunna.
When he met his new masters, they put him in the middle of a circle of the family and each beat him with a stick. He was told that his new name was Abd, black slave. He slept in the barn with the animals.
Our media and intellectuals are quick to punish the slightest insult by a white against a black man, but they have not the slightest recognition of murder, rape and enslavement of blacks by Islam. Our media and intellectuals are dhimmis.
FP: Final thoughts and comments?
Warner: Slavery is the fruit of Islamic duality. Mohammed, the master of dualism and submission, used slavery as a tool of jihad because it worked. Mohammed’s life was infused with slavery. Slaves were the lifeblood of Islam. Mohammed, the white man, owned both male and female black slaves. His attitude was pure dualism.
The most disgusting thing about Islamic slavery is not that Muslims enslave others, but that we ignore it. The Muslims have been fed the Koran and the Sunna in their mother’s milk. They are doing what is ethical according to Islam. In a strange way, Muslims are to be pitied. A Muslim is the first victim of Islam.
The criticism of whites because of their being involved in slavery is standard fair in the media and the universities. Try to find a university that even teaches about the killing of 120,000,000 Africans for Muslims to profit from the 24,000,000 slaves.
Blacks define themselves on the basis of slavery. They will not go beyond the white, Christian version of slavery. There is only one theory of history in the black community—the West African Limited Edition version of history. Blacks will not admit the broad scope of slave history. Hindu slavery? It never happened. White and European slavery? It never happened. Slavery on the East coast of Africa? It never happened. A massive slave trade through the Sahara into North Africa? It never happened. Black, eunuchs at the Medina mosque? It never happened. This incomplete history of slavery is what the taxpayers fund in the state universities.
How can black leaders ignore Islam’s sacred violence in Africa? Why aren’t the black columnists, writers, professors, or ministers speaking out? They are ignorant and in total denial. They are the molested children of Islam.
Blacks are dhimmis and serve Islam with their silence. There is a deep fear of Islam that makes them overlook and placate Islam. Arabs are the masters of blacks.
One thing whites and blacks have in common is that their ancestors were enslaved by Islam, and both are too ignorant to know it. Blacks and whites have a secret shame buried under the denial of being slaves inside Islam.
But the rest of the media and intellectuals line up as dhimmis, too. One of the marks of a dhimmi under the fourth caliph, Umar, was that a dhimmi was forbidden to study the Koran. The chief mark of dhimmitude today is ignorance of the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith. The ignorance of kafir intellectuals about Islam is profound.
They don’t know about how jihad killed the 120,000,000 Africans, the 60,000,000 Christians, the 80,000,000 Hindus or the 10,000,000 Buddhists. Our intellectuals do not know about the Tears of Jihad (detailed in all of our books). That is a lot of death and ignorance—270,000,000 dead. Our intellectuals don’t know, don’t care and don’t bother. They deny.
University Islamic studies never mention the Islamic political doctrine. The media discusses Islam in terms of political correctness, and multiculturalism. History courses don’t teach about the civilizational annihilation due to jihad. Religious leaders placate imams in public gatherings and have no knowledge what the imam actually thinks of them. Political thinkers do not even know Islam as a political force
The problem with this ignorance is that our intellectuals are unable to help us. They do not understand that Islam is a civilization based upon the ideal of dualism. Islamic ethics and politics have one set of rules for Muslims and another for kafirs. Our civilization is based upon the ideal of unitary ethics, the Golden Rule. We do not have two sets of laws and ethics, like Islam. Our intellectuals cannot explain what dualism has meant in the past or what it will mean for our future—civilizational annihilation.
Our intellectuals and the media have only one view of Islam—a glorious civilization. They have created the “terrorist”, a bogus term based upon ignorance. And the “terrorist” is not even a “real” Muslim, but an extremist fundamentalist. All of these terms are based upon a profound ignorance of Islamic political doctrine.
Intellectuals cannot connect the dots of persecution of other intellectuals and artists today, such as Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh, the Mohammed cartoon riots, and Daniel Pearl. Their persecution is part of a 1400 year Islamic tradition of keeping all intellectuals and artists in line with the doctrine of political Islam. But for our intellectuals, there is no history, no connection, no pattern, no doctrine of Islam. Their only doctrine is the doctrine of denial. These intellectuals write our textbooks. Then our tax dollars buy the books to feed the ignorance.
What explains the intellectuals’ silence and ignorance? The enormous violence of jihad has produced the psychology of the “molested child” syndrome. Intellectuals fear, apologize for, and placate the Islamic abusers, ignoring the violence of the past. Then they turn around and advise our politicians. The result is an ignorant populace who look to our intellectuals for guidance and find treachery and lies.
FP: Bill Warner, thank you for joining us.
Warner: Thank you for standing against political Islam.
Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine’s managing editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s Left Illusions. He is also the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left and the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union (McGill-Queens University Press, 2002) and 15 Tips on How to be a Good Leftist. To see his previous symposiums, interviews and articles Click Here. Email him at [email protected].
Copyright©2008 FrontPageMagazine.com
Of Interest: Fitna, the Must See Video
IslamOnline asks their readers how should Muslims comment on the Geert Wilders’ video Fitna when it’s broadcast?
Here’s Fitna if you haven’t seen it yet. Its main message is how the Koran mandates violence and hatred of the Kafir.
And what was the Islamic reaction to Fitna? Here’s a look at the response in the moderate Muslim country of Indonesia.
Islam and Black Liberation Theology
Barack Obama has closely aligned himself with Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Black Liberation Theology (BLT). When viewed from the Christian point-of-view, BLT is a strange creed, but when seen from the standpoint of Islam, there is a very strong parallel.
Islam and BLT are theologies that have a political goal of making all politics submit to their demands. Submission is the political goal.
Islam and BLT are both based upon the principle of duality. The Koran divides up humanity into Muslims and the kafirs (unbelievers). BLT has a god that divides humanity into blacks and whites. But the duality is not the division, but a complete separation that is ethical, political, cultural and religious. The believer has nothing in common with the kafir/white. Allah loves the Muslim and a black god loves the blacks.
Allah preaches violence against the kafirs and helps Muslims to kill them. The Koran says that cruelty and hatred of the kafir is a sacred duty for Muslims.
BLT does not preach violence against whites, but excuses and justifies it. BLT also justifies black crime as a legal way for oppressed blacks to strike back at the white oppressors. It sees a rapist or killer of whites as a revolutionary committing a legitimate act of a just war. Here we have a quote from James Cone, the father of BLT:
“What we need is the divine love as expressed in black power, which is the power of blacks to destroy their oppressors, here and now, by any and all means at their disposal” [James Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, p. 70]
Neither Islam nor BLT ever acknowledges the suffering of its enemies. Jihad has killed over 270 million kafirs over the last 1400 years, but there has never been any acknowledgment of the destruction of kafirs. In Mohammed’s official biography, the Sira, there are hundreds of pages devoted to jihad against the kafirs. There is not one time when Mohammed expressed remorse about the beheading, torturing, killing, raping and robbery of the kafirs. Indeed, there are many occasions when he laughed at the kafirs’ suffering.
The duality of total separateness from the kafir/white creates an ethical position. Ethics become dualistic. The kafir/white is treated differently from the “brother/sister”. Since Allah/black God hates and plots against kafirs/whites there is no empathy with the victims of the aggression. There is no remorse and, therefore, there is never an apology. There is nothing to apologize for. Allah/black God wanted them dead, so there is no need to weep.
This dualism in ethics means that the kafir/white can be deceived, robbed, insulted, raped, brutalized and killed in the name of good.
However, injuries to Islam are never forgotten, no matter how long ago they happened. Witness the ranting about the Crusades, which happened seven hundred years ago. BLT has a similar fixation on the injury of slavery, the “original sin” of America. Demands for apologies from the kafir/white are a standard fare of Islam/BLT. But any injury to the kafir/white is justified by the ethical doctrine.
The Koran is filled with insults against kafirs. Mohammed used both insults and name-calling as a form of jihad. As seen in Rev. Wright’s sermons, insults and curses against whitey are accepted fare.
In Islamic politics nothing about the kafir has any merit. The kafir is without redeeming qualities or contributions to humanity. Inside of BLT, whites are the source of all evil and suffering in the world. White culture is seen as inherently bad and there is no goodness in whites, except for those who submit to black demands in all things, in short, race dhimmis.
Islam/BLT is easily offended. The offense can cause threats and bullying. If the verbal hostility does not work then come the street riots. Islam/BLT has no compunction about the riot hurting their own economies.
The reason for so many parallels between Islam and BLT is that they are both based upon the same principles—submission and duality. Since Islam views white America as an enemy, BLT see Islam as the “enemy of my enemy” and therefore is a friend. Witness the award that Rev. Wright gave Louis Farrakhan as an outstanding person. This comradeship is temporary. When the time comes and Islam is fully ascendant, BLT will find out that Islam has been using them, just as Islam uses the Left. In the end, Islam will annihilate BLT for the simple reason that Islam demands political submission from ALL, not the just the whites.
Islam is the greater submission/duality system since it can grow by converting kafirs into believers. For BLT the vision is a separate and permanent minority. A white cannot become a black. BLT has a very limited enclave/ghetto mentality, whereas Islam has a world conquest outlook.
Bill Warner
Center for the Study of Political Islam
Copyright © 2008, CBSX, Inc dba politicalislam.com
You may distribute this as you wish, please do not edit and give us credit.
Peramalink:https://politicalislam.com/islam-and-black-liberation-theology/