The Jihad of Words

Bill Warner, Stephen Coughlin, Clare Lopez, and Robert Spencer team up to explore how words in Islam are twisted to deceive the Kafir.

The worst word in any language is the word that describes me: I’m a Kafir.

Now, Islam has a lot different words for non-Muslims and that’s one of them. Non-believer, pagan, infidel, people of the book (are other descriptions). But the word that describes all of them, because “people of the book” is only for Christians and Jews, is Kafir: K-a-f-i-r. I spelled it with a capital K. Why do I spell it with the capital K? Because Muslims get a capital M. So I get a capital K, as I’m just as good as they are.

Now the plural of Kafir is Kuffar. But I say Kafirs. Why? Because I want the word to be used in the English language and let’s use the standard English plural. The meaning at the Arabic word Kafir, and that is the Arabic word, means one who conceals. That is, in my case, “I really know that Allah wrote the Koran, and that it’s perfect, and I really know that Muhammad is the prophet of Allah, and I am just covering it up because I’m just mean that way”.

Kafir also means someone who’s not grateful. That is I’m not grateful for the bountifulness of Allah, and I’m not grateful for Muhammad. I am NOT grateful for Mohammed. Let me make that clear.

The word Kafir is used so much that I have put together some statistics about it. The Koran devotes 64% of its text to the Kafir, the unbeliever.

The Sira devotes 81% of the text to the unbeliever, the Kafir. And of the hadith: 37% is devoted to the Kafir.

Here’s the thing: Allah hates the Kafir.

Koran 40:35 “They (Kafirs) who dispute the signs (the verses of Koran) of Allah without authority having reached them are greatly hated by Allah and the believers.”

So Allah hates me, but notice something else, Muslims hate me. As a matter fact there are 12 verses in the Koran which say that Muslims are not the friend of the Kafirs. That’s how bad a Kafir is.

And by the way, the best language in the Koran describes the torture of the Kafir in hell. I asked an Arabic speaker one time how good those verses were in Arabic. He said, “Oh Bill, they’re much better. In Arabic, you can hate better.”

Kafirs are filthy, and are to be deceived, beheaded, crucified, plotted against, terrorized, humiliated. It is the worst word in any language.

In English, we have a word that is so bad that we’re not allowed to say it in public or even think about it in private. It is so bad that we call it the N-word. We’re not allowed to say any word that terrible in public. So we’re relieved of the responsibility of ever saying “nigger” by saying N-word.

Let’s notice something about the N-word. The N-word is a personal opinion of bigotry. Whereas, with the word Kafir: Allah says I’m a Kafir; Allah says I’m filthy. So that’s the reason the word is worse than any word in any language in that it is not bigoted. Kafir is the truth of Allah. It is sacred hate.

As a matter fact, all of Islam can be seen in one sentence. The purpose of Islam is to eliminate the Kafir. Every act of jihad is against the Kafir.

Here’s what I’m telling you. Use it! Take its power away! When I deal with Muslims I always let them know I am a Kafir. I’ve had one of them say “Why would you say that about yourself? A Kafir is so dreadful.” That’s because I want them to know what they really think of me. I want them to know that I know their secret dirty words.

So don’t use any word like people of the book, or unbeliever. Use the word Kafir. Help take away its power, and help educate the world how the world sees them: the Kafir non-believer.

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink: https://politicalislam.com/the-worst-word/
Copyright © 2014 CSPI, LLC, politicalislam.com
Use as needed, just give credit and do not edit.
www.politicalislam.com

When the al Shabaab jihadi group from Somalia attacked the mall in Kenya, they gathered the crowd together and asked who were Muslims and let them go. According to the media, they then started killing the non-Muslims who were left. But non-Muslims is not the word what the terrorists would have used. No, they would have called them Kafirs (actually they would have called them the Arabic plural of kafir, kuffar. Kafirs is the standard English plural form).

Why did members of al Shabaab do this? Why did they ask the Muslims to leave and keep the Kafirs and start killing them? Let’s start with the word terrorists. Members of al Shabaab are not terrorists, they are jihadists or mujahedeen. That is what they call themselves.

So what difference does it make which words we use? Non-Muslim or Kafir? Terrorists, militants, jihadists or mujahedeen? It makes all the difference in the world. You cannot think precisely with imprecise words and a Kafir is much more than non-Muslim.

The word “non-Muslim” does not imply anything, except not being a believer in Islam.

Kafir, on the other hand, has enormous implications. Kafir is the actual word that the Koran uses for a non-Muslim. Indeed, one of the many remarkable things about the Koran is that over half of its text is devoted to the Kafir. Think about that: most of the Koran is not about how to be a Muslim, but about the Kafir. Every single verse about the Kafir is not just bad, but terrible. Allah hates Kafirs and plots and schemes against them. The cruelest punishments await the Kafir in hell, but who cares about that? The real problem is what is promised to the Kafir in this life—torture, hatred, death, ridicule, rape, enslavement, political domination and deception.

It is the same with mujahedeen or jihadist as opposed to militant or terrorist. The words militant or terrorist do not tell anything about the motivation of the militant or terrorist, only that they are using violence.

Notice that the words non-Muslim and terrorist are not related to each other; they stand alone. There is no implication of one by the other. But that is not true about Kafir and jihad. Jihad is only carried out against Kafirs. Jihad implies Kafir and vice versa.

Jihad and Kafir are all part of a system of Islamic politics. Mohammed preached the religion of Islam for 13 years and garnered 150 followers. When he turned to politics and jihad, he died ruler of all of Arabia, and every Arab was a Muslim. The religion of Islam was a failure, and Islam triumphed by the use of politics and jihad, war against the Kafir.

Islamic doctrine is found in the Koran, Sunna (Mohammed) and Sharia law and divides all of humanity into Muslim and Kafir. There is no middle ground. Unfortunately, both Christian and Jewish leaders have bought into the fiction that they are all People of the Book and are brothers in religion. When you read the fine print (as none of them have done, being professionally ignorant), they are brothers in Abraham who must be politically and religiously subjugated, but that is a small detail.

If jihad, mujahedeen, and Kafir are pure Islamic doctrine, we can now understand why the media refuses to the correct words that Muslims use – it is all too horrible to contemplate. We are not just having independent terrorist events, such as the West Gate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya or the Boston Marathon bombing; we are in the middle of a civilizational war with a historic enemy — an enemy who is winning because we are in total denial.

Published as an article on American Thinker. 

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

On May 12 Bill Warner was the opening speaker for Geert Wilders in Nashville, TN. His 14 minute speech about our civilization and Islam is found at:

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

By Kenneth Roberts

December 4, 2009

Both Sunnis and Shi’ites believe in the use of sacred violence. The right to coerce the infidels and subdue them was given by Allah to Mohammed as owner of the earth.

Theologically, mocking Mohammed’s method of controlling the infidels is blasphemy, for the violent method of Mohammed comes directly from Allah. Allah’s method trumps human logic, even the Western ideal of free speech that is based on mere human philosophy and mere human reasoning, rather than Allah’s Divine Command. In mere human philosophy, Mohammed’s fitna-prevention method is built on a fallacy of logic called the Appeal to Force in place of logical argument. But this fallacious argument is the main argument of the Koran. Muslims know that the Koranic argument for violence against the infidels takes up 2/3 of the Koran and they further know that the Koranic argument cannot be wrong, for it comes directly from Allah and Allah is not a liar.

Mohammed’s method for eliminating fitna is jihad and all Muslims should freely use Mohammed’s method, since Mohammed is their role model. This is what Muslims did in the Danish cartoon riots. It is also what motivated Dr. Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood on November 5, 2009.

Normally, Muslims will not kill infidels for merely thinking non-Islamic thoughts. After all, who knows what another person is thinking, even one’s own spouse? Sacred violence is authorized when open disagreement with Mohammed is expressed in the public domain, as with a cartoon or an anti-Islamic book. It need not be the guilty person who is punished, so we can never be sure of the physical safety of any infidels, since throughout history, jihads have often included mass slaughters and genocides of men, women and children.

Mohammed approved of such indiscriminate killing of unbelievers on occasion, if it was convenient for him. During a night-time sneak attack on a town, Mohammed was asked about his customary method of sparing women and children (so that they could be sources of revenue as slaves). According to the Hadith by Abu Muslim 19:4322 , Mohammed responded, “They are of them.” In other words, the women and children are accomplices in the fitna of the defending males. And besides, it was inconvenient to attack and carry lanterns to check everything that moves in the dark.

Here Mohammed authorized wholesale slaughter of an entire community. The justification for this was the political charge of fitna. So no infidel is ever innocent of fitna, a capital crime.

Such logic was used by Major Nidal Hasan when he committed a wholesale slaughter http://www.faithfreedom.org/islam/islamic-mind-major-nidal-hasan of 13 unarmed American soldiers: …the American army opposes Mohammed’s method…it is guilty of fitna…and the 13 slaughtered soldiers ‘are of them.’ This made Dr. Hasan a hero to the former mullah of his mosque, because he executed the enemies of Mohammed using deceit and surprise, just like Mohammed did. Mohammed frequently executed unarmed prisoners of war. Dr. Hasan is a rational, pious Muslim. His ideas agree with the official scholarly concensus of normative Islam.

Mohammed’s brilliant method of ruthless assassination silences fitna by paralyzing the brain with fear. Mohammed’s method may not be judged by any external standard, because his method is itself the standard. Forget the obvious ethical flexibility or opportunism. Mohammed’s method takes a position above human logic, ethical analysis and philosophical discourse. To analyze Mohammed’s ethical inconsistencies is fitna.

Today, Islamic governments are seeking new ways to control fitna beyond their borders. Kafir fitna is temptation or luring that tempts Muslims to question or lose their faith. Kafirs commit fitna every time they disagree with Sharia law in the public domain, when they mock Mohammed’s violent method in cartoons or use reason or logic on the Internet to show Mohammed is wrong.

Such politically incorrect utterance keeps the Islamic state from insuring all information supports the unity and power of that State and its jihadist army.

Information control is normative Islam and is fully acceptable to all pious Muslims, since it prevents fitna, the ultimate crime. Modern Muslims agree that fitna should be removed from human society through censorship of discourse that disagrees with Islam, even in the Human Rights Council of the United Nations. By removing the right to disagree with Islam at the UN, Muslim governments hope to implement global information control.

Politically, this will allow Islamic governments to totally ignore all human rights complaints by claiming Muslims have a unique human right: the right of not hearing any criticism.

When governments of the Islamic Conference say they wish to remove utterances that criticizes Islam, they actually mean ‘fitna’…public disagreement with Mohammed.

Islamic governments know fitna control is needed before discriminatory Sharia law can be fully implemented and jihad can go ahead. They seek to shut down the freedom of UN diplomats to discuss any human rights aspect of Islam. They cast a veil over Islamic discrimination against women and minorities in view of the radical claim that Muslims have a superior, unique human right which infidels do not possess.

The Islamic right to censor fitna trumps gender equality, freedom of expression, freedom to change one’s religion and other freedoms. In law, this specious argument is called ‘special pleading’. It is pure dualism and supremacism. In essence, this makes Shariah law superior to the UDHR and enshrines Islamic discrimination in the name of human rights.

Inter-Islamic fitna, i.e. dissension or discord between Muslims, is the second class of fitna. Theological disagreements between Shi’ite Muslims and Sunnite Muslims are also called fitna. Both sides believe the other worthy of death for disagreeing with Mohammed. Unfortunately, both sides do not see that their own opinion of Mohammed’s method may also be in error. Only the other fellow is in error and he is obviously a heretic. ‘And Allah knows best.’

Consequently, there is no Sunnite mosque permitted in Teheran and no Shi’ite mosque permitted in Saudi Arabia’s holy cities. Fitna/discord between Muslims themselves and between Muslims and infidels is primarily a political question about who possesses the political upper hand. This right of supremacy cannot be discussed, since it comes from Allah and is defended by sacred violence. What you believe about Mohammed determines your human rights status in an Islamic state.

Moreover, the concept of fitna makes pluralism practically impossible, since only one political party can be in perfect agreement with Mohammed. Having an opposition party in an Islamic country would be the evil of fitna…another opinion would obviously disagree with Mohammed and be condemned. Fitna paints Islamic countries into a philosophical corner where dictatorship is the only government system possible.

The ultimate use of fitna is a military one. Fitna is any utterance that demoralizes or confuses Muslim troops so they become weak as a military force, unconvinced of their political mission of world dominance and hesitant to commit jihad. Fitna undercuts the Islamic chain of command. Fitna destroys the cohesiveness and certainty of jihadists…that unquestioning certainty that makes them ready to kill the critics of Mohammed.

Faint-hearted, non-fanatical Muslims will not defend Mohammed’s method or expand their Allah-given supremacy over the infidels. If Muslims are in doubt about the rightness of Mohammed’s method, they will peter out, while the infidels win the earth for Satan. This must not be. Fitna must be stopped and reversed, since it impedes the Islamic state without borders. Fitna thus becomes a political charge of treason against the Allah-established Ummah (nation) of Islam. Fitna deserves the death penalty because Allah said it is worse than murder (Koran 2:191). It is every Muslim’s duty to use sacred violence to stamp out fitna and create the utopian Islamic world where disagreement can no longer exist.

“And fight them (all infidels) until there is no more fitnah (disagreeing with Allah/Mohammed) and the religion (all-pervasive lifestyle and system of Sharia law) will all be for Allah alone (in the whole world). But if they cease (to disagree with Allah/Mohammed) then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.” (Koran 8.39)

“(Allah) sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the kafirs may be averse.” (Koran 9.33)

Kenneth Roberts is interested in global affairs, military history and the music of Mozart.

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

By Kenneth Roberts

December 1, 2009

Why do cartoons constitute a capital crime in Islam? Why did writing ‘The Satanic Verses’ bring a death sentence and bounty upon Sir Salman Rushdie? Why does a military psychiatrist fire more than 100 rounds into an unarmed crowd he was trained to heal? Why do Muslims express violent anger concerning differences of religious opinion? The one-word answer to these questions is ‘FITNA‘.

Fitna is one of the most important concepts in Islam, but it is a totally alien concept to Western philosophy. The concept of fitna totally abnegates our notions of free expression or logical discourse. The concept of fitna subjugates all thought to the method of Mohammed.

Fitna is spotted by the mullahs who also pick the Islamic response to it. In response to the Danish cartoons, they instructed Muslims to riot. Grand Imam Sayyed Tantawi, the paramount authority in Islam, demanded the closing of Jyllands Posten to prevent further fitna. Muslims studiously avoid the word fitna when talking to infidels.

What is fitna then?

The definition is surprisingly simple: Fitna is any disagreement with Mohammed. More precisely, Fitna is any islamicly-incorrect thought which is communicated to others in the public domain.

This definition fits all the confusing facts and makes sense of all the Islamic dualisms. Fitna is a thought crime. Fitna is a dualistic cocktail of blasphemy and treason.

As with almost everything in Islam, fitna is very hard to explain, because it is couched in Islamic dualism. Even Muslims have trouble explaining it, but they can identify it when they see it. And when they see it, they react violently.

There are two distinctly different classes of fitna: inter-Islamic fitna and infidel fitna. In relation to the evil infidels, fitna means ‘tempting’, ‘enticing’ or ‘luring’ another to disagree with Mohammed. Fitna comes from an old Arabic word that means removing the dross from pure metal. Pure Islam is held in check by fitna, so it must be purged.

In modern Islamic usage, fitna is used to describe ideas that cause controversy, testing, fragmentation, scandal, chaos, or discord, disturbing social peace and order within the Muslim community, …such things as openly disagreeing with the head of state of Egypt or Iran or with something found in Sharia law. When a professor at an Arab university quotes original research on the primary sources of Islam, he is immediately accused of fitna and his life is simultaneously threatened. Inter-Islamic fitna is what most Muslims understand when they think of the word ‘fitna’.

Muslims cast a veil over ‘kafir fitna’…the politically incorrect free speech of wicked infidels that justifies jihad and brings Allah’s just punishment upon them.

Mohammed discovered a brilliant way to criminalize differences of opinion with himself. He called his invention ‘fitna’ and made it the worst crime in his new religion. Any utterance that tests Mohammed’s method is a chargeable offence and a capital crime if it persists. The religious charge of blasphemy veils the serious political charge of treason against Mohammed.

Mohammed is Allah’s vice-regent on earth. Not only does Mohammed define the truth, but he has a right to punish those who disagree. Moreover, Mohammed is both the constitution and the Islamic state. By disagreeing with Mohammed, you are calling him wrong, in error or worse yet a liar. That is slander and character assassination, but it is also the crime of treason against the Islamic Nation.

The Koran likes to say infidels are accusing Mohammed of being a liar, since that sounds more dramatic and culpable. The Koran commands the punishment of fitna after making it sound reprehensible. Anyone disagreeing with Mohammed in any way has become an enemy of the state who should be treated severely and with violence.

Private disagreements with Mohammed are acceptable, as long as they do not reach the eyes or ears of Muslims. However, public disagreement demands public Islamic punishment. ‘Punishment’ euphemistically means the death penalty, normatively by beheading.

In the Islamic religion, Mohammed is the only one who speaks for God. Disputing Mohammed’s religious monopoly in public means disagreeing with God Himself…thus putting Allah to the test before Muslims. If Allah has lost face in public, his honor and control of the situation can only be restored by violence. To disagree publicly with Mohammed is to call Mohammed and Allah liars. Koran 29:63 – “Who does more harm than he who tells a lie against Allah?” No one! Anyone who suggests Allah or Mohammed are fakes is the worst criminal.

The Koran tells us that words disputing Mohammed/Allah are more criminal than the deed of murder. This does not make sense.

Obviously, something else is going on under the blanket of religion. That something is a political doctrine called ‘supremacism’.

In art, an object is sometimes defined, not by positive use of color, but by negative space and the use of shadow. Fitna reveals Islam’s key doctrine of Mohammed’s supremacy veiled in shadow. Undermining Mohammed’s authority does more harm than anything!

As far as Muslims are concerned, the fact that infidels have wrong thoughts in private is bad enough. The divine plan is for the whole world to agree openly that Mohammed is right. In the meantime, it is good for the infidels to be under Islamic control.

In normative Islam, the public utterance of disagreement with Mohammed is worthy of death. Practically, why is this so?

The death sentence is required for the sake of the political harm done to the Islamic chain of command and the readiness of Muslims as a solid fighting force (Koran 61:4).

Basically, all Muslims constitute one army of which Mohammed is the head. First and foremost, every Muslim male is a potential soldier…a holy warrior…a jihadist. If Islam is to go forward, the Muslim male needs to be emotionally, psychologically and mentally ready for jihad and the Islamic community needs to enthusiastically support jihad.

Jihad is Mohammed’s method, the way Islam grows. Mohammed is the only expert on Islam. Anything that stands in the way of jihad is evil, satanic and treasonous! Satan and his followers need to be weakened and destroyed or at a minimum brought under the coercive control of the Islamic state. The Islamic army will be ready only if there is an absence of fitna, so fitna control means information control. Information control precedes jihad.

The tactic of information control was first demonstrated by Mohammed by assassinating his vocal critics, usually at night. Mohammed also gave his complete support to freelance assassins who murdered family members who criticized Mohammed at home…also usually at night. Disagreeing with Mohammed is not permissible if a Muslim is present or becomes aware of it. Mohammed used violence to stamp out the utterance of disagreement and he approved of others who did the same on their own initiative. Mohammed is the role model for all Muslims to emulate.

Assassination is the normative punishment for the crime of fitna. Killing a critic of Islam is a good deed, since it restores the honor of Allah/Mohammed and removes the threat of fitna from the community. Any Muslim is free to carry out the death sentence in the matter of fitna. In Sharia-dominated countries, no punishment will be given and the killer will be a hero. As well, the assassin is guaranteed entry to the highest rank in paradise.

Grand Imam Sayyed Tantawi, the leading cleric of the four Sunni sects declared, ‘Muslims are allowed to fight against them (critics), but only to the extent of making them aware that they should not become enemies of Islam.’ Here we have the foremost Muslim in the world stating publicly that infidels should be ‘fought’ (treated violently) if they disagree with Mohammed. Since Tantawi speaks for 90% of Muslims, violence against critics of Islam remains an official dogma of mainstream Sunni Islam. Sunnis number almost one billion.

Most Westerners believed Muslims were angered that Kurt Westergaard (the cartoonist who drew the Mohammed turban-bomb cartoon) called Mohammed, or by extension, that he called all Muslims-violent! Westerners believed their message was: ‘Don’t say Islam is violent or we’ll kill you!’

But Islamic violence is not the issue. Muslims know that Mohammed is violent and that he is their role model. They revel in it. It makes them feel strong and proud.

Jihad is holy violence. Violence is the way Allah removes fitna, removes the dross from pure Islam and removes the infidel scum from the earth which is owned by Mohammed. (Bukhari 4:52:220)

No! Muslims were angered that the Danish cartoonists disagreed with Mohammed, and said so in public. That was political fitna and a crime against honor.

The cartoonists disagreed that Mohammed’s violent method is right and made fun of it. The cartoonists removed Mohammed’s halo. As a consequence, Allah and Mohammed both lost face. If Allah/Mohammed said violence against the infidels is right… and the infidels laugh at Allah’s Divine Command…the infidels obviously need to be taught a lesson. The infidels need to accept that Mohammed owns the earth and their position is one of political inferiority to Muslims. Islamic supremacism is Allah’s divine plan and violence is Mohammed’s method.

The infidels are to be brought under the control of the Islamic state in thought, word and deed and they are given no choice in submitting to it or not. Allah commanded violence so the infidels will be forced to receive the divine benefit of Islam…’even if the infidels are averse to it!’ (Koran 9:33)”

Muslim logic is: The infidels do not understand. They are blinded by Satan. Muslims have to use violence to help the infidels. The infidels should be in terror of Allah and the coercive power of the Islamic Nation. It is for their own good. Allah is great! And has the ability to do all things. And Allah knows best!

That final phrase ends every Islamic verdict and the deeds of jihad follow. Further disagreement is impossible.

Throughout the West, the infidels did not understand! The purpose of the cartoon riots was not to reassert the lost human rights of Muslims under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but to proclaim the political supremacy of Muslims over the infidels and show the willingness of Muslims to support jihad and bring the infidels under their control. Put negatively, the purpose of the cartoon riots was to declare the inferiority of infidels, who should know their place and commit no more ‘fitna’. That is…the infidels needed to learn not to disagree with Mohammed in public.

Kenneth Roberts is interested in global affairs, military history and the music of Mozart.

Permalink
Copyright © 2009 CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com 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.

KAFIR
The language of Islam is dualistic. As an example, there is never any reference to humanity as a unified whole. Instead there is a division into believer and kafir (unbeliever). Humanity is not seen as one body, but is divided into whether the person believes Mohammed is the prophet of Allah or not.

Kafir is what the Koran and Islam call the unbelievers. Kafir is the worst word in the human language.

The Koran defines the kafir and says that the kafir is:

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

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

Punished- 25:77 Say to the kafirs: My Lord does not care for you or your prayers. You have rejected the truth, so sooner or later, a punishment will come.

Beheaded- 47:4 When you encounter the kafirs on the battlefield, cut off their heads until you have thor-oughly defeated them and then take the prisoners and tie them up firmly.

Confused- 6:25 Some among them listen to you [Mohammed], but We have cast veils over their [kafirs] hearts and a heaviness to their ears so that they cannot understand our signs [the Koran].

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

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

Annihilated- 6:45 So the kafirs were annihilated. All praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds.

Killed- 4:91 If they do not keep away from you or offer you peace or withdraw their hostilities, then seize them and kill them wherever they are. We give you complete authority over them.

Crucified- 5:33 The only reward for those who war against Allah and His messengers and strive to com-mit mischief on the earth is that they will be slain or crucified, have their alternate hands and feet cut off, or be banished from the land. This will be their disgrace in this world, and a great torment shall be theirs in the next except those who repent before you overpower them. Know that Allah is forgiving and merciful.

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

A Muslim is not the friend of a kafir- 3:28 Believers should not take kafirs as friends in preference to other believers. Those who do this will have none of Allah’s protection and will only have themselves as guards. Allah warns you to fear Him for all will return to Him.

A kafir is ignorant- 6:111 Even if We had sent down the angels to them [kafirs], the dead had spoken to them, and We had gathered all things before their eyes, they would not believe unless Allah had willed it, but most of them are ignorant.

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

Disgraced- 37:18 Tell them, “Yes! And you [kafirs] will be disgraced.” a partner of Satan 25:55 And still they worship others besides Allah who can neither help nor hurt them. The kafir is Satan’s ally against Allah. Unclean- 9:28 Oh, believers, only the kafirs are unclean.

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

Stolen from- Bukhari 5,59,537 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.

Raped- Ishaq 759 [Mohammed’s official biography] 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.

Christians and Jews are infidels, but infidels are kafirs, too. Polytheists are Hindus, but they are also kafirs. The terms infidel and polytheist are religious words. Only the word “kafir” shows the common political treatment of Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, animist, atheist and humanist.

The word kafir should be used instead of “unbeliever”, the standard word. Unbeliever is a neutral term. The Koran defines the kafir and kafir is not a neutral word. A kafir is not merely someone who does not agree with Islam, but a kafir is evil, disgusting, the lowest form of life. Kafirs can be tortured, killed, lied to and cheated. So the usual word “unbeliever” does not reflect the political reality of Islam.

Political correctness, the new state religion, has a word that cannot be uttered (except by the priesthood of modern culture, rappers), the infamous n-word. Our culture has decreed that the n-word is the most derogatory word in the world. Some uber PC intellectuals are even uncomfortable with the use of the term, n-word, so maybe we should use the Orwellian term un-word, instead.

But the n-word (or the un-word) is not remotely the worst word in the human language. If I yell at someone, “You n-word” I am expressing a personal opinion and I will be called a racist, unless I am a rapper. The term has only my personal force, so it is a personal insult and a slur without an exact meaning.

There is a far worse word used by Islam throughout the Koran–kafir. If you look into any of the Korans at a bookstore, you won’t find the word “kafir”, instead you will find “unbeliever”. But this translation is wrong. The actual Arabic word is kafir and it is self-defined in the Koran by its usage. The Koran says that a kafir can be robbed, enslaved, raped, mocked, insulted, cursed, tortured, crucified, killed, and plotted against. The kafir is the lowest form of life.

The Koran reserves it finest imagery for the torture of kafirs in Hell. Allah hates the kafir. What is the terrible moral failing that attracts the hatred of Allah? Murder, rape, theft, lying? Very few of those in Hell will be there for moral failings. No, Allah’s main reason to create Hell (94% of the people in Hell are there for being kafirs) is to torture the worst people in the universe, the kafirs. And what makes a kafir? Anyone who does not think that Mohammed is the messenger of Allah.

According to the Koran there are several crimes worse than mass murder and theft and they all have to do with not believing Mohammed. The absolute worst crime is apostasy, or denying that Mohammed was the prophet of Allah after becoming a Muslim. A kafir is one who never believed in Mohammed in the first place.

Since there is only evil for kafirs and people fear political Islam, most kafirs imagine that there is a third category for them in Islamic doctrine. They imagine some “safe place”exists in Islam. There are Christian and Jewish dhimmis who claim that since they are called the People of the Book in the Koran, they are safe. But read more closely, if the Christian or Jew does not believe that Mohammed is the final prophet of the Christians and the Jews, then they are kafirs too. Islam only accepts one kind of person, those who believe Mohammed.

Dhimmis suffer from the Stockholm syndrome. The power and brutality within the duality of political Islam makes dhimmis submit to Islamic power. They defend Islam even though it has a formal doctrine that states unequivocally that Allah says they are inferior beings and not really human beings.

If you don’t believe in Mohammed, there is no safe place in Islam. In the end there are only kafirs and Muslims. The dhimmis who believe in a safe place are finally absorbed into Islam over a long enough period of time. In this way all countries with Muslims finally become Islamic.

The word kafir is a powerful political tool. Approach the nice Muslim at work and ask him if you are a kafir. It all comes to a crunch at this fine razor’s edge. A kafir is hated by Allah and that establishes the separation between Islam and us.

Ask the dhimmis, the friends who apologize for and defend Islam, if they are a kafir. If they don’t know what that is, then explain it to them. Kafir makes Islam extremely personal. Kafir is far, far worse than the n-word. The n-word is only what you think while kafir is what Allah thinks. Kafir is the most negative word in the human language.

Copyright © 2008, CBSX, Inc dba politicalislam.com
You may distribute this as you wish, please do not edit and give us credit.

Pop Quiz

Click these links after you read the article and see if you can judge which school of thought they represent.

Islamic war ethics
Women as jihadi martyrs
Is the Qur’an Hate Propaganda?
What is Sunnah?
Esposito and Others
The Islamization of Europe
On wife beating
Archbishop of Canterbury on Sharia law in the UK
The Koran Sura 14 “Abraham”

Let’s Go to School

There are three schools of thought with regards to Islam. The first school is the Islamic school with its many subdivisions. All of its writings are by Muslims.

The second is the Academic school. This is taught in universities. Courses of study include Islamic art, architecture, poetry, literature, Sufism (mystical Islam), history without jihad or victims. History and current events are described from a Western point of view using our political theory. The history of the victims of jihad is never mentioned. Islam is seen as a part of our civilization. The Trilogy source documents are not studied, only the comments by other scholars.

The Academic school cannot connect the dots of Islamic current events, nor explain the “why” (the motivation, thinking or world-view) of Islamic history and can never predict future Islamic actions. All Islamic actions are explained as a reaction to the West. In a sense, the Academic school only references itself for explanations, never the Islamic texts. Government policy and media reports are all based upon the Academic school.

The third school of thought is the Foundational school. The Foundational school uses the source documents of Islam to explain the world-view of Islamic civilization. It sees all Islam as motivated by the Koran and the Sunna of Mohammed. The history of Islam is interpreted as an expression of the political doctrine of Islam.

The Foundational school studies the history of the victims of Islam. This includes the history of slaves and dhimmis (semi-slaves). Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists were dhimmis.

The Foundational school can see the pattern, connect the dots, of Islamic current events, explain Islamic history and predict possible outcomes for the future. The reason is simple. The Foundational school studies the same texts that Islamic leaders use as a guide. The Foundational school writing quotes the Koran and Mohammed and includes the suffering of the victims.

It is very easy to tell which school you are dealing with. If there is no mention of Allah/Koran or Mohammed, then the writing is out of the Academic school. For instance, notice the next time you hear a talking head on TV or read an article about Islam. They always describe Islamic actions based upon what we did. Islamic words and deeds are only given in context of our foreign policy. It is what America and the Israelis did that determines what Islam does.

The Academic school is actually a very bigoted way of looking at Islam. Muslims are viewed as not really having any internal motivations. Islam is just seen as our bad child. If we could only treat the child better with a better foreign policy then the bad child would be good.

The Islamic school is written by believers. The Academic school is written by dhimmis, non-Muslims who serve and defer to Islam, and the Foundational school is written by kafirs.

If the words Allah/Koran or Mohammed are used, then the writer is either a Muslim or a kafir. If the words are about how wonderful Islam is then, the writer is a Muslim. If the article is critical and mentions Allah/Koran or Mohammed, then the writer is a kafir from the Foundational school.

Discussion about the schools of thought is critical to our survival. The Academic school has no way to defend our civilization. The Academic school has only one response to Islam. How can we change and please you? The Academic school says that we know we are doing it badly, because Islam is displeased. This is the language of our State Department and the media.

Submission is the formal policy of the Academic school. It is a pathetic irony that the “Academic” school is the only one that is ignorant of the doctrine of political Islam.

Copyright © politicalislam.com, 2008

Permalink: https://politicalislam.com/lets-go-to-school/ ‎

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