Islam is misunderstood in Israel and the West (i.e. in societies which subscribe to ideals of modern western civilisation, of freedom of the individual and human rights, such as found in Britain, Japan, Taiwan, and the USA amongst others ). Islam does not recognise the individual or individual rights, but it does make a differerence between the believer and the unbeliever. Muslim ethics and morality are dual, based on whether you belong to dar al islam (house of islam) or dar al harb (house of war), whether your are a muslim or an enemy.
The West does not understand the duality of islamic ethics and can not understand why it never succeeds in appeasing political islam, why radical muslims always have a grievance, why nothing that western societies do for muslims like accepting refugees from wars in islamic countries is ever appreciated by those the West tries the hardest to appease, the radical muslims.
If you read the interview below, you will begin to understand why just as with Mussolini and Hitler there was no room for appeasement or compromise. The only way with a radical ideology is to either utterly destroy it, or to learn to live with it in an armed peace, something approaching Israel's present reality with Gaza.
When muslims come to live in the West they must be encouraged to assimilate, to be loyal to their new lands. They should not be educated at public expense by muslim clerics who are overwhelmingly trained in radical islamc madrassas. Muslim institutions that are identified as radical need to be shut down (Israel must itself take heed. Raed Salah and his northern league are radicalising arab youth in Israel every bit as much as is happening in european countries).
Israel was just as unable to understand islam as western powers, subject to the same misnomers that there could be a true peace with arabs if it gave concessions and territory away. The second intifada which followed hard on the heels of Baraks offer to withdraw from almost all of Judea and Samaria (after having withdrawn from Lebanon and reaped its reward there in the form of Hezbollah terror against the northern border).
The average Israeli just as the average Briton or American now understands the threat of radicals schooled in islam. But Western leaders schooled in the politics of appeasement, of guilt for imperialist crimes of over a century ago still don't understand.
The West has to rid itself of its guilt complex towards muslims and islam. Islam is a religion every bit as imperialistic as ever the West was. The West needs to learn about the Koran and the arab slavers, of racist attacks against black people in arab countries, of arab and islamic slavery which continues today.
DM
FP: Tell us a bit about the Center for the Study of Political Islam.
Warner: The Center for the Study of Political Islam is a group of
scholars who are devoted to the scientific study of the foundational
texts of Islam—Koran, Sira (life of Mohammed) and Hadith (traditions of
Mohammed). There are two areas to study in Islam, its doctrine and
history, or as CSPI sees it—the theory and its results. We study the
history to see the practical or experimental results of the doctrine.
CSPI seems to be the first group to use statistics to study the
doctrine. Previous scientific studies of the Koran are primarily devoted
to Arabic language studies.
Our first principle is that Koran, Sira and Hadith must be taken as a
whole. We call them the Islamic Trilogy to emphasize the unity of the
texts.
Our major intellectual breakthrough is to see that dualism is the
foundation and key to understanding Islam. Everything about Islam comes
in twos starting with its foundational declaration: (1) there is no god
but Allah and (2) Mohammed is His prophet. Therefore, Islam is Allah
(Koran) and the Sunna (words and deeds of Mohammed found in the Sira and
Hadith).
Endless ink has been wasted on trying to answer the question of what is
Islam? Is Islam the religion of peace? Or is the true Islam a radical
ideology? Is a moderate Muslim the real Muslim?
This reminds a scientist of the old arguments about light. Is light a
particle or is light a wave? The arguments went back and forth. Quantum
mechanics gave us the answer. Light is dualistic; it is both a particle
and a wave. It depends upon the circumstances as to which quality
manifests. Islam functions in the same manner.
Our first clue about the dualism is in the Koran, which is actually two
books, the Koran of Mecca (early) and the Koran of Medina (later). The
insight into the logic of the Koran comes from the large numbers of
contradictions in it. On the surface, Islam resolves these
contradictions by resorting to “abrogation”. This means that the verse
written later supersedes the earlier verse. But in fact, since the Koran
is considered by Muslims to be the perfect word of Allah, both verses
are sacred and true. The later verse is “better,” but the earlier verse
cannot be wrong since Allah is perfect. This is the foundation of
dualism. Both verses are “right.” Both sides of the contradiction are
true in dualistic logic. The circumstances govern which verse is used.
For example:
(Koran of Mecca) 73:10: Listen to what they [unbelievers] say with patience, and leave them with dignity.
From tolerance we move to the ultimate intolerance, not even the Lord of the Universe can stand the unbelievers:
(Koran of Medina) 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 unbelievers’ hearts, cut off their heads and even the tips of
their fingers!”
All of Western logic is based upon the law of contradiction—if two
things contradict, then at least one of them is false. But Islamic logic
is dualistic; two things can contradict each other and both are true.
No dualistic system may be measured by one answer. This is the reason
that the arguments about what constitutes the “real” Islam go on and on
and are never resolved. A single right answer does not exist.
Dualistic systems can only be measured by statistics. It is futile to
argue one side of the dualism is true. As an analogy, quantum mechanics
always gives a statistical answer to all questions.
For an example of using statistics, look at the question: what is the
real jihad, the jihad of inner, spiritual struggle or the jihad of war?
Let’s turn to Bukhari (the Hadith) for the answer, as he repeatedly
speaks of jihad. In Bukhari 97% of the jihad references are about war
and 3% are about the inner struggle. So the statistical answer is that
jihad is 97% war and 3% inner struggle. Is jihad war? Yes—97%. Is jihad
inner struggle? Yes—3%. So if you are writing an article, you can make a
case for either. But in truth, almost every argument about Islam can be
answered by: all of the above. Both sides of the duality are right.
FP: Why, in your view, is there so much ignorance about the history and doctrine of political Islam in the West?
Warner: First, let’s see how ignorant we are about the history of
political Islam. How many Christians can tell you how Turkey or Egypt
became Islamic? What happened to the Seven Churches of Asia mentioned in
Paul’s letters? Find a Jew who can tell you the Jewish history of
dhimmitude (second class citizens who serve Islam). What European knows
that white women were the highest priced slaves in Mecca? Everyone knows
how many Jews Hitler killed, but find an unbeliever who can tell you
how many died in jihad over the last 1400 years.
We are just as ignorant about the doctrine of Islam. An FBI agent gets
two hours of training on Islam and most of that is how not to offend the
imam. We are fighting in Iraq. Who utilizes the political, military
doctrine of Islam to plan strategy? Who can find a single rabbi or
minister who has read the Koran, Sira and Hadith? What governor,
senator, congressmen or military leader displays a knowledge of the
political doctrine of Islam? Try to find a course available in a college
about Islamic political doctrine and ethics. Graduates are schooled in
Islamic art, architecture, poetry, Sufism, and a glorious history that
ignores the suffering of the innocent unbelievers. Graduates read
comments about the Koran and Hadith, but do not read the actual
doctrine.
FP: So why this ignorance?
Warner: Let’s start at the beginning. When Islam burst out of Arabia
into a decaying Byzantine world, the unbelievers recorded it as an
Arabic invasion. Similarly, the invasion of Eastern Europe was by Turks;
the invasion of Spain was by Moors. Our scholars were incapable of even
naming the invaders.
Mohammed killed every single intellectual or artist who opposed him. It
was fear that drove the vast majority of the media not to reprint the
Mohammed cartoons, not some imagined sensitivity. Fear is a fabulous
basis for ignorance, but that is not enough to explain it all. What
accounts for the almost psychotic aversion to knowledge about Islam?
Beyond fear is the realization that political Islam is profoundly
foreign to us.
Let’s examine the ethical basis of our civilization. All of our politics
and ethics are based upon a unitary ethic that is best formulated in
the Golden Rule:
Treat others as you would be treated.
The basis of this rule is the recognition that at one level, we are all
the same. We are not all equal. Any game of sports will show that we do
not have equal abilities. But everyone wants to be treated as a human
being. In particular, we all want to be equal under the law and be
treated as social equals. On the basis of the Golden Rule—the equality
of human beings—we have created democracy, ended slavery and treat women
and men as political equals. So the Golden Rule is a unitary ethic. All
people are to be treated the same. All religions have some version of
the Golden Rule except Islam.
FP: So how is Islam different in this context?
Warner: The term “human being” has no meaning inside of Islam. There is
no such thing as humanity, only the duality of the believer and
unbeliever. Look at the ethical statements found in the Hadith. A Muslim
should not lie, cheat, kill or steal from other Muslims. But a Muslim
may lie, deceive or kill an unbeliever if it advances Islam.
There is no such thing as a universal statement of ethics in Islam.
Muslims are to be treated one way and unbelievers another way. The
closest Islam comes to a universal statement of ethics is that the
entire world must submit to Islam. After Mohammed became a prophet, he
never treated an unbeliever the same as a Muslim. Islam denies the truth
of the Golden Rule.
By the way, this dualistic ethic is the basis for jihad. The ethical
system sets up the unbeliever as less than human and therefore, it is
easy to kill, harm or deceive the unbeliever.
Now mind you, unbelievers have frequently failed at applying the Golden
Rule, but we can be judged and condemned on its basis. We do fall short,
but it is our ideal.
There have been other dualistic cultures. The KKK comes to mind. But the
KKK is a simplistic dualism. The KKK member hates all black people at
all times; there is only one choice. This is very straightforward and
easy to see.
The dualism of Islam is more deceitful and offers two choices on how to
treat the unbeliever. The unbeliever can be treated nicely, in the same
way a farmer treats his cattle well. So Islam can be “nice”, but in no
case is the unbeliever a “brother” or a friend. In fact, there are some
14 verses of the Koran that are emphatic—a Muslim is never a friend to
the unbeliever. A Muslim may be “friendly,” but he is never an actual
friend. And the degree to which a Muslim is actually a true friend is
the degree to which he is not a Muslim, but a hypocrite.
FP: You mentioned earlier how logic is another point of profound difference. Can you touch on that?
Warner: To reiterate, all of science is based upon the law of
contradiction. If two things contradict each other, then at least one of
them has to be false. But inside of Islamic logic, two contradictory
statements can both be true. Islam uses dualistic logic and we use
unitary scientific logic.
Since Islam has a dualistic logic and dualistic ethics, it is completely
foreign to us. Muslims think differently from us and feel differently
from us. So our aversion is based upon fear and a rejection of Islamic
ethics and logic. This aversion causes us to avoid learning about Islam
so we are ignorant and stay ignorant.
Another part of the aversion is the realization that there is no
compromise with dualistic ethics. There is no halfway place between
unitary ethics and dualistic ethics. If you are in a business deal with
someone who is a liar and a cheat, there is no way to avoid getting
cheated. No matter how nice you are to a con man, he will take advantage
of you. There is no compromise with dualistic ethics. In short, Islamic
politics, ethics and logic cannot be part of our civilization. Islam
does not assimilate, it dominates. There is never any “getting along”
with Islam. Its demands never cease and the demands must be met on
Islam’s terms: submission.
The last reason for our aversion to the history of political Islam is
our shame. Islam put over a million Europeans into slavery. Since
Muslims can’t be enslaved, it was a white Christian who was the Turkish
sultan’s sex slave. These are things that we do not want to face.
Jews don’t want to acknowledge the history of political Islam, because
they were dhimmis, second class citizens or semi-slaves, just like the
Christians. Jews like to recall how they were advisors and physicians to
powerful Muslims, but no matter what the Jew did or what position he
held, he was still a dhimmi. There is no compromise between being equal
and being a dhimmi
Why should a Hindu want to recall the shame of slavery and the
destruction of their temples and cities? After Hindu craftsmen built the
Taj Mahal, the Muslim ruler had their right hands cut off so that they
could not build anything as beautiful for anyone else. The practice of
suttee, the widow throwing herself on the husband’s funeral pyre, came
about as a response to the rape and brutality of the Islamic jihad as it
sweep over ancient Hindustan.
Blacks don’t want to face the fact that it was a Muslim who rounded up
their ancestors in Africa to wholesale to the white slave trader. The
Arab is the true master of the African. Blacks can’t accept the common
bond they share with whites: that both Europeans and Africans were
slaves under Islam. Blacks like to imagine Islam is their counterweight
to white power, not that Islam has ruled them for 1400 years.
Dualistic logic. Dualistic ethics. Fear. Shame. There is no compromise.
These are the reasons we don’t want to know about Islam’s political
history, doctrine or ethics.
FP So is there such a thing as non-political Islam?
Warner: Non-political Islam is religious Islam. Religious Islam is what a
Muslim does to avoid Hell and go to Paradise. These are the Five
Pillars—prayer, charity to Muslims, pilgrimage to Mecca, fasting and
declaring Mohammed to be the final prophet.
But the Trilogy is clear about the doctrine. At least 75% of the Sira
(life of Mohammed) is about jihad. About 67% of the Koran written in
Mecca is about the unbelievers, or politics. Of the Koran of Medina, 51%
is devoted to the unbelievers. About 20% of Bukhari’s Hadith is about
jihad and politics. Religion is the smallest part of Islamic
foundational texts.
Political Islam’s most famous duality is the division of the world into
believers, dar al Islam, and unbelievers, dar al harb. The largest part
of the Trilogy relates to treatment of the unbelievers, kafirs. Even
Hell is political. There are 146 references to Hell in the Koran. Only
6% of those in Hell are there for moral failings—murder, theft, etc. The
other 94% of the reasons for being in Hell are for the intellectual sin
of disagreeing with Mohammed, a political crime. Hence, Islamic Hell is
a political prison for those who speak against Islam.
Mohammed preached his religion for 13 years and garnered only 150
followers. But when he turned to politics and war, in 10 years time he
became the first ruler of Arabia by averaging an event of violence every
7 weeks for 9 years. His success did not come as a religious leader,
but as a political leader.
In short, political Islam defines how the unbelievers are to be dealt with and treated.
FP: Can you touch briefly on the history of political Islam?
Warner: The history of political Islam starts with Mohammed’s
immigration to Medina. From that point on, Islam’s appeal to the world
has always had the dualistic option of joining a glorious religion or
being the subject of political pressure and violence. After the
immigration to Medina, Islam became violent when persuasion failed.
Jihad entered the world.
After Mohammed’s death, Abu Bakr, the second caliph, settled the
theological arguments of those who wished to leave Islam with the
political action of death by the sword. The jihad of Umar (the second
caliph, a pope-king) exploded into the world of the unbelievers. Jihad
destroyed a Christian Middle East and a Christian North Africa. Soon it
was the fate of the Persian Zoroastrian and the Hindu to be the victims
of jihad. The history of political Islam is the destruction of
Christianity in the Middle East, Egypt, Turkey and North Africa. Half of
Christianity was lost. Before Islam, North Africa was the southern part
of Europe (part of the Roman Empire). Around 60 million Christians were
slaughtered during the jihadic conquest.
Half of the glorious Hindu civilization was annihilated and 80 million Hindus killed.
The first Western Buddhists were the Greeks descended from Alexander the
Great’s army in what is now Afghanistan. Jihad destroyed all of
Buddhism along the silk route. About 10 million Buddhists died. The
conquest of Buddhism is the practical result of pacifism.
Zoarasterianism was eliminated from Persia.
The Jews became permanent dhimmis throughout Islam.
In Africa over 120 million Christians and animists have died over the last 1400 years of jihad.
Approximately 270 million nonbelievers died over the last 1400 years for
the glory of political Islam. These are the Tears of Jihad which are
not taught in any school.
FP: How have our intellectuals responded to Islam?
Warner: The basis of all the unbeliever’s thought has collapsed in the
face of Islamic political thought, ethics and logic. We have already
mentioned how our first intellectuals could not even name the invaders
as Muslims. We have no method of analysis of Islam. We can’t agree on
what Islam is and have no knowledge about our suffering as the victims
of a 1400-year jihad.
Look at how Christians, Jews, blacks, intellectuals and artists have
dealt with Islamic doctrine and history. In every case their primary
ideas fail.
Christians believe that “love conquers all.” Well, love does not conquer
Islam. Christians have a difficult time seeing Islam as a political
doctrine, not a religion. The sectarian nature of Christian thought
means that the average non-Orthodox Christian has no knowledge or
sympathy about the Orthodox Christian’s suffering.
Jews have a theology that posits a unique relationship between Jews and
the creator-god of the universe. But Islam sees the Jews as apes who
corrupted the Old Testament. Jews see no connection between Islam’s
political doctrine and Israel.
Black intellectuals have based their ideas on the slave/victim status
and how wrong it was for white Christians to make them slaves. Islam has
never acknowledged any of the pain and suffering it has caused in
Africa with its 1400-year-old slave trade. But blacks make no attempt to
get an apology from Muslims and are silent in the presence of Islam.
Why? Is it because Arabs are their masters?
Multiculturalism is bankrupt against Islam’s demand for every
civilization to submit. The culture of tolerance collapses in the face
of the sacred intolerance of dualistic ethics. Intellectuals respond by
ignoring the failure.
Our intellectuals and artists have been abused for 1400 years. Indeed,
the psychology of our intellectuals is exactly like the psychology of
the abused wife, the sexually abused child or rape victim. Look at the
parallels between the response of abuse victims and our intellectuals.
See how violence has caused denial.
The victims deny that the abuse took place: Our media never reports the
majority of jihad around the world. Our intellectuals don’t talk about
how all of the violence is connected to a political doctrine.
The abuser uses fear to control the victim: What was the reason that
newspapers would not publish the Mohammed cartoon? Salman Rushdie still
has a death sentence for his novel. What “cutting edge” artist creates
any artistic statement about Islam? Fear rules our intellectuals and
artists.
The victims find ways to blame themselves: We are to blame for the
attacks on September 11, 2001. If we try harder Muslims will act nicer.
We have to accommodate their needs.
The victim is humiliated: White people will not talk about how their
ancestors were enslaved by Islam. No one wants to claim the victims of
jihad. Why won’t we claim the suffering of our ancestors? Why don’t we
cry about the loss of cultures and peoples? We are too ashamed to care.
The victim feels helpless: “What are we going to do?” “We can’t kill 1.3
billion people.” No one has any understanding or optimism. No one has
an idea of what to try. The only plan is to “be nicer.”
The victim turns the anger inward: What is the most divisive issue in
today’s politics? Iraq. And what is Iraq really about? Political Islam.
The Web has a video about how the CIA and Bush planned and executed
September 11. Cultural self-loathing is the watchword of our
intellectuals and artists.
We hate ourselves because we are mentally molested and abused. Our
intellectuals and artists have responded to the abuse of jihad just as a
sexually abused child or a rape victim would respond. We are quite
intellectually ill and are failing at our job of clear thinking. We
can’t look at our denial.
FP: So summarize for us why it is so crucial for us to learn the doctrine of political Islam.
Warner: Political Islam has annihilated every culture it has invaded or
immigrated to. The total time for annihilation takes centuries, but once
Islam is ascendant it never fails. The host culture disappears and
becomes extinct.
We must learn the doctrine of political Islam to survive. The doctrine
is very clear that all forms of force and persuasion may and must be
used to conquer us. Islam is a self-declared enemy of all unbelievers.
The brilliant Chinese philosopher of war, Sun Tsu, had the dictum—know
the enemy. We must know the doctrine of our enemy or be annihilated.
Or put another way: if we do not learn the doctrine of political Islam,
our civilization will be annihilated just as Egypt’s Coptic civilization
was annihilated.
Since unbelievers must know the doctrine of political Islam to survive,
CSPI has written all of its books in simple English. Our books are
scholarly, but easy to read. As an example, anyone who can read a
newspaper can pick up A Simple Koran and read and understand it. It is
not “dumbed down” and contains every single word of the original.
Not only is the language simple, but logic has been used to sort and
categorize. Context and chronology have been restored. The result is a
Koran that is an epic story ending in triumph over all enemies of Allah.
All of our books and philosophy may be found at our center's website.
Islam declares that we are the enemies of Allah. If we do not learn the
political doctrine of Islam we will end up just like the first victims
of Islam—the tolerant, polytheist Arabs of Saudi Arabia who became the
Wahabbis (a very strict branch of Islam) of today, the most intolerant
culture on the face of the earth.
FP: Bill Warner, thank you for joining us today.
Warner: Jamie, thank you for your kindness and efforts.
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=297