| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
A neat encapsulation of and new approach to the ideology of Islamic supremacism by Bill Warner in a FrontPage interview with Jamie Glazov:
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Bill Warner, the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI). CSPI’s goal is to teach the doctrine of political Islam through its books and it has produced a series on its focus. Mr. Warner did not write the CSPI series, but he acts as the agent for a group of scholars who are the authors.FP: Bill Warner, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Warner: Thank you Jamie for this opportunity.
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.
Posted by Robert at February 6, 2007 5:53 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
I guess that means that Robert, Hugh and we jihadwatchers are smart and courageous, at least as compared with all the other lily-livered morons out there in dhimmi-ville.
I should add that while I agreed with everything Warner said, on a positive note the contemporary infighting in Islamic countries leads me to wonder if Islamic culture is markedly weaker now than it was in the past.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 6, 2007 6:35 AM
What percentage is Allah god and Allah devil?
Posted by: David England at February 6, 2007 6:40 AM
270,000,000 victims of jihad over the past 1,400 years? Can anyone recommend a book, un-islamophilic book that tells it like it is and details these slaughters?
It makes me sick to think that after all this, people have the nerve to call islam a religion of peace. When are there going to be laws made against jihad denial?
Posted by: senatortombstone at February 6, 2007 6:56 AM
Warner makes a very strong case for a revision of Western immigration policies.
at February 6, 2007 7:03 AM
So with dualism in political Islam, the "believer" can pretty much do as he pleases. Lie at one time and tell the truth at another time. How convenient. How Muhammudian.
Posted by: hydrocodone2 at February 6, 2007 7:07 AM
"almost every argument about Islam can be answered by: all of the above."
Another reason that the Koran could not have been divinely inspired.
at February 6, 2007 7:13 AM
"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."
This makes problematic the Pope's hope, conveyed in the Chiessa article over at Dhimmiwatch:
"....that, if we want to find a common basis, we must get out of religious dialogue to give humanistic foundations to this dialogue, because only these are universal and shared by all human beings. Humanism is a universal factor; faiths can be factors of clash and division."
In any case, this is an excellent article. Something about it makes me profoundly horrified all over again at the monstrosity that is Islam. If it has that effect on me, already knowing this stuff, I wonder how it will strike the uninitiated. Definitely one to pass around.
Posted by: Caroline at February 6, 2007 7:23 AM
The cult of Mo' Mo' Mo' picks up where Hitler left off. Islam is a "master race" ideology originally intended for Arab conquests. To give them theological justification. It's much bigger now. Any Muslim, anywhere, can play the "master race" game. That the entire planet is theirs.
Typified in Australia's top Imam Hilali's remarks that Muslims were in Australia first (Afghans with their camels arrived before any Europeans) and have more claim to Australia than the Anglo-Celts who founded it because they came as convicts. Don't look for logic or truth from such loony fanatics.
Posted by: dennisw at February 6, 2007 7:42 AM
Jamie Glazov's interview with Bill Warner is definitely worth a full read. Warner sets things out very clearly, deconstructing Islam's duality, and even providing a precise measure to whether jihad is about war or about inner struggle. Citing Bukari, Warner says 97% of the references are to war and only 3% to inner struggle. I would love to know if he's done a similar assessment of the percentage of the Koran that speaks to nonaggression and acceptance of the other vs the triumphalist.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at February 6, 2007 7:43 AM
Warner: “The last reason for our aversion to the history of political Islam is our shame.”
“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.”
Islam: The World’s Dirty Little Secret.
at February 6, 2007 7:57 AM
The Koran is a book of domination and war. I don't see how it's a religion at all ? The object is to kill and be killed for some kind of mortal reward in a immortal celestial kingdom. There are no componants of mortality in Heaven !
Posted by: Jeff at February 6, 2007 8:00 AM
This approach is very good and fresh. This is genius and real insight into Islam's internal logic AND political implications for infidels
Posted by: dennisw at February 6, 2007 8:21 AM
"The Koran is a book of domination and war. I don't see how it's a religion at all ?"
Its profoundly more cult-like than religion-like.
at February 6, 2007 8:26 AM
Re: The Study of Political Islam
Very interesting article. It is true that rape victims and children who are sexually attacked very often blame themselves for the crime as the perp rarely takes responsibility for the crime. Often there is post-traumatic stress (similar to that experienced by soldiers in combat) that cripples the victim. The supremacism in Islam is the essence of self-serving disguised as disinterested principle, and Islam has similarities to the criminal mind in its attitude toward unbelievers-victims.
However, times are changing and many people are now very aware of the supremacist nature of this "religion". It does not promote the universal practice the golden rule.
I know for a fact that Jews practice the golden rule. Almost every break I've gotten in my life (I grew-up blue-collar-Irish-Catholic) has come from a Jewish person. (A Jewish guy helped me a lot to acclimate to the requirements of college. He did it to help me.) I'm not naieve, and know that some Jews are scumbags (just as some Irish are) but the standard of the golden rule is with them. The universal practice of the golden rule is the standard of ethics of all religious groups-except Islam. There it only applies to Muslims. Only the rule of submission is really universal with them.
at February 6, 2007 8:28 AM
lets see how many "scholars and scientists" it takes for thenm to realize that islam is the a cult of death. l am thrilled to read the interview with Jamie Glazov and perhaps in time these scholars will catch on to the real truth about islam.
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at February 6, 2007 8:50 AM
RE: Frank
Yes Jews believe in the Golden Rule. As one of our foremost scholars, Hillel, said, "Treat others as you would treat yourself. Everything else in the Talmud is merely comment on that premise."
It is nearly a practical impossibility for Western intellectuals to deal with the concept of "duality." They have no basis on which to assess the concept and usually deny it's very existence. Especially true of the Europeans.
Dhimmitude comes to those who wait; those who act may be able to avoid it.
Posted by: spinoneone at February 6, 2007 9:04 AM
Bill Warner cites 73:10 as a counterpoint, as some kind of contradiction, with 8:12. It is no contradiction at all, and there is no need to postulate such a clear duality between the Meccan and Medinan periods. Warner's analogy to the wave-particle duality in physics is dubious.
Warner is correct to the extent that the choice of tactics differs depending on circumstances, e.g., how much power Muslims have vs the non-Muslims. However, the major policies, strategies, and the long term goals are exactly the same in both Meccan and Medinan periods. The only thing that differs is that Muhammad had more power in the latter period and was able to implement some of the policies that he was hinting at in the earlier period.
73:10 is not a verse of peace. The passage is supposedly Allah telling Muhammad to bide his time. The very next verse states:
73:11. "And leave Me Alone to deal with the beliers (those who deny My Verses, etc.), and those who are in possession of good things of life. And give them respite for a little while."
Apparent contradiction resolved.
Warner states:
"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."
I like the approach of quantifying these aspects. I look forward to more reports from this research group. However, a sharp asymmetry such as 97% vs 3% hardly constitutes what one would call a duality--which implies a fair balance, two sides to a coin, two faces, etc. Islam is two-faced alright, but the fact 97% of the instances of jihad in Bukhari deal with warfare means that, all else being equal, one side is a lot more important than the other.
It would also be useful to examine qualitatively the level of importance ascribed to those jihad instances. I know off-hand that several of them refer to the mujahid or martyr being rewarded in paradise, that physical fighting jihad is better than the world and all that is in it, that the mujahid is rewarded even for the footsteps his horse takes while grazing, etc. Moreover, the Koran chastises those who "withhold their hands" from fighting in the way of Allah, stating explicitly that those who fight in the way of Allah are "not equal" to those who do not.
at February 6, 2007 9:25 AM
With all this destruction, death and their stating they love death more than we love life, only points to one religion; LUCIFERS.
Posted by: joemike at February 6, 2007 9:42 AM
That's all well and good. But what do we do about the Muslims who want to enslave us? Do we ban Muslim immigration to America? Do we purge our currpupted Middle East studies programs of the taqiyamasters and their dhimmi allies? Do we purge our political institutions like the diseased State dept. of their 5th column of muslims and their apologists? Do we tell the UIND (the UN) to get out of America? Do we demand that Muslims denounce the many passages in the Quran and Hadiths that urge them to kill and enslave us? Do we cut off the jizya to the Muslims?
Posted by: John Sobieski at February 6, 2007 9:47 AM
If the CSPI has a website, please post a link to it on Jihad Watch.
Posted by: Christian at February 6, 2007 9:57 AM
The rest of this article is excellent and I hope to see more work produced from this group. I wish them all the best.
One other comment:
"There are 146 references to Hell in the Koran." --Bill Warner.
Depending on how one scores a reference to hell (how explicit must the reference be?), and how one counts them (do we count two mentions within the same passage as "1" or "2"?), there could be many more. (I counted over 250, including references to "painful doom" etc. which are references to hell)
Posted by: Kab bin Ashraf at February 6, 2007 10:17 AM
For me this was an excellent discussion, the main point in the first few paragraphs that are brought out is that everything that is written into the Quran of Mecca, or Medina as well as the Sira and the Ahadith are equally valid in their interpretations because the word of Allah is considered perfect thus what appears to us infidels as contradictions does not matter to Muslims because no matter what, it is all acceptable. Thus the duality of it makes perfect sence. There is no abrogation of the contraditions because the perfect words of Allah are immutable in Islamic thinking.
Posted by: Mackie at February 6, 2007 10:43 AM
"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." --Bill Warner.
If this is approximately correct--and it appears to me to be a low-ball estimate--then more people have been killed in the name of Islam than have been killed in the name of all other ideologies combined. (This includes Stalin, Mao, Hitler, et al., dealing with much larger populations and much more deadly technology in the twentieth century than were available to Islam during the height of its power).
at February 6, 2007 10:46 AM
"If the CSPI has a website, please post a link to it on Jihad Watch."
Here it is.
http://www.cspipublishing.com/
Posted by: USBeast at February 6, 2007 10:48 AM
Yes! Yes! I have also noted the many DUALISMs in Islam -- I think it is one of the most problematic features of Islam. Everything is set up as opposed dichotomies -- or, more precisely, multiple dichotomies. (Islam has also frequently reminded me of being schizoid, as in psychotic).
Posted by: J.S. at February 6, 2007 10:52 AM
"Do we tell the UIND (the UN) to get out of America?"
This should happen aside from the Islam issue. The UN is being controlled by thugs and despots intent on fleecing democratic societies. After we send the UN packing, all of the democratic nations should resign and form a Democracy Nations Defense League.
Any country that doesn't conform to basic democratic principles need not apply. And don't be looking for any money to be coming their way either.
Posted by: walterc at February 6, 2007 10:56 AM
USBeast:
Thanks for the website on CSPI.
You might want to send your recommendation on the website directly to Robert Spencer via his E mail or his direct comment box on the Jihadwatch website.
Mackie
Posted by: Mackie at February 6, 2007 11:03 AM
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.
Very true. I would recommend that everyone read V. S. Naipaul's book "Among_the_Believers:_An_Islamic_Journey"
where he details exactly that by traveling through lands that were once non-Muslim but were later converted. Very insightful.
at February 6, 2007 1:16 PM
COMPARATIVE TOTALITARIAN IDEOLOGIES – ISLAM AND MARXISM/LENINISM
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.
..................................
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.
_________________________________
This is an excellent analysis, which highlights how Islam shares with other totalitarian political ideologies – particularly Marxism-Leninism – the “abrogation” of the Law of Contradictions to justify the substitution of raw power for logic and the Golden Rule. The Marxist-Leninists attempted to rationalize the logical contradictions of their ideology by resorting to “the Dialectic.” For example, Marxist-Leninist theory promised the eventual “withering away of the state” and its coercive apparatus. However, the Russian Bolshevik revolution actually established the totalitarian “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” ruled by self-appointed Communist Party elites. Joseph Stalin rationalized this obvious contradiction as follows:
We are in favor of the state withering away and at the same time we stand for the strengthening of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which represents the most powerful and mighty authority of all forms of state which have existed up to the present day. The highest possible development of the power of the state: that is the Marxist formula. Is it contradictory? Yes, it is contradictory. But this contradiction is a living thing, and completely reflects Marxist dialectics. (Footnote by Joseph Stalin in Selected Works of Marx and Engels (London, 1942, I, p. 184)
The practical application of this approach to contradiction is well demonstrated by the following quote:
Our humaneness is absolute because at its foundation lie the glorious ideals of abolition of every kind of coercion and oppression. We are permitted to do everything because we are the first in the world to lift the sword not for the sake of enslavement and suppression, but in the name of universal liberty and liberation from slavery. (Grigori Zinoviev in Red Sword, No. 1, August 1919)
As it turns out, Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin were penny ante copycats of a totalitarian political ideology which had been in existence for about 12 centuries before Karl Marx was even born!
at February 6, 2007 1:57 PM
The Seven Churches of Asia were mentioned by St. John, quoting Jesus Christ, in chapters 2-3 of Revelation. Many churches were mentioned by St. Paul too, of course, but this term is peculiar to St. John.
Posted by: XNRES at February 6, 2007 2:24 PM
Let's remember that in all things, even the "moderate" Muslim, and practically speaking any Muslim, is justified in lying about Islam to unbelievers.
Islam's duality allows "Westernized" Muslims to present their practices and beliefs as true Islam. They may even accept that they are so by focusing on the 3% to the exclusion of the 97%. Regardless, they must know of the duality and are forced to present Islam in a false light or risk the consequences from other Muslims.
It is another way that Islam is a cult, not a religion. Members lie about the true nature of their beliefs to potential converts, who can't leave the cult if or when they come to realize the truth due to the threats leveled against apostates.
Posted by: bobnoxious at February 6, 2007 3:05 PM
Kab bin Ashraf,
Good points about the Mecca/Medina "duality" and about the Inner Jihad/Outer Jihad "duality". For all the strengths of Bill Warner's thesis otherwise, I think he is irrationally obsessed with applying the paradigm of duality to every nook and cranny of Islam and therefore even where it seems not to apply.
Posted by: remote_control at February 6, 2007 3:20 PM
Kab bin Ashraf,
Good points about the Mecca/Medina "duality" and about the Inner Jihad/Outer Jihad "duality". For all the strengths of Bill Warner's thesis otherwise, I think he is irrationally obsessed with applying the paradigm of duality to every nook and cranny of Islam and therefore even where it seems not to apply.
Posted by: remote_control
__________________________________________
Once the virus of dualism has infected the logic and ethics of any belief system, whether Islam or Communism, the whole edifice is structurally unsound and dangerous, and like a building infested with termites, borers and dry rot, it needs to be condemned and razed to the ground before it kills someone. This is not an irrational obsession with the paradigm of duality, but rather simple prudence and recognition of a clear and present danger.
Posted by: urbanIIredux at February 6, 2007 3:46 PM
Bill Warner's observations regarding the dualistic nature of Islam can also explain the on-going double standards and flagrant hypocrisy which seem to exemplify Islamic practices (as has been constantly noted by the Infidels at this site and other websites.)
There appears to be a double standard -- one standard (frequently, a lesser one) for Muslims and another standard (a harsher one) for non-Muslims. Thus, in an Islamic world to assess, say, culpability, it becomes imperative to know who the person is who makes the charges. If it's a non-Muslim making a charge against a Muslim, then it's of no account. If, however, it's a Muslim making a charge against a non-Muslim, then it's of paramount importance.
We (the Dhimmis of Canada) see this put into practice on virtually a daily basis here in Canada (and, I must say it is undermining our understanding of "meritocracy" and concepts of "justice").
So, if a Canadian infidel commits an error (suggests that individual X, a Muslim, is a danger to society), and if said allegation turns out to be not sufficiently "confirmed" -- then said "infidels" are to be condemned and punished. There is zero tolerance for any "mistakes" on the part of Infidels. And, if an Infidel makes a mistakes, the Infidel is "guilty! guilty! guilty!"
On the other hand, Muslims are always deemed to be perfectly innocent, no matter what. Infidels are to exercise the utmost patience, tolerance and forbearance whenever Muslims commit "errors" (such as plotting to behead the prime minister). Thus Infidels are expected to manufacture the appropriate exculpatory excuses, explanations, and understandings so as to exonerate the ever perfect, perfect in every way, Muslims.
Today, on CTV, there was a report (the reporter noted that this "news" was leaked to the Globe and Mail and it immediately made it onto the front page) that a law professor (Muslim) at a Canadian university had conducted "research" and discovered that Canadian military personnel were apparently abusing Afghans.
Next I expect to see the Canadians groveling in despair, and rewarding said Muslims millions of dollars. (Oh, and what I will never expect to see, is any Muslim law prof pursuing the "rights" of non-Muslims...now *that* would be contrary to the ethos of Islam).
Posted by: J.S. at February 6, 2007 4:13 PM
I consider what's happening here to be equivalent to a form of religious racism (if one can use such a term (?)). And it raises the question -- will non-Muslims get a fair shake if Muslims are judges, journalists, lawyers, teachers, etc., etc. Who wants to be a non-Muslim in a Muslim supremacist classroom, courtroom, etc?
Posted by: J.S. at February 6, 2007 4:28 PM
urbanIIredux,
I'm not questioning the supreme threat and danger of Islam; I'm questioning the usefulness of applying Bill Warner's paradigm of "dualism" to our analysis of Islam. If you read Kab bin Ashraf's post above (his first one, of February 6, 2007 09:25 AM), you can see a sound basis for the refutation of at least two instances of Warner's paradigm. In fact, Ashraf's citation of the Koran to show how there is not really a Mecca/Medina dualism can be helpful, insofar as the idea that Meccan Islam is peaceful can be a way for Muslim reformers to sneak dangerous Islam back into respectability.
at February 6, 2007 4:59 PM
remote,
What?? As if no one has not noted the Mecca/Medina split?? Are you kidding me? this has been long, long noted by virtually everyone!
I've read all kinds of commentators who have noted that, in Mecca, Mr. Mo was ever so kind and gentle to the un-believers -- that's until the Medina period. In fact, I've read this, written by Arabs, not just Infidels, but *Arab* commentators, translated at MEMRI.org, etc. It's boiler-plate. And the ones who utilize the early period to portray Mr. Mo as ever so tolerant and gentle and accepting are those spreading Da'wa in the West. This is not "manufactured" by western detractors of Islam; it's readily acknowledged by Muslims themselves.
Posted by: J.S. at February 6, 2007 5:41 PM
J.S.
You are not reading my posts very carefully. Where did I say that Warner invented the concept of the Mecca/Medina split?
What I am saying, along with Kab bin Ashraf (you should read his first post above carefully), is that the conventional understanding of this concept of the Mecca/Medina split is misleading, and that the Meccan period of Islam was not peaceful, as that concept has led many in the West (at least those knowledgeable enough to even know about it) to think. In fact, Kab bin Ashraf's post cogently refutes the concept of the Mecca/Medina split -- and Warner's thesis of "dualism" based upon this conventional concept -- altogether, and I quote from Kab bin Ashraf's post:
...the major policies, strategies, and the long term goals are exactly the same in both Meccan and Medinan periods. The only thing that differs is that Muhammad had more power in the latter period and was able to implement some of the policies that he was hinting at in the earlier period.
73:10 is not a verse of peace. The passage is supposedly Allah telling Muhammad to bide his time. The very next verse states:
73:11. "And leave Me Alone to deal with the beliers (those who deny My Verses, etc.), and those who are in possession of good things of life. And give them respite for a little while."
Apparent contradiction resolved.
And, I would add, apparent "dualism" refuted.
Posted by: remote_control at February 6, 2007 5:54 PM
remote_control --
I would submit that Bill Warner's dualism paradigm is indeed critical for understanding both the strengths and the vulnerabilities of totalitarian systems such as Islam and Marxist-Leninist Communism. The dualism with respect to logic and ethics in both systems has many manifestations, three of which include:
1. Dualism facilities the "brainwashing" of the believers with respect to the justification of anything which advances Islam (Communism) and/or the destruction or subjugation of anything which impedes or resists that advance.
2. Dualism lulls the infidels (bourgeoisie) into ignorance and complacency with respect to the true nature of the threat which Islam (Communism) poses to their lives and well being. Because of widespread ignorance and purposeful denial of Islam's (or Communism's) 97% lethality, even 3% sweetness and light is sufficient to pull off the con job.
3. HOWEVER, this same dualism also makes true scientific inquiry and progress very difficult -- if not impossible -- under an Islamic (Communist) regime, resulting in the need for them to acquire the needed scientific and technological means of warfare mainly by espionage and theft from the infidels (bourgeoisie).
I don't recall Bill Warner claiming that the dualism paradigm is the ONLY analytical tool needed in an Islamologist's tool kit, but as an old Kremlinologist, I recognize it as certainly one of the most insightful analytical approaches I have seen applied to the understanding of Totalitarian Political Islam.
at February 6, 2007 6:03 PM
Remote,
We're not talking about "what happened in actuality" or in some historical sense (that's totally western). We're talking about what Islam's believers contend.
Of course the Infidels will say, "the X period was not so peaceful" -- but that's a big "so what???" Who cares what the West thinks? And who cares what Kab -- a protestant? -- thinks??
Here's what a Muslim writes, this is from an intro for Infidels: "The Qur'an is about the length of the New Testament...divided into 114 chapterlike suras of uneven length, with a general arrangement of longer ones followed by shorter ones. This ordering we may call the canonical arrangement. it has NOTHING to do with the chronological sequence of revelations. Muslims ALSO have a chronological ordering of the suras and even of passages within suras. The basic chronology is between the contents revealed in Mecca and in Medina. The Mecca suras are often short, with a dramatic, even urgent quality in the communication of G-d's warning of a coming judgment and admonition to surrender and obey...The Medina suras are longer and contain much material of a legislative and practical sort for the governing of the Islamic state..." This dichotomy was so noticeable that something had to be done -- thus the followers came up with the notion of "abrogation of verses" dependent on whether a verse was written in the Mecca or Medina period (so as to determine which was to be given greater credence to). Again, YOU CANNOT go by the verse numbers -- this DOES not indicate "chronology."
Posted by: J.S. at February 6, 2007 6:20 PM
Also, btw, if history had any truck (as in currency) in the Islamic world, then Mr. Mo would be written off as an historical fiction or an AKA Abul Qasim, a notorious bandit of Jordan, or a composite fictional figure reminiscent of Robin' Hood...in other words, Mr. Mo never existed...He's the creation of an overactive Arab imagination...that would be of the jinn variety...
Posted by: J.S. at February 6, 2007 8:00 PM
I've always been attracted by Edward Gibbon's idea that Mohammed may have believed that the voices in his head were the Angel Gabriel, when he was in Mecca and Khadija was alive to keep an eye on him. Later he became a brutal autocrat and an imposter, making up the messages for his own ends. I suppose it's rather like an idealistic student eventually ending up as a ruthless and amoral corporate raider.
Posted by: wallyUK at February 6, 2007 9:17 PM
J.S.,
"We're not talking about "what happened in actuality" or in some historical sense (that's totally western). We're talking about what Islam's believers contend."
That's often what we have to talk about with regard to the Problem of Islam.
"Of course the Infidels will say, "the X period was not so peaceful" -- but that's a big "so what???" Who cares what the West thinks?"
It matters what the West thinks about the Islam Muslims follow: if the West thinks Islam is blameless and harmless, that obviously matters and influences our policies and actions; and if the West comes to the opposite conclusion, that would be good for our policies and actions with respect to the Problem of Islam, I'm sure you will agree. And as we are all part of the West (or part of the Rest of the world concerned about Islam), we all have our part (some greater than others, of course) in how our predominant view of Islam is evolving.
Posted by: remote_control at February 6, 2007 9:28 PM
But, remote...
Don't you think you've gotta get inside their way of thinking? Isn't that the key to defeating them? Know your enemy. defeat them at their own game. Realize, all the things that Islam wishes to MAKE US think (along with its followers) that Islam is "blameless", that Islam is the sole road to "salvation" etc., etc.... But, we, Pfooo! some of us know that such is not the case! But, we must distinguish -- those who are the Muslims who claim X (and what wiles they use), and those who claim, "NO!" -- the resisters!
Is it not insiders vs outsiders? It is the insiders who say, "Verses were contingent upon the circumstances in Medina or in Mecca..." And what the insiders keep from the outsiders is that the verses will not only vary, but that the insiders will repeat to the outsiders that the "peaceful" verses are the relevant verses (when, in reality, WE the outsiders will know) "NO" this is a LIE, through "verse abrogation," the later verses carry the most weight, NOT the earlier verses, and these claims about "peace" are done only for purposes of conversion! for Da'wa, so as to entrap the unsuspecting.
Only through this insider/outsider knowledge will we be able to defeat the enemy! (oscillate between the 2 points of view!) I think we have to shift between the Muslim POV and the non-Muslim POV. And by seeing this shift, we can then come to predict (AS If we were Muslim) the next move, and thus counter-act it. It's not to adopt or endorse Muslim beliefs (ugh!), but to second-guess, as in a chess game.
Posted by: J.S.
at February 6, 2007 11:20 PM
Isn't it just like western intellectuals to have their chests puffed out in the wrong direction? So a-historical, so pompous, so globally warmed are they. Not even aware of the gun pointed at their backs. Thank-you Mr. Warner and the folks at Jihad Watch for bringing this work to my attention.
Emerson Twain
Posted by: Emerson Twain at February 6, 2007 11:27 PM
or should I say "globally warmed-over." Sorry Hugh, but I couldn't resist.
Emerson Twain
Posted by: Emerson Twain at February 6, 2007 11:36 PM
J.S.,
I'm just referring to the Mecca/Medina thing; I acknowledge the usefulness of the duality concept for other facets of the Muslim mentality. But with the Mecca/Medina thing, I don't think it's that complicated. I don't think the Muslims really believe in a Mecca/Medina split at all. Mecca was simply about waiting to attack while they are weak. Medina was about finally being able to attack after they were strong. Ergo, that split doesn't exist, and we (the PC people among us) should stop believing it does. It is only a lie meant to deceive us.
Posted by: remote_control at February 7, 2007 5:00 AM
Remote,
Thanks for your patience.
J.S.,
Warner had stated:
"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."
Warner claimed that there was a contradiction between 73:10 and 8:12. I demonstrated that there was no contradiction, simply by reading along one more verse after 73:10. There would (arguably) be a contradiction if 73:10 and 8:12 each existed in isolation and their respective textual contexts said nothing else. That is not the case. A reading of both passages (not just the isolated verses but the passages) shows that the Sura 73 passage is, in plain language hardly requiring tafsir, instructing Muhammad to give the unbelievers respite for a little while. The passage goes on to talk about the coming destruction of the disbelievers, references to Allah's past destructions of the disbelievers, etc. If you read the whole Koran, these past (prior to Muhammad's time) destructions of the disbelievers could involve Allah using one group of people (believers) against another (disbelievers). That's a policy hardly inconsistent with the Medinan passage in which 8:12 is embedded, e.g., 8:17 says that at the battle of Badr it was not Muhammad and the Muslims who routed the enemy but rather Allah punishing the disbelievers through the hands of the believers and Muhammad (also see 9:14).
You stated:
"Of course the Infidels will say, "the X period was not so peaceful" -- but that's a big "so what???" Who cares what the West thinks? And who cares what Kab -- a protestant? -- thinks??"
LOL! The contents of the passages are clear enough. A passage that tells Muhammad to bide his time in lieu of some later-to-be-delivered punishment is not in contradiction to a later verse that mentions him delivering precisely such a punishment. Don't like my "protestant" interpretation? Here's the Jalalayn tafsir (a major, mainstream tafsir) of 73:11:
Al-Jalalayn,
"And leave Me [to deal] with the deniers (wa'l-mukadhdhibīna is a supplement to the direct object, or [it is] an object of accompaniment; the meaning is: 'I will avail you of them', they being the doughty [leaders] of Quraysh, those enjoying affluence, and respite them a little, while - they were killed soon afterwards at Badr."
You state:
"It is the insiders who say, "Verses were contingent upon the circumstances in Medina or in Mecca...""
That's what I said in my original post. Here it is, again:
"Warner is correct to the extent that the choice of tactics differs depending on circumstances, e.g., how much power Muslims have vs the non-Muslims. However, the major policies, strategies, and the long term goals are exactly the same in both Meccan and Medinan periods. The only thing that differs is that Muhammad had more power in the latter period and was able to implement some of the policies that he was hinting at in the earlier period."
I hope this clarifies.
at February 7, 2007 8:33 AM
Remote,
"It is only a lie meant to deceive us." Yes, I agree. But it is used ALL the time -- I listened to all these LIARS on CBC (Muslim imams, especially after 9/11) REPEATEDLY asserting that Islam is a Religion of Peace (this is STILL repeated over and over again by the press, by the radio, by the television hosts, by virtually everyone here in Canada). AND they use the so-called "pacifist" verses to demonstrate their point. I think everyone at Jihadwatch (with the exception of the naseems), knows that Islam is not a "religion of peace." But, we're a minority (especially in places such as Canada.)
I do find this article extremely helpful -- especially in (as the article notes) the explanation as to why all the ink has been spilt in trying to figure out "moderate islam?" versus "radical islam?" -- oh, and that's another one, the "moderate/radical" split (equal to the Religion of Peace boiler-plate!)
I wonder if Bush (or the Bush administration) were aware of how Islam actually operates -- would they have been so optimistic about creating an "ally" in Iraq? The notion (unless of course the United States would suddenly become Islamic) is utterly preposterous (given that Islam is more like "da mob" or a criminal gang with ambitions to take over the world.) This closes the door on thinking that Iraq (or any other islamist state) can be "democratized" or develop into a modern society (with a functioning, entrepreneural middle class) free from cronyism and corruption.
Posted by: J.S. at February 7, 2007 11:46 AM
Another note, in addition to the kinds of contradictions one typically encounters with Islam (it's a religion of peace, vs it's a religion of war), I would go even further than Warner. Islam has long reminded me of what Freud termed "primary-process thinking" -- such thinking is found in young children, in adults during a dream state or in psychotics. In this state, there is no waking-world "logic." Water runs up-hill, leaden objects can float, etc., etc. It's the antithesis of "reality." This feature of Islam (its anti-reality, anti-realist orientation) becomes particularly apparent in some of the stories associated with that bandit chieftain, Abul Qasim. One need only read about the "Night Journey" on the back of the buraq, and Qasim's assent into heaven, but to "document" the "reality" there's a reference to a foot imprint, along with the creation of a cavity (since a rock wished to follow Qasim to heaven), etc. It epitomizes a kind of fluidity (?) in thought -- thus, something "is" simply because someone says so. Anyway, my point is that this "religion" flies in the face of western logic / science on a deep, deep level.
Posted by: J.S. at February 7, 2007 1:01 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)