The Study of Political Islam

By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | 2/5/2007

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.

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.

Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's managing editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s Left Illusions. He is also the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left and the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union (McGill-Queens University Press, 2002) and 15 Tips on How to be a Good Leftist. To see his previous symposiums, interviews and articles Click Here. Email him at jglazov@rogers.com.

"Thanks for the good site. I found , "

Christina — March 2, 2008 @ 5:57 AM

"This article must be read and re-read several times for one to attempt to understand this ongoing scourge on mankind. 50 odd years ago before the PC stuff I was taught in school (England) that Islam is spread by the sword. Can they say that now?"

Rick — April 10, 2008 @ 10:55 AM

"Excellent article. Question - what then must the USA and Canadian Government's do to STOP OUR DESTRUCTION? - 100 years ago, one would "Hang" for acts of Insurection and Treason; - those things that Islamofacists are preaching in our Universities today."

Richard — April 10, 2008 @ 12:13 PM

"The interview contains several ideas, many of which I had reached through my own reading, and it also adds some unifying principles; so I find it both consistent and insightful.
Perhaps because it is so fundamental to Western thinking, I had overlooked the contrast between Western Logic and the importance in it of the principle of contradiction and how this contrasts with the Islamic Logic that relies on a notion of duality to provide a different answer in different situations even though those answers are mutually-contradictory.
Warner elaborates on the importance of using statistical methods to get to the root of what is really important in a system, which can have contradictory truths. I appreciate his example of the duality of light and the science of Quantum Theory as analogies.
I don’t know where Warner obtained the historical counts of the number of non-believers murdered in the act of spreading Islam, since he himself says the data was obscured by our own terrified intellectuals [historians]. He must have retrieved the data from Muslim writings, which are likely to exaggerate the Islamic victories. That is a question to which I would like an answer and perhaps the answer can be found by reading the books published by his foundation (CSPI).
Finally Warner explains the basis of Western ignorance of Political Islam, by the fear of all intellectuals to blaspheme Islam and the resulting shame of recalling how Muslims defeated and enslaved Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Animists, Polytheists and Hindus alike. In fact, given the time and opportunity the Muslims never lose!
I have previously reflected that Muslims appear to have difficulty understanding the principle of reciprocity and Warner elegantly explains this in terms of Islam being the only religion which does not incorporate the Golden Rule and the idea that non-believers are less than human.
I find this interview refreshing."

joseflklein — April 10, 2008 @ 12:16 PM

"There is only one step left, its total WAR against Islam's Ideology and their fanatics.

One first foundation step is an International BAN ISLAM petition, for presentation to the WORLD COURT, for Humanitarian Rulings.

http://www.petitononline.com/MYSTIC/petition.html

Dare to be counted."

Lorenzo Bouchard — April 10, 2008 @ 12:48 PM

"This is an exceptionally good article that clearly explains why Islam is like a malignate growth on every society it comes in contact with. It's imparative that we alert our fellow citizens to how serious this threat is to our social order. We must have awareness before we can formulate a effective defence."

Mike Davis — April 10, 2008 @ 1:01 PM

"I've just begun to research on this Islamic Trilogy crap. This was the perfect place for me to start. This is history everyone needs to know about the Political Islam. Thank you so much for spreading the world"

Mary — April 10, 2008 @ 1:23 PM

"Mr.Warner, how cud u be so sure that a muslim never be a friend for unbeliever?, Im a muslim, and i have alot of friend that comes from Christian, Buddha, Hindu, Jew, even Atheis. Please don't generalize it, about what you said above,and what you have been researched about, just don't generalize it. Be alarmed, religion is really connected with the culture, if one Islamic country have fundamentalist culture, then muslim that formed untill now, is gonna be fundamentalist muslim. But if you talk about moderate's country, then the muslim that formed untill now, must be moderate muslims.

So i suggest you to travel all around the world, seek different muslim, then compare, you might found the answer.

DONT GENERALIZE IT."

Shabutie Naraushaun — April 10, 2008 @ 1:35 PM

"And mr.Lorenzo....
ISLAM IS NOT THE ENEMY. If you talk about terrorism, realize of what people on the west have been doing. Take a look of what US did for Iraq, take a look of what Israel have did for Palestine. Get real man.

And too bad, u talk about Fanatism, but you're the one who being fanatic this time. And u said Humanitarian Ruling, tell that to Israel and USA, cause those 2 country have been doing something that i'd like to call, Mentality Terror."

Shabutie Naraushaun — April 10, 2008 @ 1:39 PM

"If "moderate muslims" disagree with the "radical muslim" faction, why do they not stand up and make it clear. Who are these moderates ? What are there names? Publicly stand up and denounce the radical faction! No, they will not out of fear. So without a radical plan to fight and kill all Muslims at the heart of the problem we will be victims. " Death to all Muslims" radical or not. If the moderate muslim will not speak out against radicals than he is a radical. Thanks to the internet and authors like this the west soon will no longer tolerant muslims of any kind. I will not hire them , associate with them, as clearly we are not equal in there eyes. MUSLIM GET OUT OF AMERICA....as judgement day is upon you!

A new age of Radical West is born!"

Carey Howe — April 10, 2008 @ 2:40 PM

"Superb article. Well researched, beautifully explained for both layman and erudite. Thank you."

Sandi Ashworh — April 10, 2008 @ 2:42 PM

"Shabutie, you protesteth too much. The article is discussing the basic philosophy of Islam. If you are a true friend to non-Muslims, then you are not true to Islamic philosophy.
We understand. There were Nazi Party members who did not hate Jews with every part of their souls and therefore were not true to the basic philosophy of their movement.
You call what Israel did to Palestine "terrorism". Yep, draining swamps and creating farms, planting forests where there was desert, building cities where there were ancient ghost towns and factories where there was an unpopulated wilderness, sounds like terrorism!
The problem with political Islam is that it is Nazi ideology on steroids. It is a 1300 year Reich that wishes to destroy every other civilization on the Planet Earth. It's problem is not what Israel does, it is what Israel is. It is that political Islam cannot stand that 5 million Jews are living and prospering, along with a million Israeli Arabs, in a small piece of what had been the Ummah.
And these Jews and Israeli Arabs refuse to be dhimmies!
And the killer is that Israel came into existence because of a deliberate decision by the Ottoman Empire, Muslims, to allow Jews to resettle old Canaan and create a new nation there!
I just hope we don't have to do to Gaza City and to Teheran what we once did to Berlin and Hamburg to stamp out an evil and unreasonable philosophy.
What we Americans did to Iraq was to get rid of the Saddam tyranny and then referee a five sided civil war. (Or is it six sided? Hard to keep track!) Most of the terrorism in Iraq is presently due to Iraqis shooting and bombing each other."

Roger Knight — April 10, 2008 @ 3:40 PM

"Shabutie:

There is no political Islam, there is no Fundamental Islam, there is no Moderate Islam, there's only ISLAM.

All the rest is "TAKIYA" to keep us unaware of your Barbaric World Wide Caliphate as the ultimate aim of Islam over Democratic countries.

In the Spiritual World, ArchAngel Michael declared WAR against the Luciferian forces in the heavens. Don't assume we haven't the right to destroy your Perverted Soul Warping ideology through WAR.
If your Soul wasn't warped, you would feel ashamed of your PAEDOPHILE Prophet and his sick mentality, that shows clearly in the Hadiths and Surras. These are Demonic utterances wrapped under spiritual words. SHAME, SHAME, SHAME ON YOU."

Lorenzo Bouchard — April 10, 2008 @ 3:42 PM

"This is the type of knowledge the Americans school system needs to present to the next generation while we still have time. The future of this country soon will be experiancing the effects of political islam if the leaders of this nation donn't take a stand and do their job. But the american people are just as much to blame this would include myself for our failure to be patriotic for the freedom we fail to charish. We are currently allowing muslems to hold political office and their stance can be deceptive"

Barry — April 10, 2008 @ 4:12 PM

"Mary and Shabutie,, read the Haid about how Mohmad kill a hole family who was jews. read how muhmad got married with his son´s wife.
Do not follow imam or shaik,read by yourself to get the true view about islam.
visit...
Peace.to.all@live.se to get more info"

peace.to.all — April 10, 2008 @ 4:15 PM

"Thank you for presenting the "duality" of Islam. I have had a hard time getting my head around what it is that makes Islam so "absolute" in its view of the world. Please keep up the good work.
Also liked the comments of some of the other folks - very thoughtful. Sorry 'bout that, Shabutie."

Sam Smith — April 10, 2008 @ 11:30 PM

"I'm emailing this concise article to my friends. It pinpoints so well what Islam is all about - Westerners know in their gut Islam is incompatible with their values but can't articulate it as precisely as this article. The word is spreading and it's becoming okay to talk and discuss the threat of Islam to democracy so there is hope."

cathy — April 11, 2008 @ 1:47 AM

"What a great article. This is a MUST STUDY for everyone in America, especially our ignorant government officials who are clueless as to the reality we face. Islam is indeed the enemy in this war. Nazis had the 'Third Reich" and Islam has The Quran", it's that simple. It's about time we put an end to it's 1400 years of butchery. Christians must Stop 'turning the other cheek' or there will be no "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" for anyone. anywhere..."

F. William — April 11, 2008 @ 11:45 AM

"Some additional facts about Islam supporting a exceptional good and informative interview with Bill Warner.

• Islam has been “hijacked” by radicals. In terms of its religious tenets how has this religion been hijacked? Those that are called radicals or Islamofascists are actually orthodox, pious Muslims following the directives of the Qur’an and Hadiths.

• Islam is not a "mere" religion. It is a complete way of life, an all-embracing social, political and legal system that breeds a worldview peculiar unto itself. Islam is what Islam is: Muhammad taught his followers (the umma) that there is nothing holier than jihad warfare, and to offer unbelievers (non-Muslims, the kuffar) three choices: conversion, subjugation (dhimmitude), or death. These are Qur’anic teachings (the absolute words of Allah, not to be questioned but obeyed) and are not marginal doctrines or historic relics—they are part of Islam and have been exercised for over 14 centuries by the majority of the sects of Islam, not only Wahhabis. Sura 9 (including the “Verse of the Sword”) abrogates all previous “peaceful” and “tolerant” verses—it was the last section of the Qur’an revealed to Muhammad. Peace to a believer means the end of jihad, and that will come when the world is living under Shari'a (Islamic) law.

• Core to being a Muslim—radical or moderate—is the spreading of Islam with the intent that all, the whole world, live under Shari'a. Radicals and moderates just go about it in different ways. Radicals shoot people and blow things up. Interestingly, moderates who live in democratic countries demand full democratic privileges to organize and propagate their views, while acknowledging to each other, given the power to do so they would impose their own customs and beliefs and eliminate all others. “True Islam” does not recognize a priori the right of any other religion or worldview to exist.

• I have trouble with those that you identify as peaceful Muslims. People speak of moderate, peaceful Muslims as opposed to fanatics or fundamentalists, but what does “moderate” or “peaceful” mean. If it means those who will not take an active part in jihad and terrorism then there are a lot of them. If it means those who disapprove of jihad, then there are fewer of them. If it means those who speak out against jihad? Then that reduces the number even further. Or is a moderate Muslim one who actively engages the jihadists in a theological battle, trying to convince Muslims that jihad terrorism is wrong on theological grounds? That would leave a handful. “Bad Muslims,” those that you may consider peaceful, who reject the historical teachings of Islam, may be laudable in human terms but does nothing to modify Islam as a doctrine.

• Islam has doctrines of deception to be used when dealing with the kuffar (unbelievers). Not only do theses doctrines five the umma (Islamic community) permission to lie to and deceive the kuffar in matters concerning Islam, these doctrines specifically instruct all Muslims to be missionaries of Islam and spread Shari’a (Islamic law), but to be ready to become soldiers when the occasion calls for it. One is called “taqiyya,” or concealment in which they can lie about what they believed, denying aspects of their faith to protect themselves from unbelievers. The other is “kitman,” or mental reservation, which is telling the truth, but not the whole truth, with the intention to mislead. Examples are:

• When a Muslim tells a kuffar that Islam forbids the killing of innocents but fails to say that only Muslims are innocent in the eyes of Islam.
• When a Muslim speaks of peace without spelling out that peace to a believer means the end of jihad, and that will come when the world is living under Shari’a law.
• When a Muslims points to the peace loving Suras in the Qur’an without saying these Suras were all abrogated by Sura 9, which includes the “Verse of the Sword.”

• The Old and New Testaments tell stories—some metaphoric—and parables. There is nothing in the whole of the Bible, unlike the Qur’an, that directs believers to kill the unbelievers. There is nothing in the Bible that singles out any religion for discrimination. Again, the directives in the Qur’an are the absolute words of Allah to be obeyed and not questioned. If Muslims can be persuaded to look critically at the dictates of the Qur’an they will then have reached a point of “free thought” with reasoning and logic to follow. But this has been the impediment throughout the history of Islam—how do you get devout Muslims to question God? The Bible on the other hand has been acknowledged to be written by man, albeit divinely inspired; it has been the most scrutinized and debated piece of literature since the history of mankind.

• Ask yourself the following. With all their oil wealth why are there no Muslim countries among the top 30 of the world’s richest nations? Why do these Muslim nations that are oil wealthy have universities that do not rate in the top 500 of the world? Why is it that two-thirds of the world’s poorest people live in Muslim countries? Why, in the last 20 years, have over 2 million people died in conflicts involving Muslim communities? Why are democracy and the rule of law (not Shari’a) nonexistent in most Muslim states? Why do Muslims carry out so many of the worst acts of terrorism? Why is it that Muslims, in over 14 centuries, have made scant few contributions to science, art, and literature (most of what they claim of their “Golden Age” was pilfered from the civilizations they conquered—India and Persia for example)?

• During World War II the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini worked hand and hand with Hilter and Heinrich Himmler, the head of the SS, to eradicate the Jews? He periodically and consistently took trips to Germany to convince Hilter and Himmler to NOT deport the Jews, as was part of the original plan, but to exterminate all of them. He made a pact with them that if they did this in Europe he would not only do this in the Mid East and assured that all Muslims would fight the Allied Powers on the side of the Axis Powers. In fact, at the urging of the Grand Mufti Himmler set up an all Bosnian Muslim SS division.

• The Qur’an not only assures the existence of slavery as a permanent fact of life, but regulates its practice in considerable detail and therefore endows it with divine sanction (Suras 16:71, 30:28). There is nothing in Judeo-Christian religious doctrine that sanctions slavery or the hate of another race or religion. The Christian Inquisition was due to the frailties of mortal men and not religious doctrine or the teachings of Jesus. Slavery is still practice in Muslim countries. In fact, in countries like the Sudan, Mauritania, Pakistan children are sold into bondage to the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia.

• If Islam is to be truly modernized, such that it can peacefully coexist on equal terms with other religious beliefs, then it will take more than the rhetoric of Islamic apologists—it will take some intense introspection and changes in the fundamental tenets of the religion itself. We need a vigorous campaign to counter this Dark Age ideology, and that is something that our government and many in this politically correct, multiculturist society, unfortunately, refuse to do."

"A Very Concerned Citizen" — April 11, 2008 @ 1:14 PM

"Shabutie, please tell me. According to Shariah, what would you do to a moslem converts to Christianity? No, not what you think of it, not what you did, Just QUOTE Al Quran or Sunnah. And don't bother quoting 'laa kum dinukum waa li-ya diin' (your religion is your business, mine is my business). It didn't say anything about conversion.
One more thing, I can tell if you misquote (or disquote)."

Adrian — April 11, 2008 @ 1:38 PM

"Roger Knight, dont be an ignorant fool. Know what you are talking about before you speak.

"You call what Israel did to Palestine "terrorism". Yep, draining swamps and creating farms, planting forests where there was desert, building cities where there were ancient ghost towns and factories where there was an unpopulated wilderness, sounds like terrorism!"

How about, kicking millions out of their homes, stealing their goods, homes, jobs. How about oppressing them and constantly invading? Killing innocent civilians? What about breaking hundreds of laws and human rights treaties and the fact that the world lets them since God forbid you say something because then you are antisemetic.

Im a christian and my grandfather's house and business was taken over by zionists after the illegal balfour declaration. Though it is not christians, but muslim "mujaheed" who keep attacking israel, everyone is being hurt in the palestine.

and to Shabutie Naraushaun

Islam is the problem. Your idiot fascist religion is the cause of all problems in the middle east. Though you may be friends with many non muslims, it means you yourself are not a true muslim. Islam was spread by the sword and is still spread today.

In fact i feel sorry for you, that you were born into a fake religion of hate, and were raised to believe in a petophile.

Anyways, about the article, it was great and touched on many things. It was very well done"

Elijah — April 11, 2008 @ 3:33 PM

"I just want to know, "Mohammed killed every single intellectual or artist who opposed him", and Christians believe that “love conquers all.” Well, love does not conquer Islam.... Do you actually have a hard evidence to support this statement or is this your own opinion?

I know nothing about politics, be Islam/Christian/Hindu/Budha. But history have it all..once upon a time there was also a Christian Invasion to other country. And back then..there was no such thing as Love conquer all.(unless of course you actually alive back then and witnessed all)"

dinda — April 12, 2008 @ 2:46 AM

"This comes from the Sira, Mohammed's official bio. It proudly gives the details of assassinations and executions of his intellectual opponents. Read Mohammed an the Unbelievers from CSPI"

Bill — April 12, 2008 @ 8:40 AM

"I am sorry Bill, but the book is written/produce by the same person who gave this interview. It doesn't even see neutral. Every story need to have two sides. You can't claim the bio is truthful if you don't know for sure what was going on. Many people interpret al-quran differently, just like many people interpret bible differently"

dinda — April 14, 2008 @ 12:50 AM

"Then go and read Ishaq's Sira Rasul Allah, translated by
Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad. That is the original and the source. I challenge you to find one enemy of Mohammed who was left alive and who had not converted in Arabia at Mohammed's death."

Bill — April 14, 2008 @ 6:33 AM

"If dinda is referring to the Crusades in the statement “once upon a time there was also a Christian Invasion (sic) to other country,” then it should be pointed out that the Crusades were a response to four (4) centuries of Muslims killing, pillaging, raping, enslaving and razing towns and villages throughout Northern Africa and the Middle East which at the time were predominately Christian and Jewish.

One can legitimately point to the atrocities perpetrated by the Crusaders, which where no worse than those by the Muslim invaders. However, there was a significant difference behind their respective actions. The atrocities committed by the Crusaders were due to the misdeeds and frailties of man, not under the dictates of the Christian religion. On the other hand, the atrocities committed by Muslims was instructed and sanctioned by Qur’an suras and the Hadiths.

The original crusaders were in truth those Muslims who propagated their religious beliefs by the sword four centuries before Christian Crusaders arrived on the sene."

"A Very Concerned Citizen" — April 16, 2008 @ 12:26 AM

"First of all, I have doubt that that what I write in here will not be edited by the moderator/author. I realized this after I read my previous comment. I have never write a "well, love doesn't conquer islam" Secondly, I did mentioned that many people interpret Al-quran differently. For example an Islamic terorist would interpret this surah as a reason for him to go and fight in whatever ideas he has in his head, but for other, this surah mean that fighting is not optional when done in defense of the oppressed and the weak

"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not. [Qur'an 2:216]"

I encourage you to search more on Al Quran than condemning without any significant knowledge. I wish we all be wiser and less prejudice to Alquran. It is not what's written in the book that wrong, it is one interpretation of the book that MAY wrong. I still stand to my that unless we are all born during the time of our prophets we have no way to be sure what was going on."

dinda — April 17, 2008 @ 5:51 AM

"Fourteen centuries of violent jihad dictated by the Qur’an and Hadiths speaks for itself. “many people interpret Al-quran differently” cannot be for Muslims since it is the word of Allah and He is infallible. Scores of Muslim clerics—Imams, Muftis, Ayatollahs, Sheiks, etc.—throughout the centuries supporting violent jihad could not have misinterpreted that Qur’an. It belies logic. If the Qur’an has Suras that have not been abrogated and expose love, kindness and good will it is a sure bet that these Suras are referring only to the Muslim umma and not the kaffars.
Sura 9.29, 30: “Declare war upon those to whom the Scriptures were revealed but believe neither in God nor the Last Day, and who do not forbid that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who refuse to acknowledge the true religion [Islam] until they pay the poll-tax without reservation and are totally subjugated.”
“The Jews claim that Ezra is the son of God, and the Christians say, ‘the Messiah is a son of God.’ Those are their claims which do indeed resemble the sayings of the Infidels of Old. May God do battle with them! How they are deluded.”
“And they fully deserve any punishment they get.”

Sura 8.65: “O Prophet! Rouse the Believers to fight,” the Qur’an orders, and promises the twenty Muslims, “patient and preserving,” would vanquish two hundred unbelievers; if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand.

Sura 2.191: “And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter.”

Sura 9.5: “fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them and seize them.” This famous Sura (9.29) of the Sword leaves no room for ambiguity. It abrogates the much over quoted Sura 2.256, “Let there be no compulsion in religion.”

Sura 58.3: The Qur’an assures Muslims the right to own slaves—“to possess their necks”— either by purchasing them or as bounty of war.

Sura 5.63: According to this Sura Jews have an intense hatred of all true Muslims, and as a punishment for their sins, some of the Jews had, in the past, been changed into “apes and swine,” and others will have their hands tied to their necks and be cast into the fire on Judgment day.

There are a plethora of venomous Suras in addition to the ones I have cited above.

Let me ask dinda, have you read the Qur’an in Arabic so that its true meaning is revealed to you? And if so, which of the seven versions did you read?

You will not find such hatred in the tenets of the other great religions of the world: Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism."

"A Very Concerned Citizen" — April 18, 2008 @ 12:12 AM

"Another Muslim “cleric” who apparently misunderstood the Qur’an and Hadiths, which reportedly espouses the love and tolerance of Islam.

In a Friday sermon that aired on Hamas' Al-Aqsa TV on April 11, 2008, Yunis Al-Astal, Hamas MP and cleric, told worshipers that Rome, "the capital of the Catholics, or the Crusader capital," would soon be conquered by Islam, just as Constantinople was. It then, he said, would become "an advanced post for the Islamic conquests, which will spread through Europe in its entirety, and then will turn to the two Americas, and even Eastern Europe.""

"A Very Concerned Citizen" — April 18, 2008 @ 10:08 AM

"It's amazing how people would blindly post the verses from Quran, without even reading from ’appropriate’ and well-know translations. take an example, surah 9.5 (there are so many people refering to this one as a proof that Al quran promotes violence)

This verses is always quoted out of context, why wouldn't anyone bother to post 9:6 or from 9:1 to 9:6. If we read from start it
states that there was a treaty, which the Pagans of Arab broke. Thus Allah gave them 4 months as 9:2 states
in order to amend the treaty. Verse 9:4 states that the punishment prescribed in 9:5 is ONLY to those who
broke the treaty and NOT to those who abided by the treaty. Therefore the context of 9:5 is of war with the
pagan Arabs who broke the treaty yet refused to amend it in 4 months.
Naturally, in war violence is expected. If a war is declared between Country A and Country B, because
country B broke the treaty and refused to amend, then if president of country A states "wherever you find
soldiers of Country B, you kill them and besiege them", no one would truly find much wrong in that
statement.
Killing in war is nothing peculiar, and there is yet to be a war where soldiers hugged and kissed each other.

I recommend anyone of you to read the whole book before actually make any prejudice comment to the book. Just a recommendation though, no obligation whatsoever :)"

dinda — April 18, 2008 @ 10:26 AM

"On your post of a "muslim cleric". Don't you think it's out of context? i thought we are only talking about Al Quran? whatever the cleric said, it's his believe, his opinion, his wish, his dream..whatever you may want to call it. Like I said before, don't hate the book just because of what people does and says. the Book is a guidelines. It is up to an invidual to interpret it"

dinda — April 18, 2008 @ 10:51 AM

"Didna, perhaps it is a language barrier but your response belies logic to the point of being irrational.

Since its inception Islam has been and is at perpetual war with the kuffar. Only when the world is ruled by Islam and all under Shari'a will Islam be at peace.

As to Sura 9 (including the “Verse of the Sword”) it is well known that it abrogates all previous “peaceful” and “tolerant” verses—it was the last section of the Qur’an revealed to Muhammad.

Does not it give you pause for second thought that after 14 centuries of violent jihad and even today where Sura’s of the Qur’an and traditions of the Hadiths are quoted by jihadists and clerics—holy men who should know and understand the Qur’an better than the umma—as justification for murder—sorry, it is war to Muslims—and other atrocities against innocent—sorry again, in the eyes of Islam only Muslims are innocent—people. Or is it the fear of blasphemy to question the teachings of the Qur’an.

Surely, literally thousand of clerics over the centuries could not have misunderstood the meaning of the Qur’anic Suras. This in itself would be both blasphemous and heretical since the Qur’an is the absolute word of Allah—not to be questioned but to be obeyed. It is simply beyond any rational belief that for 14 centuries jihadists, clerics and Shari’a judges have misunderstood the directives of the Holy Qur’an.

I have not quoted Suras out of context and neither have the jihadists and clerics when they use them to justify their acts of violence against the kuffar.

Muhammad taught his followers that there is nothing holier than jihad warfare, and to offer unbelievers three choices: conversion, subjugation (dhimmitude), or death. These are Qur’anic teachings (the absolute words of Allah, not to be questioned but obeyed) and are not marginal doctrines or historic relics—they are part of Islam and have been exercised for over 14 centuries by the majority of the sects of Islam. There is no misunderstanding here or can there be an argument of taken out of context. This direction by Muhammad is clear and absolute.

I suspect I know more of Islam and the Qur’an than you know of any other religion. If you want to see what a peace loving religion teaches read the New Testament, if you can without committing blasphemy. Here are some examples for you:


John 3.16: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.”

Sura 9.111: “Allah hath purchased of the believers their person and their goods; for theirs in return is the garden of Paradise; they fight in His cause and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth …”

Jesus in Matthew 5.21-5.22: “You have heard that it was said to the men of old, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment. But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to the hell of fire.”

Qur’an 47.4: “Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers in fight, smite at their necks; at length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind and bond firmly on them: thereafter is the time for either generosity or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens…But those who are slain in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost.”

You seem to be a sweet woman with noble intentions. I wish you the best in a world (Islam) that treats women as second-class people. (Have you read “Infidel” by Ayann Hisi Ali? I recommend it if you will not get in trouble.)"

"A Very Concerned Citizen" — April 18, 2008 @ 10:18 PM

"I can only say to A very concerned citizen, it seems that you are getting more emotional with every comment. Hating one's faith will not do you good, right or wrong of one's faith, it will only revealed after we died. You seems to know plenty, but you I think (this is my opinion) you didn't see things with open mind. It's quite prejudice of you to think that you know all about my world ( or my Islamic world for that matter)

Anyway, let's stop this, both you and I know, if we continue, we'll end up insulting each other.
peace to the world"

dinda — April 20, 2008 @ 1:01 AM

"I have no hate for other’s faith. Unlike Islam my beliefs and religion teaches me respect for all others. As to having an open mind, ijtihad was discarded centuries ago to keep the umma in their place. Sorry, but it is you and other Muslims that do not have the “free will” to think for yourselves. As with just about all the Muslims I have dealt with, you, like they, refuse to address the issues brought up but skirt them by either illogically changing the subject or saying that Suras have been taken out of context. Perhaps this is due to the intense indoctrination process that is part and parcel of being a Muslim, but it just does not wash with those of us who have free thought and can judge things based on their merits. What I have written is not based on an emotion but on simple facts of evidence of Islam throughout 14 centuries.

What I know of Islam is more comprehensive than what most Muslims know of any other religion except what they are told in the Qur’an, Hadiths or Islamic clergy. Here are samples of your world as a women in Islam:

Sura 4.11: “Allah chargeth you concerning the provision for your children: to the mail the equivalent of the portion of two females.”

Sura 53.21-22: “Are yours the males and His the females That is indeed were an unfair division.”

Sura 37.149-50: Now ask the O Muhammad: Hath they Lord daughters whereas they have sons?”
“Or created We the angels females while they were present?”

Sura 53.27: Lo! It is those who disbelieve in the Hereafter who name the angels with the names of females.”"

"A Very Concerned Citizen" — April 20, 2008 @ 1:17 PM

"IMHO "didna" is practicing "Taqiyya" which is lying, deceiving, causing confusion to spread islam and as well as attempting to prevent the "kuffar" from halting it's spread. The figure muhammad is quoted as saying "war is deception".

The muslims were instructed by their leader muhammad to lie and muslims are supposed to imitate his deeds and obey his commands...er..I mean the commands of their deity.

When the commands of their koran are (as "A Very Concerned Citizen" wrote) "clear and absolute", there are three logical conclusions that can be drawn as to why "didna", or other muslims would seemingly appear unable to see what is so apparent.

1. They are lying about what the koran says because they're so embarrassed about it.. (yeah right)

2. They're in total denial about what the koran says, so they have never read it all and don't know what it says. (yeah right)

3. They are lying about what the koran says because it commands them to spread islam all over this earth and to slaughter everybody who will not "revert" to being muslims or submit to islamic shari'ah law and THEY WANT TO.

To be quite honest, orthodox muslims give me the creeps. They're like the cross between a medieval bandit on meth, and a sociopathic Spanish inquisitor on crack.

The foundations of islam are inverse from the foundations of Christianity. Orthodox islam belongs back in the 5th century where it started.

The ideology of islam teaches that committing atrocities and crimes against non-muslims and the denial of their human rights is righteous and holy.

"Look at what muslims do, not what they say." Google "TAQIYYA".

What's the difference between a kuffar reading the koran out of context, and a muslim reading the koran within the proper context? Zippo!

What's the difference between the koran in a "moderate" muslims house and the koran in a "radical" muslims house? There is no difference! Zero. None. Nada.

What do you get when you cross a muslim with a nazi?

A. A muttzi?

B. A nazlim?

C. What difference does it make?

D. All of the above.

Google "Hindu holocaust".

"Those who reject Our signs, We shall gradually visit with punishment, in ways they perceive not. (7:182)

"Say, "The truth is from your Lord": Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it): for the wrong-doers We have prepared a Fire whose (smoke and flames), like the walls and roof of a tent, will hem them in: if they implore relief they will be granted water like melted brass, that will scald their faces, how dreadful the drink! How uncomfortable a couch to recline on! (18:29)"

"But those who reject (Allah) [Pickthal and others: "disbelieve"] - for them will be the Fire of Hell: No term shall be determined for them, so they should die, nor shall its Penalty be lightened for them. Thus do We reward every ungrateful one! (35:36)"

"Seest thou not those that dispute concerning the Signs of Allah? How are they turned away (from Reality)? - Those who reject the Book and the (revelations) with which We sent our messengers: but soon shall they know, - When the yokes (shall be) round their necks, and the chains; they shall be dragged along - In the boiling fetid fluid: then in the Fire shall they be burned. (40:69-72)"

"Then leave Me alone with such as reject this Message: by degrees shall We punish them from directions they perceive not. (68:44)"

"Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures. (98:6)"

"(Yea), and such as reject Faith, - for a while will I grant them their pleasure, but will soon drive them to the torment of Fire, - an evil destination (indeed)! (2:126)"

"Those who reject Faith, and die rejecting, - on them is Allah's curse, and the curse of angels, and of all mankind. They will abide therein: Their penalty will not be lightened, nor will respite be their (lot). (2:161-162)"

"As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help. (3:56)"

"And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage, - that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith [Pickthal and others: "disbelieve"](9:3)"

"And for those who reject Faith and deny our Signs, there will be a humiliating Punishment. (22:57)"

"And if any believe not in Allah and His Messenger, We have prepared, for those who reject Allah, a Blazing Fire! (48:13)"

Yikes.
Resist and fight the islamic kool-aid! Since 9/11 there have been over 1400 islamic jihad attacks and counting. Over the last 1400 years islam has murdered well over 200 million lives. A great deal more than the sum total of the murders committed by nazism and communism combined.

Estimation of deaths caused by nazism - over 11 million dead. (though keep in mind that this number would be far larger had nazism not been stopped in Germany).

Estimation of deaths caused by communism - over 30 million (this amount would also have grown larger) nazism - 11,000,000 + communism -30,000,000 = (over) 41,000,000.

Estimation of deaths caused by islam - over 200,000,000!

More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition

"After 1400 years of jihad, however, Islamic fascists have killed more than 270 million people. So, Muslims have, in the name of Islam, slaughtered thirty (30) times more people than Hitler did, in the Holocaust. Wow, religion of peace, indeed!" noonien.wordpress.com/.../in-the-name-of-islam-muslims-have-killed-thirty- times-more-people-than-hitlers-holocaust-did

The bigots are the ones who STILL haven't taken the time to learn what islam REALLY teaches!"

Arjuna Fan — February 6, 2010 @ 6:06 AM

"This is a very excellently informative interview. Well done indeed! It seems more accurate to call Islam an "Invasion Ideology" because political is often misunderstood as only a civlized and lawful process.

Please see my article linked below
"Islam's Invasion Ideology"

http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010100111804/editorial/rsn-pick-of-the-day/islams-invasion-ideology.html

Highest Regards, Martel Sobieskey"

Martel Sobieskey — October 4, 2010 @ 11:47 AM

""Malignant shame, more than a simple emotion, is an identity: a more or less permanent state of low self-esteem that causes even successful persons to experience themselves as being unworthy . . . Thus, abuse victims often remain passive in the face of punishment because they suspect that the rage and criticism of their perpetrator is both accurate and justified."

This is an eerily accurate diagnosis of the collective passivity of Irish citizens. We are the victims of an obvious outrage – forced to beggar ourselves to pay off debts that "we" never incurred. But we are unable to respond to this attack because we suspect that we deserve it." - Fintan O'Toole"

Manish — November 5, 2012 @ 5:56 AM

Reply to this Post:

Bookstore

Newsletters

  • Our newsletters are unique. You will learn how the doctrine of Islam drives current events and why we react as we do.

Recent Articles

Categories

Archives