Measuring Mohammed and Dhimmitude

If you are willing to do some math that is no harder than counting how many apples you have in your shopping cart, you can measure the core of Islamic political doctrine found in Mohammed’s biography, the Sira, a sacred text. What is surprising is that once you have a measure (metric) for Mohammed, you also have a measurement of our dhimmitude. It is an ugly and disgusting result.

THE SIRA: The totality of Islam is belief in the perfect truth of the Koran and following the Sunna of Mohammed. The Sunna is the actions and words of the perfect pattern of life, Mohammed. The Sunna is contained in the Sira and the Hadith (the Traditions of Mohammed). The Sira is half of the defining, foundational texts that determine the Sunna. The other half of the Sunna is the Hadith. The Islamic “Bible” is the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith.

The Sira is the life of Mohammed. There are three versions of the Sira given by three authors–Ibn Ishaq, al-Tabari, and Ibn Sa’d. They tell the same story, except for small details. Ishaq’s Sira is the oldest and the most authoritative.

Ishaq’s Sira is a large book that starts with a history of Arabia before Mohammed. The overwhelmingly important part of the book is the story of Mohammed as the prophet of Allah. He becomes a prophet on page 106, so that is where the story really begins. There are a 110 pages of notes at the end. The remaining 621 pages of text are about Mohammed as a prophet.

When you read the Sira, you find that violence fills its pages. The first form of violence is verbal. After Mohammed’s first revelation, it only takes 12 pages until there is a fight and a Muslim bloodies a kafir. From that point on, Mohammed argues, threatens, curses, preaches, and condemns. So 98% of the text of Mohammed’s prophecy contains verbal violence against the kafirs (unbelievers).

Jihad starts 281 pages into his prophet-hood and it never stops for the next 409 pages. So 72% of the Sira’s report of his prophecy involves some form of jihad. Of course, the verbal abuse runs right along with the killing, torture, rape, theft, deceit and assassinations.

The Sira is not only a biography, but also a sacred text that contains the model for the perfect Islamic life. Again and again the Koran directs every Muslim to imitate Mohammed’s every word and deed. The Sira contains Islam’s grand political strategy.

There was peace for 2% of the Sira. That means that 98% of the Sira is devoted to ill will or with some form of argument, insults and curses against the kafirs. Put another way, 98% of the Sira is devoted to the suffering of the kafirs.

MOHAMMED, THE FILM: If the Sira were a 2-hour movie of Mohammed as a prophet, it would go like this:

Mohammed has his first revelation in the first scene. The first fight starts 2 minutes into the movie. After that it is plotting, shouting, arguing, threatening and preaching. Even when the scene is in Mohammed’s camp, the backdrop is always the struggle with the kafirs. Then 34 minutes into the film, the first killing happens and killing continues for the next 1 ½ hours. Armed raids, assassinations, plots, spies, executions, torture, rape, battles, and on and on. Kafirs (non-Muslims) die and lose. Mohammed dies. Islam triumphs. End of film.

DO THE MATH: The Sira defines Mohammed. The Sira IS Mohammed. Mohammed is Islam. Sira = kafir hatred = Mohammed = Islam. Therefore, Islam = kafir hatred.

DHIMMITUDE AND JEW HATRED: Let’s analyze a best-selling biography of Mohammed by Karen Armstrong. The Sira is the gold standard for Mohammed’s life and we have measured what its focus is. Let’s use the Sira to measure Armstrong’s biography. Whereas, the Sira devotes 72% of its length to the jihad phase of Mohammed, Armstrong only allots 27% of her text to Mohammed’s jihad. Her total material devoted to Mohammed as a prophet is 183 pages, out of which 49 are jihad. There should be 132 pages of jihad to match the Sira. She eliminated 83 pages of jihad in order to make Mohammed look less violent.

She does the same thing with the Jew hatred/jihad. In the Sira, 5.3% of the text relates to the destruction of the Jews-assassinations, executions, rapes, torture and exile. This 5.3% only includes the physical harm, there are many other pages of Jew hatred that do not involve violence. In Armstrong’s biography, the destruction of the Jews is 2.7% of the text. She omits half of the Jew hatred material.

Basically, Armstrong censors half of the Jewish destruction and two-thirds of the jihad in her biography of Mohammed.

The Sira contains two kinds of negative material about the Jews. I have mentioned the 5.3% devoted to physical violence, but there is much material that is a verbal violence against the Jews. If you add the verbal violence to the physical violence, the Sira is 8.6% Jew hatred.

Hitler’s Mein Kamph devotes 6.8% of its material to Jew hatred, but no actual violence. If you remove that 6.8% of Jewish rants you are left with a political treatise that is no worse than any of the current political propaganda. With the right editing, Hitler was no more than a German politician. If you published a Mein Kamph without the 6.8%, you would be criticized. But Armstrong’s book was critically acclaimed. Why is censoring the kafir/Jew hatred from Mohammed cheered, whereas the removal of the Jew hatred from Hitler would be condemned? It is simple, we think that European Jew hatred is evil, but that Islamic Jew hatred needs to be understood and ignored. What is astounding is that this argument is put forward by most Jews.

Of course, her bias does not stop with just censoring the material. Oh no, Armstrong cheers when the Meccan kafirs die. Every death of a kafir is wonderful, since it advances the glory of Mohammed. She justifies the destruction of the Jews and says that Christians have done worse.

Ms. Armstrong is a dhimmi. She is a loud and sympathetic cheerleader for Mohammed and insults the kafir Arabs. She represents the perfect dhimmi-centric writer.

TOTAL DHIMMITUDE: Now let’s measure the dhimmitude of the Republicans, Democrats, professors and the rest. Armstrong deletes most of Mohammed’s cruelty, but at least she is willing to show Mohammed to be a little evil. That is more than Department of Homeland Security, FBI, public education, Pentagon, ACLU or the local police do. You will search a long time to find a rabbi or pastor who knows nearly as much as Ms. Armstrong will admit. Almost all of our leaders are 100% dhimmi, since they deny all evil found in the doctrine of Islam.

Everyone hates Mein Kamph, without having actually read it, and will condemn Hitler and the Nazis, but try finding a kafir who hates the Sira and who will condemn Mohammed. Yet, the Sira contains 8.6% Jew hatred, Mein Kamph is 6.8% Jew hatred.

Do the math of dhimmitude. If those percentages were mortgage rates, everyone would understand the math because it involves money. But when it involves the survival of our civilization, we read the statement as–no problem with the Sira or Islam, but we need to talk about those Nazis.

As bad as Armstrong is-and she is dreadful-she is not as bad as the dhimmis in Washington, DC, the churches, synagogues, universities and the media. And the dhimmitude is the same in Europe, India, Canada and the rest of the world.

NOTE–POINT-OF-VIEW: There are always three points-of-view about Islam. The first is the believer-centric, Muslim, view. The second view is kafir-centric. A kafir has only one qualification-a kafir is anyone who does not believe that Mohammed is the prophet of Allah. There is a third view, the dhimmi-centric view. It is the believer-centric view except it is written by an apologist kafir.

This analysis is kafir-centric. Kafir-centric sees Islam from the standpoint of what happened to the kafir, how the kafir is treated. Today the history of the victim is popular fare for the colleges-African slave and native American history, for example. Kafir history is the history of the victim of Islam. When will this history be taught in our schools?

Bill Warner

Signup for our weekly newletter.

Copyright © 2008, CBSX, Inc. dba

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


11 Responses

  1. Spooony

    The truth is that Muhammad was a cult leader, much like Jim Jones, Shoko Asahara and Charles Manson. Unlike them he succeeded because there was no central power in the seventh century Arabia to stop him.

    Thats the truth. Jesus slaughtered no one. The Persians are Islamic as well so your no sense on top are mere opinions of others not facts Kenneth

  2. Kenneth Parent

    revealed religion is filtered by humanity jews, christians, muslims and all other religiously minded individuals are encouraged to seek out and develop a relationship with God that will allow them to communicate directly with the father. revealed religion is an individual sport !!! this is so you do not have to depend upon other humans( revelation filters) for an opinion of someone elses revelation.
    for as soon as a revelation occurs in one mans brain it becomes diluted or tainted by this individuals emotional and material status quo and belief systems. not to mention the fact that people can ask the same question of god what do i do in this circumstance and you may get very diverse answers depending upon the mental ability of the individual to receive truth and his physical and material circumstance
    it is a waste of gods time to tell something to someone who is incapable of comprehending it!! individuals receive their revelation in accordance with their ability to comprehend it and there needs.
    men tend to know and believe most firmly not in religion but in the tradition of their fathers….
    you must throw out that which is traditional and adhere to that which is symetrical for religion has symmetry it is as follows.
    1) i believe in el elyon, the most high god, the only universal father and creator of all things
    2) i accept the melchizedek covenant with the most high, which bestows the favor of god on my faith, not on sacrifices and burnt offerings.
    3) I promise to obey the seven commandments of melchizedic and to tell the good news of this covenant with the most high to all men.
    the seven melchizedic commandments are as follows
    1)you shall not serve any god but the most high creator of heaven and earth
    2) you shall not doubt that faith is the only requirement for eternal salvation. 3)you shall not bear false witness.
    4) you shall not kill.
    5) you shall not steal
    6) you shall not commit adultry
    7) you shall not show disrespect for your parents and elders.
    religion is that simple period don’t complicate it with your sophistries that is mans doing not gods
    a tree (institution or individual does not bear fruit unless it does the following.
    1) promotes the adoration of the universal father
    2) promotes a greater sense of brotherhood amongst all men through peaceful interaction.
    war is the nature of man, not the edict of god, it is part of our natural or survival instinctual burden that we are commanded to shed through the enlightenment process
    the glaring difference between mohammed and christ is that christ was a direct conduit for the will of the father and his message of unconditional love and mercy to all are the original revelation/teaching that abram and mohammed both received.
    abraham and mohammeds problem being they where only human and their revelation/ teaching became their opinion and flawed by the same introduction of tribal and cultural beliefs and traditions that have been the root cause of failure for all major religions to be able to claim that they are truly representative of the teachings of the trinity by the melchizedik brotherhood.
    man cannot know a tribal god an individual god a national god not even a planetary god for there is life elsewhere and it knows god as well.
    therefore you must comprehend god is universal and all men should come to know him for it desires that the soul of no man shall perish.
    concerning the melchizedik brotherhood and christ.
    christ was the high priest of the melchizedik brotherhood

    Hebrews chapter 5

    10) Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

    11Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.

    12) For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

    13) For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

    14) But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

    christ was high priest of this part of creation, mohammed was a human….
    christ being a direct conduit for communication and an example of the way god wants us to live and muhammed was a human trying to understand all of that and doing his best to conform
    the path is narrow but the way is well lit,
    mohammeds bent for violence are human inclinations not divine revelation mohhameds revelation and life need also be viewed from the perspective that god had to do something about christianity at that time it was out of control shamelesly corrupt and not representative of the will at all. so it must be understood christian behaviour brought about a muslim reaction
    had christians adhered to the will from the onset we wouldn’t even be having a discussion about mohammed he would not have even materialised but christians of the third, fourth and later centuries a.d. used their free will to forego the teachings of christ and promoted exclusivity and the persecution of so called non christians, not the greater brotherhood called for by christ.
    this left the need for a somebody to reconstitute a religious teaching endowed with a higher degree of social piety and a greater sense of brotherhood therein lies the purpose of mohammeds revelation and the forthcoming of islam… started as a social movement that was concerned with developing an understanding of that which abraham knew as a religion, producing a greater degree of social piety and promotion of a greater brotherhood of man.
    had the arabs not been ostracized by the europeans, the persians and the jews they would never have needed to go there !!!

  3. Democracyistheanswer

    Karen Armstrong’s motives are baffling. I am compelled to assume her interest is a financial one. No one who spends time reading Islam’s primary texts (Sira, Ahadith and Koran) could to the conclusions Armstrong did.
    I must assume she recycled materials spoon fed to her by moderate Muslim apologists. An investigative reporter or forensic accountant should look into her finances and determine where her payments have been coming from. I normally eschew conspiracy theories, but the financial motive is the only one that makes sense with regard to Armstrong’s astounding version of the religion of jihad.

  4. Salam Abdulla

    Muslims are people, there are good and there are bad. I would say the majority do not read and dissect the Koran, Hadith, Sira – this is the same in any religion. But those peaceful, well educated Muslims that take on the painful task of reading the holy books in detail will realize that at the core Islam is a political movement and not a religion; that Mohammed was an extremely, extremely violent man with so much blood on his hand that should disqualify him as being any kind of messenger of the Almighty. We are witnessing an unprecedented departure from Islam by Muslims who thought it very important to decide for themselves about Islam and not to follow blindly what the Imams are saying; Imams have self interest in not telling the truth – at the simplest level is keeping their jobs and their leadership positions.

  5. Aisah

    Its known the religion is filled with hatred and death! theres no peace. how can they when they are killing their own men and women and children! honor killlings, stoning, flogging etc at least the west show what hey really are and are not hypocritical! What makes a religion? its the people. we can see how they behave on TV. i need not say much

  6. Red Rose

    Karen Armstrong is evil and dangerous. Her books are in Public Libraries (here in Australia) and schools. She has made many TV documentaries and makes frequent guest appearances on TV shows.

    The title of her recent book (2006)says it all:

    ‘Muhammad, Prophet For Our Time’

    She is equally as dangerous as Esposito.

    Sheik’yer mami at ‘Winds of Jihad’
    has a good name for her.

    Koran Armstrong!

  7. lyric

    in your article of lies who believes except the ignorant who believes lies without proof would accept ur cheap mo0uuth fasle your whole tale of lies u neither quoted from source nor give us proof exvep ur moouthed sira or ur cheap hollywoood would be movie. ur lies onlly deceives fools like urseif even from ur so called sira which is no more than a historical book that d majority of muslims hardly read ur ignoranace resebles ur pay mastres desire to decieve . yoo ignoraamus next time ur want to learn about AL ISLAm(allahu akbar) go to the al qur an and authentic hadiths . tell lies with proof not from in this in that source. peace unto u mr i gnoramus political islam.those who commented are probably ur ignorant brothers.bye no offense intented.

    • yodrew

      Haha, we love your projection of your evils. It’s the typical criminal mindset of the taqqiya and hate filled-Muslim. But now we know your dirty secrets. Your child rapist-idol, Muhammed, didn’t count on the printing press or internet to inform your targets of your intentions. Now we know ahead of time. Pack your bags, you silly inbreed.

  8. Ramachandra Abhyankar

    “NOTE–POINT-OF-VIEW: There are always three points-of-view about Islam. The first is the believer-centric, Muslim, view. The second view is kafir-centric. A kafir has only one qualification-a kafir is anyone who does not believe that Mohammed is the prophet of Allah. There is a third view, the dhimmi-centric view. It is the believer-centric view except it is written by an apologist kafir.”
    Is there a fourth point of view -that of the ex-Muslims like Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, etc ? Or is that just the Kafir point of view? Ex-Muslims are uniquely qualified to comment on Islam.

  9. Ramachandra Abhyankar

    Excellent article.

  10. PraiaFlamengo

    Appreciate your newsletter, this article in particular, it backs up with numbers what increasingly more people believe and understand

Leave a Reply

We require registration to prevent excessive automated spam commenting.