"Aghast" Scholarship

[SF-TX]

"Aghast" Scholarship

February 13, 2010

Claude Salhami was 'aghast' at a recent politicalislam.com newsletter-Is a Nice Muslim a Good Muslim? He replied to the newsletter with his Scourge of 'Islam Experts', but he missed my point.

The point of the Nice Muslim newsletter is that the doctrine of Islam is inhuman, not that Muslims always practice the Islamic doctrine at all times. A Muslim can be a fine person in dealing with a kafir when they are not practicing Islam. A summary of the Nice Muslim argument is:

* The Koran defines the kafir, a non-Muslim. A kafir is hated and plotted against by Allah. Kafirs can be killed, tortured, crucified, raped, insulted, enslaved and deceived. Kafir is the worst word in the human language. A kafir does not have any positive attributes.
* There is no Golden Rule in Islamic ethics. The Koran repeats 12 times that a Muslim is not the friend of a kafir.
* Mohammed repeatedly said that it is good to deceive the kafirs, if it advances Islam.
* Mohammed destroyed each and every kafir neighbor. It is Islam's purpose to make all kafirs submit to Islam.
* A Muslim can only be a true friend to a kafir by the use of the Golden Rule, a non-Islamic principle.

The conclusion is that there is no good in Islam for the kafir. Sure there are those 2.6% of the Koranic words that seem to be good, but in every case the so-called good verses are abrogated later.

Anyone who implements the doctrine of Islam is not the friend of a kafir. If they are actually a friend, it is because of the power of the Golden Rule, not Islam. There is no good in Islam for the kafir. Note that this result was reached without the use of a single verse of the Koran (no cherry picking), but uses the systemic nature of its kafir doctrine.

Mr. Salhami makes these points in his reply:

* On many occasions Christians have acted badly and Muslims have acted well.

So? Christians and Muslims are people. You can prove anything you want by choosing the right member. He also has some remarks about Christianity. To which I reply: I only discuss Islam, not comparative religion.

* There are good Muslims and bad Muslims and we should not confuse the two.

What is meant by 'good' Muslims? Do we judge by the Islam of Medina or by the Golden Rule? If we judge by Islam of Medina, then Osama bin Laden is a good Muslim. Of course, by the Golden Rule he is not so nice. Stay with the doctrine of Islam in judging Muslims. A good Muslim is one who follows Islamic doctrine, not one who is likable.

* Mr. Salhami uses his personal experience with Muslims to learn about Islam.

This confuses cause and effect. Islam is the cause and Muslims are the effect. A nice Muslim does not prove a nice Islam. Learning from Muslims is Muslim-ology,a sociological personal endeavor. Learning about Islam from the Koran, Sira, Hadith and Sharia law is learning about Islam.

* He criticizes my use of the coined term, kafir-Muslim.

I will grant him this criticism and thank him for it. A much better term is Golden-Rule Muslim. Muslims, like all humans, have an innate sense of the truth of the Golden Rule and use it at times. However, this is an un-Islamic act since Islam does not have a Golden Rule.

All of the nice Muslims Mr. Salhami meets in the Middle East will not teach him anything about the suffering of their kafir ancestors during the jihad invasion and the centuries of being dhimmis living under the horror of Sharia law. He won't learn how the native civilization has been annihilated and replaced with the civilization of Islam. They will not tell him about the murder of millions of innocent Christians, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, animists and Hindus to create the Islamic civilization.

His nice Muslim friends will not instruct him in the vision, strategy and tactics of jihad to annihilate all kafir civilizations. Nor will his nice Muslim friends ever explain Islam's dualistic ethical system, with one set of ethics for kafirs and a different set of ethics for their Muslim brothers.

Mr. Salhami is aghast at the self-taught scholars in Islam. There is a good reason for their appearance. The university- trained 'experts' are apologists for Islam. They are trained in denial and justification and produce the type of scholarship that allows the army to investigate Major Hasan's jihad at Fort Hood and never refer to Islam.

The 'experts' give us the history of Islamic conquest and imperialism and praise it as the glorious rise of Islam. The 'experts' teach courses in women's studies and ignore Sharia law and Mohammed's treatment of women. They lecture on slavery and never mention the Muslim wholesaler who sold the slaves to the white man on the wooden ship or the Islamic slave trade in North Africa, East Africa, Europe and India. The denial goes on and on as the 'experts' drive our university policy. Is there a course in any American university system that is critical of Islamic political ideology? Indeed, the 'experts' argue that such a course would be bigotry.

It is the media 'experts' that give us jihad at Mumbai, India and never mention Islam. It is the 'experts' that give us the Official Islam that Bush and Obama talk about. Nice stuff-Official Islam. Too bad it does not exist.

So, it is no wonder that when we have such dhimmified professors, university trained 'experts' and media that professionals from other fields start reading the Koran, Sira and Hadith to see for themselves what the ideology actually is that drives the contradictions between current events and what we are told.

When you understand that the entire doctrine of Islam is found in Koran, Sira and Hadith, you realize that Islam is simpler than the 'experts' told us. All three texts have been made readable today and any disciplined person can become well informed. The 'experts' have failed us, and we must teach ourselves.

It is easy to be an expert. Know Mohammed and the Koran (the book he brought about). If what you say agrees with the Koran or Mohammed, then you are right. If it does not agree with Mohammed, then it is wrong, no matter who you are.

Mr. Salhami, buckle your seatbelt and prepare to be aghast again. It is a war between the university-trained dhimmi 'experts' and the self-taught kafir scholars who stand on the doctrine found in the Koran, Sira and Hadith. We will use critical thought on the doctrine and history of political Islam.

The 'experts' will talk about nice Muslims, criticize Christianity and the West, while not holding Muslims responsible for their ideology. Every Muslim must be held accountable for Islamic political doctrine and its bloody history.

Bill Warner,
Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam

http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/aghast-scholarship-february-13-2010/

[SF-TX]

Is a Nice Muslim a Good Muslim?

January 7, 2010

After a murderous jihad at Fort Hood or the Christmas day airplane bombing attempt, did you hear: "Of course, not all Muslims are bad?" That brings up the question of how do you even tell if a Muslim is bad? Or good?

First off, what is a Muslim? A Muslim is a person who follows the doctrine of Islam. When that same person, does something that does not follow the doctrine of Islam, they are not a Muslim. The common idea is that anyone who says that they are a Muslim has their every action and word dictated by Islam. Put another way, every Muslim is seen as perfect follower of Islam at all times and circumstances. However, the truth is that a "Muslim" is not always a Muslim. When they do not follow Islamic doctrine, they are no longer a Muslim, but are a kafir (non-Muslim).

Now, how do we know if a Muslim is good or bad? If they are following the Koran and the Sunna (the perfect example of Mohammed), they are a good Muslim. If they don't follow the doctrine, then they are not a Muslim. That means that from the stand point of Islam there is no such thing as a good or bad Muslim. You either are a Muslim or you are not. When anyone follows the Koran and the Sunna, they are Muslim. When anyone does not follow the doctrine of Islam then they are a kafir.

This means that a person called a Muslim has two modes of being-Muslim and kafir, or kafir-Muslim. The same person can be a Muslim in one moment and a kafir in the next.

What do kafirs mean by a good Muslim? Simple, the same way we judge all other people as good and bad-the Golden Rule. Do they follow the Golden Rule when they are with us? If so, then they are a good person.

Since the Koran and the Sunna do not have the Golden Rule, how are Muslims to treat us? Islamic doctrine lays out an alternative to the Golden Rule. Those who do not believe Mohammed are kafirs, and kafirs are treated differently from Muslims.

Islamic doctrine says a great deal about the kafir. Most of the Koran is about kafirs, 61%, only 39% is about Muslims. About 20% of the Hadith is about kafirs and 98% of the Sira is about kafirs. Mohammed was fixated on kafirs and annihilated every kafir by violence, exile or conversion. When Mohammed died, there was not a person alive in Arabia who would argue with him.

Mohammed's actions are pure Islam; therefore, annihilating kafirs and kafir culture is pure Islam. A Muslim has to be, in some way, in some form of action, eliminating kafirs and their world. The action against kafirs is jihad. There are four flavors of jihad and murder is only one. Deception, conversation, articles and TV appearances can be jihad of speech and writing. There is always the option of giving to an Islamic charity, since one of the Koranic uses of charity is jihad.

Every Muslim believes that all nonbelievers are kafirs. The Koran says that kafirs may be hated, plotted against, deceived, murdered, raped, enslaved, mocked and tortured. All of those actions are Islam and perfect doctrine. When a person is being a good Muslim, they are following Islam and that means that you are a kafir. Hate, deception, murder, mockery and torture are bad for kafirs, but good for Muslims.

Kafirs are pure other. Muslims treat other Muslims as brothers and sisters, but they can treat a kafir well or they can treat them as less than an animal. Islam has dualistic ethics, one set of rules for Muslims and another set of rules for kafirs. Dualism is bad. When a Muslim practices dualism, they are bad. There is no good in Islam for a kafir and therefore, there is no good in a Muslim for a kafir.

Does this mean that the Muslim at work is bad? Yes, when they are following the doctrine of Islam. Whenever they are not following Islam, that person can be as good as any other. It is not about people, but about doctrine. It is the doctrine of Islam to be bad to kafirs. When anyone is practicing Islam around a kafir they must be bad, since Mohammed was never good to kafirs.

Wait! What about the nice, pious Muslim at work? He is good, isn't he?

Is he nice because of the Golden Rule or is he practicing the Sunna of the charming Mohammed we find in the early Meccan days? Mohammed could be very polite with kafirs, however, if charm did not work, then other methods were used. Islam is a process of increasing force that can start out pleasantly.

We are left with an ethical confusion around any Muslim. They can seem pleasant, but nothing changes the fact that they see Mohammed as the perfect person to imitate. Nothing changes the fact that we are kafirs. Kafir is the worst word in the human language.

Whom are we to believe-the Muslim at work or Mohammed? Every Muslim wants to imitate Mohammed; every Muslim is a Mohammedan. The problem is that Mohammed annihilated every kafir he ever met. It was a process. The process started out nice and when nice did not work, it ended in annihilation of the kafir. In Islam, nice is the beginning of bad for the kafir.

So how do you tell if a nice Muslim is good or bad? From the kafir point-of-view, there is only the fact that a Muslim is following Mohammed's example. And that is bad, very bad.

Bill Warner

http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/is-a-nice-muslim-a-good-muslim/

[SF-TX]

Scourge of 'Islam Experts'
1/26/2010 - Political - Article Ref: IV1001-4059
Number of comments: 2
Opinion Summary: Agree:1 Disagree:1 Neutral:0
By: Claude Salhani
Iviews* -

One of the negative by-products of the 9/11 attacks is the emergence of hordes of self-proclaimed experts on intricately complex issues such as the Middle East, Islam and terrorism.

In fact being an 'expert' in one of the above-mentioned topics has become something of a lucrative industry for some. The problem arising from this new - or perhaps not so new - phenomenon is that some people, even some intelligent people (and at times some intelligence people) start to believe the rot that is disseminated by these 'experts.' A method used is to take an element of truth and mix it with fabrications and the two become intertwined and difficult to separate. Repeat a falsehood often enough and it becomes the truth - or at least it appears to be, especially to those who don't know better. Josef Goebbels, Hitler's Minister of Propaganda, perfected this fine art.

What pushed me to write this column is an article titled 'Is a Nice Muslim a Good Muslim?', written by a Bill Warner, someone who was described to me as a 'serious scholar of Islam.'

I was aghast at what I read and told the friend who relayed the article that people like that scare me as much as the Islamist fascists. What the article does is take extracts of the Koran and uses them to justify that there can be no such thing as a nice Muslim. According to the article, one is either a Muslim or is not. One either follows the principles of Islam, or does not, and therefore is not a Muslim. Says the 'expert:' 'However, the truth is that a Muslim' is not always a Muslim. When they do not follow Islamic doctrine, they are no longer a Muslim, but are kafir (non-Muslim).' In fact a kafir is a non-believer. Very rarely would a Muslim be considered a kafir, except if he cursed the prophet or insulted the Koran. Rather, he would be considered a 'murtad.' (Heretic)

One can argue that similar rules apply to the Catholic Church; you either believe in the teachings of the Church, including the mystery of the Holy Trinity and the virgin birth, or you don't. There is no pick and choose when it comes to religion. Any religion. Of course one can comb through the Koran and find pages upon pages that incite Muslims to violence and look upon the rest of the world as non-believers. But can the same not be said of the Bible? The Old Testament is packed with chapters of a God who urging his people to war, to kill and to show no mercy towards their enemies.

One can make a similar argument about Catholicism when the Church went about killing non-believers (kafirs?) by the thousands during the Spanish Inquisition. And what about the Christians who slaughtered Africans and Native Americans and native South Americans because they were considered to be heathens?' There seems to be an inverse relationship between how vociferous believers are in claiming that their religion is peaceful and how peaceful their religion actually is,' writes Austin Cline regional director for the Council for Secular Humanism, a former Publicity Coordinator for the Campus Free thought Alliance, and a lecturer on religion and religious violence. 'Christians can be especially critical of how Muslims keep insisting that Islam is a "religion of peace" despite the extensive world-wide violence being committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. Such Christians seem to want to insist that theirs is the real "religion of peace," said Mr. Cline.

Yet history shows us that Christians can be as ruthless as others. The Cathar War in 1209 when the pope based in Avignon waged a crusade against the Cathars in southern France is but one example. When asked how they could recognise Catholics from Cathars as the crusaders were about to assault the city of Beziers, Arnaud Amalric, the papal legate and inquisitor sent by Pope Innocent III is reported to have said, ' Kill them all, God will sort his own.' ('Kill them all, Let God sort them out,' emerged during the Vietnam War.) Amalric was also responsible for the mass burning alive of "many heretics and many fair women" at Casseneuil;" and for the slaughter at Beziers of some 20,000 men, women and children, in what was termed an "exercise of Christian charity."

I do not claim to be a scholar although I have lectured at several universities in North America. I was published in scores of international newspapers and respected journals and appear on more than 40 radio and television channels as a commentator on Middle Eastern affairs; as a journalist I have covered the Middle East and its associated problems for the good part of 30 years, more than half that time based in the region, and with the exception of two countries, I have visited every country in the Middle East multiple times.

As such I can claim to know Muslims fairly well - good and bad ones. I grew up with Muslims. I went to school with Muslims. I socialised with Muslims. During my late teen years when I stopped going to church my best friend at the time, a Sunni Muslim (and my Jewish girlfriend) would each grab me by an arm and force me into church to please my mother. During my junior high school days when economic times were tough and the Christian grocer down the road refused my mother credit, it was the Muslim and the Druze restaurant owner and the green grocer next door who gave us credit.

This is not an apology for the bad things happening in the world being committed by bad Muslims. There are good Muslims and there are bad Muslims. Lumping all Muslims in the same basket with the rotten few is short-sighted, plain wrong and does a disservice to mankind.



Claude Salhani is editor of the Middle East Times and author of two books on the Middle East.

http://www.islamicity.com/articles/printarticles.asp?ref=IV1001-4059&p=1

[T-Rock]

When they do not follow Islamic doctrine, they are no longer a Muslim, but are kafir (non-Muslim).' In fact a kafir is a non-believer. Very rarely would a Muslim be considered a kafir, except if he cursed the prophet or insulted the Koran. Rather, he would be considered a 'murtad.' (Heretic)

Is Claude Salhani practicing Taqiyya? I dunno, his article doesn't seem to be consistent with Islamic Law - it says otherwise - What constitutes RIDDA ?

ACTS THAT ENTAIL LEAVING ISLAM

o8.7 (2) to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future. And like this intention is hesitating whether to do so or not: one thereby immediately commits unbelief:

(7) to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it;

(14) to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of Muslims (ijma', def: u2.4) is part of Islam, when it is well known as such, like
prayer (salat) or even one rak'a from one of the five obligatory prayers, if there is no excuse (def: u2:4)

(20) or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet's message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w4.3-4) (al-
Hadiyya al-'Ala'iyya (y4), 423-24).)

o9.0 JIHAD

(O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.

The scriptual basis for Jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b7) is such Koranic verses as:

(1) "Fighting is prescribed for you" (Koran 2:216)
(2) "Slay them wherever you find them" (Koran 4:89)
(3) "Fight the idolators utterly" (Koran 9:36)


o9.1 Jihad is a communal obligation (def:c3.2). When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others

o9.6 It is offensive to conduct a military expedition against hostile non-Muslims without the Caliph’s permission (A: though if there is no Caliph (def: o25), no permission is required.

(The Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law. Pgs 595-602)
http://www.amazon.com/Reliance-Traveller-Classic-Islamic-Al-Salik/dp/0915957728

[Warrior-Mentor]

Bill Warner and the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI) do a great job of explaining the doctrine of Islam.

Highly recommend their work.

LINK:
http://www.cspipublishing.com/