THE NICE MUSLIM

Claude Salhami was 'aghast' at a recent PI 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

GLADSTONE KNEW IT ALSO

WILLIAM EWART GLADSTONE (1809–1898) was Prime Minister of Great Britain four times: 1868–74, 1880–85, 1886 and 1892–94. He called the Qur'an an "accursed book" and once held it up during a session of Parliament, declaring: "So long as there is this book there will be no peace in the world."

The victorious Hugh Fitzgerald puts it this way:

The Qur'an remains the same. And the Hadith collections by the most authoritative muhaddithin, and the ranking of "authenticity" that they assign to each Hadith in their collections, remain the same. And the details of the life of Muhammad—including the decapitation of the 600-900 prisoners of the Banu Qurayza, the pleasure taken in the killings of Asma bint Marwan and Abu Afak, the raid for women and loot on the inoffensive Jewish farmers of the Khaybar Oasis (who had not "rejected" Muhammad because they hardly knew he and his followers existed, but were attacked nonetheless), the marriage to little Aisha when she was nine, the deception—"war is deceit"—recommended by this, the Perfect Man (al-insan al-kamil) to his followers, so well practiced in his "truce treaty" with the Meccans made in 628 A.D. at Al-Hudaibiyyah—all this remains part of the biography of that Perfect Man.

Thus, Gladstone is added to the list of antiquities, of men of conscience and common decency with names like Jefferson, Adams, Schopenhauer, Churchill, who have investigated the written testimony of Islam, and found it abominable and permanently contrary to the dictates of human dignity.

Nineteenth century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer did not mince words in opining on the perniciousl nature of Islam:

"Consider, for example, the Koran. This wretched book was sufficient to found a religion of the world, to satisfy the metaphysical need of innumerable millions of men for twelve hundred years, to become the foundation of their morality, and of no small contempt for death, and also to inspire them to bloody wars and most extended conquests. We find in it the saddest and the poorest form of Theism. Much may be lost through the translations ; but I have not been able to discover one single valuable thought in it."

...while the ruthless Adolph Hitler, in all his bloody wisdom, had this to say:

“The Mohammedan religion…would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”

And this from Teddy Roosevelt:

Christianity is not the creed of Asia and Africa at this moment solely because the seventh century Christians of Asia and Africa had trained themselves not to fight, whereas the Moslems were trained to fight.

Christianity was saved in Europe solely because the peoples of Europe fought. If the peoples of Europe in the seventh and eighth centuries, an on up to and including the seventeenth century, had not possessed a military equality with, and gradually a growing superiority over the Mohammedans who invaded Europe, Europe would at this moment be Mohammedan and the Christian religion would be exterminated.

Wherever the Mohammedans have had complete sway, wherever the Christians have been unable to resist them by the sword, Christianity has ultimately disappeared. From the hammer of Charles Martel to the sword of Jan Sobieski, Christianity owed its safety in Europe to the fact that it was able to show that it could and would fight as well as the Mohammedan aggressor.

The civilization of Europe, American and Australia exists today at all only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization because of victories through the centuries from Charles Martel in the eighth century and those of John Sobieski in the seventeenth century. During the thousand years that included the careers of the Frankish soldier and the Polish king, the Christians of Asia and Africa proved unable to wage successful war with the Moslem conquerors; and in consequence Christianity practically vanished from the two continents; and today, nobody can find in them any "social values" whatever, in the sense in which we use the words, so far as the sphere of Mohammedan influences are concerned.

There are such "social values" today in Europe, America and Australia only because during those thousand years, the Christians of Europe possessed the warlike power to do what the Christians of Asia and Africa had failed to do—that is, to beat back the Moslem invader.

And just for kicks, shall we revisit Sir Winston Churchill's verdict on the eery similarity between the Nazis and the Muslims:

"In truth though, just as the British stoicism recalls the same from 65 years ago, so too, there is a deep and instructive similarity between the Nazis and the Islamic-fascist forces that attacked then and attack today. The fact of the matter is that even more important than invoking the famous British "stiff upper lip," to fight this current war to victory requires understanding and accepting the similarities between the Nazis and the Arab-Islamic terrorist armies."