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

THE 2 PER CENT SOLUTION

SOON AFTER 9/11 we began to hear about Islam, the peaceful religion. The whole concept seems so ludicrous, but it filled the media. Can you imagine someone calling Buddhism, the peaceful religion? It is like saying circles, the round figure. Yes, but isn't it what you would expect?

When scholars use the term, it is usually in quotes, "peaceful Islam", to express the irony of the name. However, in working with the manuscript of my work-in-progress, Waging Ideological War, I realized that there actually was a peaceful Islam without the quotes.

The Sira is Mohammed's biography (sira is an Arabic word that means biography, but Sira is reserved for Mohammed) and has three versions by three authors. The most definitive is by Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, translated by A. Guillaume as The Life of Muhammad. It is a difficult book to read and that is why "Mohammed and Unbelievers" was created so that the content would be available to the average reader.

The Sira is the only thing that allows us to understand the Koran, since it allows us to sort out which verse in the Koran is earlier or later.

Today, the home of Mohammed has the most intolerant political system in the world. Jews have not been in Saudi Arabia for 1400 years. Christians are allowed to pray in their homes, but there cannot be any public display of their faith, such as wearing a cross or carrying a Bible in public. Practically speaking, Arabia is a religious apartheid state. But before Mohammed, the Arabs of Mecca had 360 religions in the city. It is the inherent nature of polytheist religions to be tolerant, so when Mohammed came along with his new religion and new god, the Meccans could have cared less. Tolerance had been their way since the beginning of time.

Islam is not only a religion, but a complete civilization. Not one thing inside of Islam is identical to kafir civilization. Thus, the process of becoming Islamic means that the most fundamental basis of a civilization must change. Tolerance was the door that Mohammed came through and closed behind him. Tolerance in Arabia vanished after Mohammed.

After Mohammed announced he was a prophet, there were no problems in Mecca. Mohammed was quiet and spread his message to friends and family. There were no problems with anyone. The Sira devotes 13 pages of text to this peaceful stage of his being a prophet. The Sira is an 800-page book, but the actual material devoted to Mohammed as the prophet of Allah is 577 pages. Do the math; 13 pages out of 577 pages are 2% of the Sira.

On the 13th page, a Muslim picks a weapon during an argument with a Meccan kafir and bloodies him with a blow to the head. So much for peaceful Islam. For the next 163 pages, 28% of the text, Mohammed argues on a daily basis. It is not that Mohammed is right, but all kafirs are wrong about everything. He even tells the Meccans that their parents are burning in Hell because they did not submit to Islam. He threatens the Meccans, "I will bring you slaughter." Mohammed is pushy, belligerent, argumentive and rude. He is relentless. On a daily basis, he is down at the kabah, a social as well as a religious center, and is constantly in the Meccans' face.

The Meccans wanted to harm Mohammed, but he was protected by his powerful uncle. But when his uncle died, the Meccans drove him out of town. In Medina, the next phase of the Sira deals with jihad, killing kafirs. That takes up 401 pages, 70% of the text.

Based upon the Sira, Islam is 2% peace, 28% argument and threats, and 70% jihad. If the Sira were a two-hour movie, then the peaceful part would last for nearly 3 minutes, the fist fights, brawls, arguments and threats would last 34 minutes and the killing would take up 83 minutes. But the movie ends with the beaten kafirs saying that they will do whatever Mohammed wants, if he will only stop the jihad.

So remember, actually Islam is peaceful, a full 2% peaceful, and if we're good dhimmis, we won't mention the other 98%.

—Bill Warner

Say it ain't so, Mo! Just a quick glance at the raw statistics says volumes about the psychologically-crippled beginnings of this so-called religion called Islam, which is a totalitarian political ideology masked in religion's dirty rags. This is the cult of personality writ larger and more perversely than any ever experienced in the history of man as we know it, bar none. Not even Jesus the Nazarene held court in such a personally aggrandizing way as this desert warlord, Mohammed. Jesus and Mohammed are opposites. But that's not the issue here.

The solid evidence of Islamic malfeasance now aimed at the West and ALL war-ravaged parts of the globe under fire in these times as presented in the Bellicose Augur and its profile of well-researched sources clearly maps out a gruesome picture of what is happening, what has ALWAYS happened, and what will happen one day in your very own hometown, if the West does not wake up and demand a more profound defense from this invading ideological beast than our elected leadership is currently providing. Here's a clue just to get started to help us turn back the intoxicated tide of multiculturalism gone mad.

Stop Islamic immigration now! Link Islam to its fascist roots and its 20th century reboot with Nazi Germany. That we could finally name the enemy in the same strict terms they use to describe themselves would offer us infidels some hope to which we can cling and some solid ground from which we must fight in this continuing battle...

The sooner, the less bloodier, the less bloodier, the better...

Simple math.