THWARTING ISLAMIC SLAVERS

MUSLIM APOLOGISTS NEVER DISCUSS, or even mention, the fact that slavery has always been accepted in Islam, and therefore it remains perfectly licit, as long as the canonical texts are neither changed, nor received differently. They never mention, never allude to, the vast Arab slave trade. They do not apologize for it; why should they—there is nothing to apologize or feel guilty about, according to the tenets of Islam. The mortality rate for the black Africans taken by the Arabs was extraordinarily high. Why were the boys castrated far from the final market? Very high death rates. Specialist knowledge lowered mortality and reduced costs—on routes utilized by slave traders.

In "The Hideous Trade: Economic Aspects of the "Manufacture" and Sale of Eunuchs," Paideuma, Mitteilungen zur Kulturkunde, Vol. .45, pp. 137-160, Weisbaden, 1999, J. Hogendorn analyzes the economics of the trade in black eunuchs by African slavers. It made economic sense to castrate boys, between the ages of 4 and 10, because they seemed to survive the operation, and the long march, more easily. Furthermore, while the Maliki school of jurisprudence that prevailed in North Africa did not allow for the "mutiliation" of slaves, the local Arabs exhibited no qualms if such "mutilation" (i.e. castration) were to be performed elsewhere, and for them simply to be the buyers of the boys who had been gelded out of sight.

Hogendorn adduces evidence, supported by the observations of others, that the mortality rate was 90%, so that for every 1000 black Africans subjected to castration by the Arab traders, only 100 would make it to the Muslim slave markets, in Constantinopole, Cairo, Baghdad, Beirut, Riyadh, Jeddah, Mecca, Medina, and even Smyrna. Anyone wishing to research the vast Arab trade in black eunuchs should start with Hogendorn. Needless to say, neither Muslims, nor Muslim apologists, have anything to say about this enormous trade—try finding a word about it in all of John Esposito's dozen or so books, and you will come up empty.

The Arab slave trade was much mentioned by the Western press during the 19th century—Tippoo Tib, for example, was a notorious figure, who occurs in Stanley's reports on the Congo. There were many less-known Arab slavers as well. But this is a subject that needs to be investigated, perhaps most appropriately by those who are looking for under-investigated areas of world history.

Yet another fail to recognize the Arab slave trade, though the slave-trader Tippu was a major figure, for example, in Livingstone's reports from Central Africa. new book, based on the story of Thomas Pellow, an Englishman who was one of those captured, "converted" to Islam, and then managed to return to England, has just appeared on this very subject—"White Gold," by Giles Milton (Hodder and Stoughton). Here is the brief review by Philippa Nuttall, in the Times Literary Supplement (Nov. 26, 2004, p.33):

"The horrors of the black slave trade are well documented, but few people are aware that Europeans were also sold to work as slaves for the sultans of North Africa and their entourages. Giles Milton’s reading of unpublished journals and letters led him to uncover the amazing and shocking tale of Thomas Pellow. Stolen from his uncle's ship in 1715 at the age of eleven, Pellow was not to return home to the Cornish village of Penryn until twenty-three years later.

Between 1609 and 1616, some 466 English trading ships were seized and their crews forced into slavery. The corsairs of Barbary also launched hit and run raids around the coast of England. By the end of 1625, the mayor of Plymouth believed that at least a thousand of his townspeople had been kidnapped. The men were most often put to work from dawn to dusk, toiling away under the blistering heat on the Moroccan sultan Mulay Ismail's new palace, the largest construction project in history.

The sultan was not satisfied with forcing the slaves to work for him. He wished them to share in his religious beliefs, and frequently tried to convert them to Islam through torture. The women prisoners were forvcibly converted and sent to the harem. A particularly widespread form of torture was bastinadoing, whereby the victim is hung upside down so that his neck and shoulders rest on the ground. His ankles are then bound and he is whipped forty or fifty times on the soles of his feet. Pellow initially put up a strong fight. But after one particularly fearsome bastinado, he renounced God in favour of Muhammad. His intelligence and strength had already caused the sultan to single him out as a potential palace retainer; his conversion eased his appointment as guardian of the imperial harem.

As time passed, though never losing the desire to return to his homeland, Pellow began to have more in common with his captors than with his countrymen. He became fluent in Arabic, was made to take a wife " with whom he had a daughter " and was regularly sent into battle. He even took part in slave-gathering expeditions across the Dark Continent. After several failed attempts, he managed to flee his captors and returned to Devon.

The British government and its European neighbours proved singularly unable to coordinate and sustain an effort to free the slaves. It was not until 1816 that Britain finally declared all-out war on the trade and sent a fleet, captained by a distant relative of Pellow, to Algiers. The victory of Sir Edward Pellow's fleet led to the release of 1,642 slaves in Algiers alone, and persuaded the rulers of Tunis, Tripoli and various Moroccan cities that the era of the white slave was over.

Of course, the enslavement of blacks and whites was justified by the Muslim raiders because both the black Africans, and all the Europeans who were kidnapped over many centuries, both belonged to the Bilad al-kufr and were, in fact, Infidels. J. Willis, like Hogedorn a student of the Arab slave trade, notes in “Jihad and the Ideology of Enslavement,” in Slaves and Slavery in Muslim Africa, pp. 16-26, the attitude of the Arab slavers:

“As the opposition of Islam to kufr erupted from every corner of malice and mistrust, the lands of the enslavable barbarian became the favorite hunting ground for the “people of reason and faith” [that is, Muslims], the parallels between slave and infidel began to fuse in the heat of jihad. Hence whether by capture or sale, it was as slave and not citizen that the kafir was destined to enter the Muslim domain. And since the condition of captives flowed from the status of their territories, the choice between freedom and servility came to rests on a single proof: the religion of a land is the religion of its amir (ruler); if he be Muslim, the land is a land of Islam (dar al-Islam); if he be pagan, the land is a land of unbelief (dar al-kufr).

Appended to this principle was the kindred notion that the religion of a land is the religion of its majority; if it be Muslim the land is a land of Islam; if it be pagan, the land is a land of kufr, and its inhabitants can be reckoned within the categories of enslavement underl Muslim law. Again, as slavery became a simile for infidelity, so too did freedom remain the signal feature of Islam. And further:

“...in all the legal texts: "make jihad against the infidels, kill their men, make captive their women and children, seize their wealth .”

Thus, encumbrance was no sanctuary from the servile condition; with the elimination of the men, the net of enslavement slipped over the remnants of the kafir camp, round the women and children who became spoil in the path of Allah. The deiolgoy of enslavement in Islam then, becomes that ideology which seeks to repair the losses of jihad. Women and children are the diya [the compensation, fixed by custom and law], the jizya, the reparation and plunder for lives pledged in jihad. Hence again, spoil [ghanima] becomes a kind of compensation

There is much more in Willis, and in Hogedorn. These texts will appear in the forthcoming “The Legacy of Jihad” - a much-needed anthology of scholarship on Jihad and Dhimmitude, edited by Dr. Andrew Bostom.

But from this short note, on both the vast Arab trade in the enslavement of black Africans (and if the mortality rate for the eunuchs was 90%, then the numbers of Africans actually murdered even before they arrived at the Muslim slave markets of Mecca, Medinah, Cairo, Baghdad, Constantinopole, Jeddah, and so on, then given the millions and millions who were enslaved over many centuries until the Europeans, especially the British, managed to end the trade, was far greater than the number of victims of the Middle Passage, or Atlantic Slave Trade.

If we add to that the million victims of the white slave trade, discussed in the review of Giles Milton's “White Gold” which focuses on the life of Thomas Pellow, one can see that those who make claims as occurred during the U.N.'s almost continuous session of taqiyya by the likes of Seyyid Hossein Nasr and, even more scandalously because of all her talk about “freedom of thought” and "freedom of speech" and "freedom of religion" having their origins in Islam, an Orwellianism that beggars belief—one Azizah al-Hibri, a fulltime defender of Islam who cloaks her apologetics in an ostentatious pretense of somehow “fighting for women's rights” within an Islamic context (she needs to be raked over the rhetorical coals by some real "fighter? such as Azam Kamguian).

Perhaps a Kamguian-Al-Hibri debate can be arranged at the next meeting of the American Association of Law Schools, which is where, in the firt place, some years ago, someone on the Hiring Committee of the T. D. Williams School of Law must have urged her hiring, in the mistaken belief that the best person to teach students about Islamic law, of course, would be a plausible Muslim (it is more akin to hiring a KGB agent to give a course on the Soviet Union, given the impossibility for Muslims to let Infidels know the full truth about Muslim tenets or Muslim history " the Faith must be defended at all costs (taqiyya, kitman are the doctrines that religiously-sanction dissimulation "lying" to protect that faith).

And when Azizah al-Hibri maintained at the U.N.'s "Islamophobia Day" that Islam was always "peaceful? and "unaggressive," aside from the fact of conquest explaining the entire history of the spread of Islam " with the single exception of the East Indies, where Da?wa seems to have done the main work " there is, in the sanitized version of Al-Hibri's history, the great omission before the resumption of aggression in modern times, especially whenever the wherewithal was available, as it is now.

And that great omission consists in passing over in silence the black African slave trade by Arab Muslim slavers, supplying all the slave markets of the Muslim world, especially with young boys, usually between 4 and 14, gelded for their Muslim masters. And she forgets the hundreds of years, in which Arabs raided up and down the coasts of Europe, as far even as Ireland and in one recorded case, Iceland, looting, raiding villages, and taking back as slaves nearly one million white Europeans, of whom Thomas Pellow was one.

The scholarly work of Hogedorn deals soberly with the atrocity of "the hideous trade? in eunuchs, while J. Willis relates the African slave trade to the Islamic doctrines concerning Jihad fa sibil Allah " Jihad in the way of Allah " and the rightness of enslaving the kaffir, whose enslavement is the correct way for kaffirs, Infidels, to atone for their being Infidels in the first place.

The more you learn about Islam, the more detail you acquire, the less confused you become about the spectacle you see all about you, and instead of confusion, the mind comes to rest, as the Infidel Samuel Johnson once said, on the stability of truth. And the next time the assorted and fungible Al-Hibris and Nasrs of this world tell you that it was "the Crusades? or, in al-Hibri's case, "colonialism? which caused the Muslim world to become more aggressive out of its need to defend itself, raise the little matter of the trade in eunuchs, and how many blacks have been sent, over how many centuries, to stock the slave trade of the Muslim world.

And then mention Thomas Pellow, and the million Europeans kidnapped (and how many others were murdered in Muslim raids up and down the coasts of the Mediterranean, all the way to the North Sea), and their villages raided " hundreds of years before colonialism " which, except for Algeria, touched the Arab Muslim world only glancingly, and for a very short period.

The more you learn about Islam, the more detailed knowledge you acquire, the less confused you become about the spectacle you see all about you, here and there throughout the world. That confusion, which some in Washington and certainly many in the chanceries of Europe, still feel because they do not pay attention to history, and fail to recognize the immutable nature of Islam, which makes that 1400 years of history completely relevant today. Eventually, as that famous Infidel Samuel Johnson (who would not have lasted a minute under Islam) once said, the mind can only repose on the stability of truth.

That stability of truth is attained when we heed the evidence presented not only by our senses (what the news offers by way of Muslim attacks world-wide on non-Muslims, or the content of khutbas, or textbooks, or the rhetoric of the terrorist groups, or the taqiyya/kitman offered by the assorted Tariq Ramadans/Azizah al Hibris and their non-Muslim fellow apologists (Esposito, Sells, more than half the membership, and all of the officers, of Mesa Nostra), but by the articulate analyses from "defectors? or ex-Muslims" Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina come to mind.

And then there are the scholars who, because they were independent of universities, carried on their work unafraid, such as that pioneering historian of dhimmitude, Bat Ye’or. Those who continue, despite the mounting evidence, and despite the kind of scholarship that, for example, is used in this brief note (J. Hogedorn, J. Willis, Giles Milton) which can no longer be hidden from view, and will, in larger and larger amounts, be made available to the world of real scholarship and to the general public (neither of which seems too impressed, anymore, or too likely, any more, to be taken in by the Esposito-Sells-Ernst view of Islam, now seen as the offerings of carney barkers down on their luck).

Those who have been creating, and flogging, sanitized Qur’ans, those who have been playing the stuck record of Saidian thuggery and invective and the clichés about "colonialism” and, bien entendu, "post-colonial discourse,” are seeing their audience get up, virtually en masse, and leave the room.

Those who have tried to play various rhetorical cards such as the "creation of the Other by the West" (of course, Islam itself rests entirely on the need for "the Other" since it divides the world uncompromisingly between Believer and Infidel, dar al-Islam and dar al-harb) or the latest bait and switch called "islamophobia,” which is an attempt to create a name for a non-existent condition that is, baseless prejudice against Islam—using it to prevent intelligent critical scrutiny of the tenets of Islam, and of the history of Muslim treatment of non-Muslims wherever they have been subjugated, are losing ground and they know it.

Each day in the Sudan, or in Pakistan, or in Iraq, or in Egypt, brings fresh news of attacks on non-Muslims. Each day brings fresh news of attempts by Muslims in the West to make demands on the Infidels among whom they live, and whose societies they are intent on bending to their will, and their desires. Each day brings news of fresh attempts at intimidation, ranging from "religious hate laws” that are transparent attempts to keep non-Muslims from saying anything critical about Islam, to lawsuits to silence critics (as in Australia), to murder (as with Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh). Each day's news makes it that much harder for the Espositos and the Al-Hibris and the Tariq Ramadans to continue their work of apologetics and, where they are Muslim, taqiyya and kitman.

And each day brings closer the unearthing and the publication of more and more scholarship. Whether it is about the historic treatment of Zoroastrians (Mary Boyce), or about the Arab Muslim slave trade (Hogedorn, Willis, Giles Milton, and hundreds of others), whether it is the scholarship that has recently been reprinted for wide audiences (Schacht, Margoliouth, Sir William Muir), or new work on dhimmitude (the four volumes of Bat Ye’or, including the latest, "Eurabia” or Vahakh Dadrian on the Armenian genocide), or the forgotten articles of great Islamists found, assembled, and readied for publication (from Arthur Jeffery and Charles-Emmanuel Dufourcq, to Armand Abel, Georges Vajda, Bousquet,), or the growing body of scholarship by Indian historians on the fate of Hindus and Hindu civilization under Muslim rule (scholarship which must include not only K. S Lal and Sita Ram Goel, and Koenraad Elst, but also the work of V. S. Naipaul as a student of the "wounded civilization?), and there is much more.

It must be difficult to be an apologist for Islam, and wake up each morning, wondering what the news will bring, and how you will manage to explain it away this time. And it must be frightening to consult the catalogues of books that are about to be published, to see what is about to come out on Islam. Gone are the days of "Constructing Palestinian Identity” or other books focussing on the Arab jihad against Israel. Indeed, ten years ago, you could get away without using the word "jihad” and five years ago, you could still get away without doing much more than dismissing it with some reference to the "Greater Jihad” of mastering your own self. Two years ago, you could get away with not mentioning the condition of the dhimmi, or if you had to, mentioning laconically that Christians and Jews were offered favored treatment as "Protected Peoples” et cetera, and leave it at that.

Why, even a half-year ago, the worst you could expect would be whatever Bernard Lewis was offering, and he was, a year ago, the nemesis of Esposito. But too many people have seen what is wrong with Bernard Lewis as well " not least because his failure to see the full horror of Islam, even as he warns (more privately than publicly) about the threat of Europe's islamization, a reflection not of stupidity but, very likely, of the desire to maintain his position with fan clubs in Amman and Istanbul, and his own forays into policy, with his support for the Oslo Accords, and his seeming belief that Iraq was a suitable place to enter into the folly and misallocation of resources that this "Light Unto the Muslim Nations” project has become, draining men, material, money, morale, and attention from the much larger problem, the world-wide and endless problem of Islam and the Jihad.

And the scholarship produced, or unearthed, and the day's daily Jihad-and-Dhimmitude news, makes it harder and harder for the apologists to continue. They may save their livelihoods (though Georgetown really, for its own sake, and own reputation, ought to sever the connection with Esposito)—That's what tenure will do—but Mesa Nostra is unlikely to have the power, or command the respect, or above all be able to attract the government money, that it once did, and still hopes it can manage to inveigle from an increasingly skeptical, not to say hostile, public and government.

But, to go back to Muslim Slavery, Black and White—think of those young black eunuchs, for every thousand gelded, only one hundred survived the long march to the Muslim slave markets. And think of Thomas Pellow, and the million other Christian Europeans kidnapped (and how many others killed during Muslim raids) over more than 500 years of aggression, by sea, of Muslims against Western Christendom and against the Kaffir, who as a Kaffir, merited enslavement.

And the same texts remain, and are received in the same way, by the vast majority of Muslims. And there seems to be no way to change them, no one and no group, with the authority to do so, or the ability to get Muslims to accept those changes, whether in details of the sira, or in the assignment of different hadith to the categories of “strong” and "weak” hadith, or to the most difficult text to touch—the Quran itself.

And that is the problem. And there is no solution.

INTERVIEW WITH BILL WARNER (PT.2)

WASHINGTON—Welcome to part two of a riveting interview with laudible Bill Warner—the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI) and spokesman for PoliticalIslam.com This interview was conducted by Jamie Glasov As we mentioned in thesend-up to part one of this interview, this, my friends, is serious reading material. Check your facts, if you doubt these, one by one, but please be certain of your sources. Analyze them as you would your mortgage papers. This is a war that begins with information, and disinformation is the primary tool of the enemy. Change your perspective from one of ignorance to that of an informed kafir citizenry. It is time, not only to love thy enemies, but to correct them as well..

FP: Give some advice as to how we can improve our organization.

Warner: Ok, let me lay out a theoretical organization devoted to attacking dhimmis.

We must organize as political activists. This can take a thousand forms, but since this is a Web article, let me suggest one possible form of war—personal educational attacks on dhimmis.

Organization: Wild Dog Team (must have a coordinating website).

Situation: a university professor of Middle East studies writes a puff piece about Islam in a large newspaper.

Response: A Wild Dog member posts the article to the Wild Dog target page. If this dhimmi writer has been attacked before, there is a historical record. (Assume this has been going on long enough that an email directory has been prepared for the newspaper staff and the University Middle East studies and the University Administration.) Other Wild Dogs sign up to do a pack attack.

A project page is created for this attack. The project page has some suggested ideas for attack lines. Each of the members writes a letter and sends it to the email list of the professor, the newspaper editorial staff, the University department and University Administration. The team member also posts his letter to Project Page. This lets other Pack members coordinate their letters and not duplicate.

The Library: The Wild Dogs Web page has a library of “best letters” so that cut and paste can be used for letter writing.

Tone: no personal attacks. Use facts of the doctrine and history. These letters are not to insult, but to educate. Shame works, use it.

Repetition: Each time the professor writes another letter or the newspaper publishes another dhimmi article, the Pack attack continues. Individual dhimmis can be influenced over time by knowledge, pressure and shame.

This is all doable. We have a lot of talent, but we are not organized.

Here is another organization idea: we kafirs have many Web sites. We need a communication network for our Web site owners. There are ideas, projects, strategies and tactics we could share and develop, and have a channel to advance some ideas.

We must make being a kafir a point of identity and pride. Call yourself a kafir in all relations with Muslims. We are the Free, free of Islam. Muslims are the slaves. We must make the word dhimmi a stinging, shameful rebuke, a punishing insult that hurts.

So I can’t make it any clearer and I need to shout:

Kafirs must organize and be politically active against the dhimmis.

FP: Let me switch over to some Christian apologists for Islam out there. They trying to make Islam seem right. There are also those Christians who oppose Islam but they are scared to come out. What are your thoughts on this phenomenon?

Warner: These are all manifestations of dhimmitude based upon ignorance and fear, the terms of surrender to Islam. Such people are not capable of defeating political Islam nor doing battle.

Jamie, I have been to some of the most outrageous Christian events. I have seen evangelical Christians stand up and defend Islam based upon what an imam told them. I know graduates from prestigious divinity schools say that a dhimmi was protected by Islam (warm and fuzzy) and the that Islam is a “brother Abrahamic faith”.

Some evangelicals admire Islam, because Muslims are so Puritanical and relentless in their public faith. Other Christians are jealous of Islam. Christians are reflexively attacked by the media and the intellectuals; mocked for their beliefs and given short shift for Christianity’s role in forming our civilization. You couldn’t even get the intellectuals to criticize Islam when they murdered and raped innocent school children in Beslan, Russia. Government, universities and the media fall all over themselves to “respect” and not “offend” Islam. Some Christians look at that and are wistful. This can lead to a kind of admiration. Islam may be like the Mafia, but they get respect.

Then you have the main line churches like the Episcopalians and Methodists. They compete with the Leftists to be the most tolerant and understanding dhimmis.

Christianity’s main problem in dealing with Islam is seeing it only as a religion. Therefore, they want to defeat Islam by conversion. Christians point to a few converts and say, “See it works.” The only problem is that more Muslims are born or immigrate than convert. Christians must do the math.

Christians are ignorant about Islam and don’t know how to use Mohammed for their benefit. If you know the life of Mohammed, you can use his brutality, enslavement of kafirs, deceit, and bigotry to attack Islam. The best strategy is to use the knowledge about Mohammed and the Koran to first cause the Muslim to become an apostate and leave Islam. Then they can convert the apostate to Christianity.

Christianity is the best, and maybe the only, chance we have of defeating Islam. Just earlier I said that our main problem was organizational. Christians have that solved and have, many times, exerted social and political pressure. Christians bring a certain mass to the solution. Just imagine what could happen if Christian intelligence, communications, organizational skills, morale and capital could be brought to bear. Christianity must realize that this is live-or-die as a civilization and there are only two choices—war or annihilation. See Turkey, Egypt, Iraq and North Africa for what an annihilated Christianity looks like.

It is time for Christians to learn the truth about political Islam’s history and doctrine. Protestant Christianity invented universal education. They must repeat this. This time they must educate themselves about the factual truth about Islam.

Now let’s deal with “scared to come out” part of your question. I know of both Christians and Jews who are afraid to speak about Islam at their church or synagogue. This lack of candor and honesty means that there are congregants who do not know that there are others feel just as they do. Silence has replaced honesty in both Christianity and Judaism. Both Christians and Jews are ruled by a desperate ignorance. The topic of Islam is forbidden to be discussed when ministers and rabbis get together at organizational meetings.

FP: What about the Jews?

Warner: A large portion of Jews are in a state of denial. When Islam comes up, their first instinct is to move from Islam to their irritations with Christianity. The vast majority of Jews don’t know Sira from syrup and think that Hadith is a Scottish dish. So they prove their “tolerance” by making apologies for Islam.

The true nature of Jews and dhimmitude is given in detail by Andy Bostom’s book, The Islamic Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism (to be published in May, 2008). I am sure there is a rabbi somewhere who knows what a dhimmi is, but I have never met him.

Jews are the oldest and supreme dhimmis. They actually write propaganda for Islam. Bernard Lewis and Ruven Firestone are dhimmi sycophants of the highest order. They transform dhimmitude into an elitist Islamic Golden Age. And, of course, since Muslims are a minority in America, Jews would not want to be caught dead being bigots by opposing political Islam. So, the dhimmi Minnesota Jews helped vote in the first Muslim US Congressman whose supporters yelled “Allahu akbar” over and over again at his victory celebration.

There is no way to save Israel without understanding the jihadic nature of the Palestinians. But Jews must be willing to study political Islam to save Israel.

I am harsh in criticizing Christians and Jews because we cannot win without them. It is time to reverse a 1400-year history of deliberate ignorance and face the truth about the doctrine and history of political Islam. In the war to defend ourselves against political Islam, the Christians are like the regular army. The Jews are like the Marines. We need the intellectual power and influence of the Jews.

Jews and Christians could unite on a project that could save us. There is an enormous historical suffering in the Tears of Jihad. This material has never been collected. Jews have experience in documenting the Holocaust. They could work with Christians to collect and record the suffering. There is both old and ancient history to be collected and cataloged, along with the suffering of those alive today. This history must be preserved.

We can see we face an up-hill battle when it comes to unifying Christians and Jews to war against political Islam. It was Mohammed who said that Christians are endless divided and Jews have hearts harder than rocks. The actual task of attacking dhimmis is not so hard. It is assembling the army that is hard. Can evangelicals feel sympathy for the suffering of the Orthodox and Catholics? Many Jews don’t like the fact that they have to accept help from Christians for Israel. Historically Catholics have bad blood with the Orthodox. The first instinct of any Christian when they meet another Christian is to notice how they disagree about doctrine—endlessly divided. In the face of these divisions, we must assemble an army and prove Mohammed wrong.

We haven’t even talked about the secular kafirs. Kafirs are a quarrelsome lot and never seem to be happier than when they argue with other kafirs about politics. But the simple fact is that if all kafirs don’t unite against political Islam, Islam will unite them all when their descendants bow down and face Mecca at the call to prayer.

FP: Bill Warner, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

Warner: Thank you.

Read it all.

INTERVIEW WITH BILL WARNER (PT.1)

WASHINGTON—What a treat we have for our readers, today. This is serious reading material, folks. Check the facts, if you doubt these, one by one, but please be certain of your sources. Analyze them as you would your mortgage papers. This is a war that begins with information, and disinformation is the primary tool of the enemy. Change your perspective from one of ignorance to that of an informed kafir citizenry. It is time, not only to love thy enemies, but to correct them as well.Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Bill Warner, the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI) and spokesman for PoliticalIslam.com.

FP: Bill Warner, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Warner: Jamie, thank you for inviting me.

FP: I would like to discuss the issue of dhimmis today. Let's begin like this: who are the dhimmis? And what different kinds are there?

Warner: Dhimmis begin with Mohammed. He was the world’s supreme master of making others submit to his will. Mohammed had the insight into the human psyche that all human beings have a genetic disposition to submit to the will of the group and higher ranked individuals.

We like to think of ourselves as individuals who can make decisions and freely execute them. Mohammed’s insight was into the submissive side of being human. To survive as a civilization we must allow others to dictate what we do to some extent. As an example, we all submit to the idea that we stop our car at the red light. We submit to society’s rules. We are not completely free, but a member of society. If we did not have this “pack” gene, we could not survive as a species. We must be able to work together. There is no way to survive alone.

In short, all humans have a beta gene, a submissive gene, as part of our DNA. But a beta needs an alpha. Mohammed was history’s supreme alpha male.

Previous religious leaders and philosophers approached humanity with the idea of freeing the individual from fear. Mohammed did not try to free humanity, but to make humanity a slave to Allah, the god of fear. So he “revealed” the ultimate alpha—Allah. Under Allah, all humans come to their fulfillment by being Allah’s slave. But since Mohammed was the only “prophet” of Allah, to obey Allah was to obey Mohammed. Islam is submission to Allah/Mohammed.

In his early phase in Mecca, Mohammed only talked about religious slavery to Allah/Mohammed. The Koran promises the use of violence in Hell after death. The Koran of Mecca has 67% of its text devoted to how the kafirs (unbelievers) must submit to Allah/ Mohammed.

Then in Medina, Mohammed’s message became political, and he became violent without limits towards kafirs. Mohammed made all the Jews of Medina submit to him by robbery, murder, war, assassinations, rape, torture, executions, exile and enslavement.

After he had subdued all of the kafirs in Medina, Mohammed attacked the Jews of Khaybar. By now he realized that you could make more money from a live kafir than from a dead one. Kafirs can be enslaved, but the slave option has a disadvantage. Slaves have to be managed and be near at hand. So Mohammed created the dhimmi. The dhimmi agrees to live in a world that is dominated by Islam in all public areas. A dhimmi is free from Islam only in his own home. Law, customs, art, education, the media, government, speech and every thing in public space is Islamic. In addition, the dhimmi has to pay a tax to Islam called the jizya tax. In Khaybar the jizya tax was 50%.

The key psychological technique is that the dhimmi is to be humiliated in all possible ways. In effect, the dhimmi is halfway between freedom and slavery, a semi-slave.

Mohammed’s power structure was now complete. His first division of humanity was into believer/kafir. Then he refined kafir into dhimmi and slave. Humanity became divided into Muslim, kafir-slaves, kafir-dhimmis and kafirs.

As the Islamic conquest rolled over the kafirs, the dhimmi was the perfect tool of subjugation. After Islam conquered a country, for instance Egypt, the Muslims were the top dogs in the politics, but the Christians could keep their religion. However, they had to live without legal protection or civil rights. All public space was Islamic. The dhimmi could be insulted, abused and had no recourse. They had to pay the jizya tax. The dhimmi were cattle on the Islamic ranch, but could attend their church or synagogue.

FP: What happened to the dhimmis under these conditions?

Warner: The insults, humiliations and taxes wore the dhimmis down. What happened over time was that the dhimmis converted to Islam. It was easier to avoid all this pain and become a Muslim.

In the 20th century, Islam became so weak that the full dhimmi status was dropped. But if you meet and talk to Christians from the Middle East today, you will find that the centuries of dhimmitude have produced, in many cases, a personality similar to an abused wife. It is very sad to see how subjugated a personality can become.

There is another kind of dhimmi—kafirs who become apologists for Islam, fear and defer to it. So we have two types of dhimmi—the subjugated dhimmi who is under the political power of Islam and the apologist dhimmi who seeks Islamic favor.

FP: I see, so two kinds of dhimmis.

Warner: Exactly, the word dhimmi has two separate meanings—a subjugated dhimmi is persecuted and the apologist dhimmi helps the persecutor. The context determines which dhimmi we are talking about. One dhimmi is to be pitied and helped; the other dhimmi needs to be educated. But the apologist dhimmi is the key to defeating Islam.

Our civilization is under attack by political Islam. It is the intent of Islam to do this country what it has done to every country it has invaded—annihilate our civilization. This annihilation is the goal of political Islam for a simple reason. Annihilation is the process of Islamification. We must understand that Islam is a totally separate civilization from ours. The civilization of Islam is anti-everything in our civilization. As an example, our ethical system has at its core the Golden Rule and is a unitary system. We have one set of ethical rules for all possible groups. Islamic ethics are dualistic. Islam has one set of rules for Muslims and another set of rules for the kafirs.

Kafir logic is based upon Aristotelian law of non-contradiction. If two things contradict each other, then at least one of them must be false. Islamic logic is dualistic. The Koran establishes the logic of Islam. The Koran of Mecca contradicts the Koran of Medina, but since both Korans are perfect, both sides of the contradiction are true. Dualistic logic allows two contradictory “facts” to be true at the same time. Islamic logic is built on contradiction.

Allah is the god of duality and submission. Islamic civilization is based upon the principles of duality and submission. Our civilization is based upon the principles of unitary ethics and unitary logic.

FP: Right, ok, so our civilizations are completely different. We have nothing in common and our basic values are completely opposed to one another.

Warner: Jamie, this may be an extreme statement, but I am honestly unable to find even one issue on which Islam and the kafir culture agree.

Not one.

We have nothing in common. Since the Islamic civilization opposes us on every issue of art, politics, gender, education, the media, free speech, ethics, logic, family, and entertainment, it is an inevitable that the change would annihilate our civilization.

Mohammed agreed to a compromise with the kafirs once in the infamous Satanic verse when he compromised about prayer and the native Arabic gods. The Sira records that the act of compromise was the biggest mistake he ever made. After that, Mohammed never agreed with kafirs and never, ever compromised again. Total submission—annihilation—was Mohammed’s way.

There is no happy compromise that can be worked out with Islam. This is not because we are intolerant, unfeeling or stupid. As an example, the word kafir is the worst word in the human language. There is not one positive or neutral aspect to kafir. Allah loves Muslims and hates kafirs. What is the compromise that will let kafirs and Muslims live together harmoniously?

FP: Understood. So who are our enemies?

Warner: We have two ideological enemies—the far enemy, Islam, and the near enemy—the apologist dhimmis. The apologist dhimmis preach that a compromise exists.

Now think about how the near enemy works. It is Islam that demands that Muslims write the “official” history of Islam that will be taught in the kafir schools. But it is an ignorant textbook committee of dhimmis that say, “Yes, only Muslims can write the official version.”

So our history courses never report the disaster of the loss of kafir culture in North Africa, the Middle East, Turkey and Hindustan. It is the dhimmis who decide the history, Islamic studies and Middle East departments and pass on lies as truth. It is a dhimmi government of America who has decided to base all of its policies on what the imam says. Islam knocks and we open the door and invite them in. Whatever Islam wants, the school board, textbook committee, zoning board, politician, educator, and media reporter gives them in order to be seen as tolerant.

Dhimmis roll over for all Islamic demands on our civilization. Dhimmis are aiding and abetting implementation of Sharia inch by inch. We are losing the war of annihilation due to the dhimmis, not the Muslims. It is not that Islam is so strong, but that we are so weak. We are weak because we are ignorant.

Who do you know—politician, professor, minister, rabbi, artist—who has read the Sira (the life of Mohammed) or the Koran? The heads of the FBI, military and the CIA have never given the slightest hint that they understand the doctrine or history of political Islam. All of these kafirs are dhimmis because they don’t know Islam.

The place to win the war of annihilation is to attack the near enemy, the dhimmi. Forget attacking the Muslims. That is useless.

FP: So what is the best way to wake up the dhimmis or, if they refuse to wake up, to defeat them? Tell us a bit about possible grand strategies.

Warner: The key to waking up the dhimmis is with two kinds of knowledge—history and doctrine. Our dhimmis suffer from wanting to do the right thing and they think that the right thing is to help the victim. And Islam always claims to be the victim. Dhimmis love a good victim story.

We need to tell the history of the real victims—subjugated dhimmis, the Christian Arabs, Egyptian Copts, the Armenians, the African slaves, the Hindus, and the rest. We need to tell our apologist dhimmis these victims, the story I call the Tears of Jihad.

The Western historical mind is schizophrenic. We have an enormous missing history. What’s missing is not the problem, the problem is that we don’t even know it is missing. I like to ask devout Christians, “What happened to the Seven Churches of Asia mentioned in the book of Revelation?” Most Christians don’t know how Greek Christian Anatolia became Turkish Islamic Turkey. Buddhists don’t know how Afghanistan became the ground zero of Ghandarvian Buddhism. Jews are in denial about their role as dhimmis in medieval Islamic history. North Africa used to be Greek and Roman. How did it become Islamic?

They all became Islamic with an invasion where the kafirs became subjugated dhimmis. Over the next centuries, all the dhimmis converted. The dhimmi is a halfway point to submission to Islam.

All of these civilizations were annihilated. It is the purpose and history of Islam to annihilate all kafir culture. But the enormous tragedy is that the history was annihilated as well. We don’t even know that such history exists, never mind what it is. Almost no kafirs ever refer to this non-history of annihilation.

How big is this non-history of annihilation? The total killed over a 1400-year period is about 270 million. That is the biggest single source killing in the history of the world. The history of the death of those 270 million is the Tears of Jihad. Each and every one of these people was killed for only one reason—they were kafirs.

FP: This was civilizational annihilation, right?

Warner: Yes, and it was a two-step process. The jihad crushed the kafir political structure and set up the natives as dhimmis. Centuries later, the kafir culture is annihilated because dhimmis always submit over enough time. Dhimmitude is a temporary state that leads to submission.

We must learn the history of the Tears of Jihad and present it to our dhimmi culture. Because it is not just that our leaders are dhimmis, but with the help of the media and education, our entire culture has been dhimmified. So the history of the subjugated dhimmi must be taught.

This is a major problem, for the Tears of Jihad history has been suppressed. The suppression did not occur because of some left or right wing cabal, but due to our own revulsion about the history. The history of the jihad and dhimmitude is so shameful and humiliating that we do not want to know. The kafirs totally lost everything that was in their culture. The language, art, customs, names, literature, legal systems, history—everything. When you go to Egypt, where is the living civilization of the pharaohs? When you go to North Africa, what happened to the Greek, Roman and Christian civilization? Annihilated.

But there are bits and pieces of the destruction of ancient kafir cultures that can be found, if you search. But you won’t find this history in the universities. The universities teach a beautiful lie of the glorious conquest of Islam and the “Golden Age” that followed.

We don’t teach this shameful and humiliating history of the deaths of Tears of Jihad for another reason. If we understand the past, then we understand that it is happening today. We don’t want to know it because that would mean we have to do something. We are like the man who suspects that his wife is cheating on him, but doesn’t want to know, because if he knew he would have to act. Ignorance is a good enough reason to do nothing.

But we must teach the apologist dhimmis the history of the subjugated dhimmis. The brutality of dhimmitude is too much to dismiss. The deaths of 270 million are too many to ignore. And what is worse, 210 million of these dead kafirs are “people of color”. Even your uber-liberal dhimmis can get upset at the suffering of “people of color”.

Not only can we save our culture by knowing what happened to other kafir cultures, but also we would pay a moral debt to the dead. Until we acknowledge and remember the 270 million dead, they will have died in vain.

FP: Is there another front of attack on dhimmis?

Warner: Yes, the second front of attack on dhimmis is to use the doctrine of political Islam. It seems that every dhimmi has a Muslim friend or at least has read an article that says that the “real Islam” is peaceful, blah, blah, blah. Well, we no longer need the doctrine of political Islam interpreted for us by a “good” Muslim or the New York Times. We can go straight to Mohammed and Allah and see what they say. That is the entire purpose of CSPI’s books, as well as many others such as those by Ibn Warraq and Robert Spencer, is to expose the doctrine of political Islam.

You can’t go to a university to learn about Islam. The professors are the chief dhimmis and teach about Sufi poetry, Islamic architecture or modern political theory about the Middle East. But, the Web is filled with good sources on the doctrine of Islam found in the Trilogy—Koran, Sira (life of Mohammed) and Hadith (traditions of Mohammed). This material is scandalous. Mohammed was involved in violence on the average of every six weeks for nine years. The Koran talks about the kafirs as if they are the lowest scum in creation.

Not only is the political doctrine of Islam violent and hateful, but its results, the Tears of Jihad, are the worst single cause of suffering and the largest annihilation of people in human history. The story of the persecution of the dhimmis is dreadful. Mohammed was a violent and bad neighbor. This is all true and documented in fine detail by Islam.

All of the facts of persecution and doctrine of suffering are available to kafirs. So what? How can we force this material to be known? How can we deliver this ammunition? And to what target?

Our target must be the near enemy—the dhimmi, the apologist and enabler of Islam. Notice I said—the dhimmi, not the media, not the universities, not the government. We do not have the financial or political power to attack organizations.

But think about it. In every case, there is an individual involved. They may be the writer, the congressman, the professor, but their name is attached. We have to attack the specific dhimmi. By attack, I mean to invoke war, but this is an ideological war. Remember our ammunition is the doctrine and history of political Islam. We deliver that ammunition as best we know how.

While we are at it, we should also attack the dhimmi’s support network. If they are a newspaper writer, we also attack the editors and others who support or administer the writer. We attack the specific person and their network.

A lesson from the predators: a big cat kills in about 10% of its attacks. A wild dog pack kills about 90% of the time. Do the math. The wild dogs are organized, the big cats aren’t. We are too much like the big cats. We have to learn how to attack in packs.

We have very strong propaganda material. The kafirs have the best books, the best thinkers and the best Web sites. Islam has money, organization and a 1400-year head start so they are winning. Where we are tragically weak is in organization (including organizational money).

Read it all.