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.

OF FIRST AND LASTING IMPRESSIONS

IS ISLAM A PEACEFUL religion, or as the Netherlands politician Geert Wilders says, a malevolent, political ideology similar to, or worse than, Nazism? Consider the following, shocking to politically-correct Infidels (non-Muslims), but common knowledge and acceptable to Muslims:

1. Muslims must instill terror into non-Muslims (Koran 8:12) as Mohammed said, "I've been made victorious through terror" (Bukhari 4:52:220).
2. Non-Muslims (Infidels) are sworn enemies (inveterate foes) of Muslims and Islam. (Koran 4:101)
3. Muslims' have the holy right, authority, and requirement to kill non-Muslims. (Koran 9:5 - known as the "Verse of the Sword").
4. Infidels (non-Muslims) are forbidden from killing Muslims (Koran 4:92).
5. Muslims are forbidden from having non-Muslims as friends. (Koran 5:51).
6. Muslims offer non-Muslims 3 choices regarding religion (Koran 9:5): 1. convert 2. die 3. be persecuted as 2nd class citizens (Dhimmis) and pay extortion tax (Jizya).
7. Muslims can lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam and this is called Taqiyya (Koran 3:28, 16:106).
8. Muslims can omit the truth to non-Muslims to advance Islam and this is called Kitman.
9. Muslims believe they are the best (Koran 3:110) and non-Muslims are the vilest of creatures and deserve NO mercy (Koran 98:6).
10. 9/11 was justified by the "Kill AND be killed for Allah verse" (Koran 9:111).
11. Mohammed (51) married his favorite wife Aisha at 6. The marriage was consummated when he was 54 and she was 9.
12. Muslim men can marry anyone, up to 4 wives. Muslim women must ONLY marry Muslim men (4:3) thereby ensuring Islam does not weaken.
13. Only Mohammed had permission from Allah to marry as many wives as he wanted to (Koran 33:50).
14. Allah ordered Mohammed to marry his beautiful daughter-in-law called Zaynab bint Jahsh (Koran 33:37), yet cursed his aunt and uncle to hell (Koran entire Chapter 111).
15. Marriage AND divorce to pre-pubescent girls (not yet having 1st menstruation) is OK. (Koran 65:4)
16. Sex Slaves (concubines) were, and are today, legal in Islam (Koran 4:23-24).
17. Domestic Violence is OK, not husband beating, but only wife beating and sex slave beating, (Koran 4:34).
Chapter 4 is called Women and goes into great detail about how women and girls should be treated and mistreated.
18. To prove rape in Islamic law or Sharia law, Muslim females need four male Muslim witnesses in good standing (Koran 24:13).
Note: non-Muslims under Sharia (Islamic) law can't even accuse Muslims of any crimes.
19. Islamic heaven is an unlimited whorehouse of regenerating virgins (Koran 37:40-48, 44:51-55, 52:17-20, 55:56-58, 70-77, 56:7-40, and 78:31).
20. Islamic heaven also allows sodomy of young boys (Koran 52:24, 56:17, and 76:19).
21. Beheading is OK (Koran 47:4, 8:12) Mohammed personally help behead between 600 - 900 Qurayza Jews in Medina in 627 A.D. in one day.
22. Robbery and Theft of non-Muslim property is OK (The entire Chapter 8 of the Koran is known as Booty or Spoils).
23. Muslims that leave Islam (apostacy) MUST be killed. (Bukhari 4:52:260) Quoting Mohammed: "...if a Muslim discards his religion, kill him."
24. Mohammed is considered the ideal man to be imitated by Muslims, yet sinful. (Qur'an 47:21 and Qur'an 110)
25. The Koran has 114 Chapters called Surahs and is not presented in chronological order, but chapter length order, from longest (Chapter 1) to shortest (Chapter 114).
26. Many verses in the Koran conflict, so the concept of abrogation (Koran 2:106) applies. This means, later occurring verses may cancel out the earlier verses. AGAIN: earlier verses may be in a later chapter as the chapters are not presented in chronological order, but in order of size, larger to smaller.
27. The last chapter written in the Koran, Chapter 9, is extremely violent. It is also the only chapter of 114 that does not start off with the blessing "In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful."
28. Muslims are forbidden from doubting that the Koran is the actual word of Allah, "This book is not to be doubted." (Koran 2:1)
29. There are more than 100 verses in the Koran urging Muslims to make war against non-Muslims.
30. Even man's best friend (dogs) aren't safe in Islam, as Mohammed had many killed because the "angel Gabriel" didn't enter houses with dogs and/or pictures. (Bukhari 4:448)

HISTORICAL UNDERPINNING OF KORAN

SEPTEMBER 26 marked the 20th anniversary of Viking Penguin's publication of Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses. While generally well-received by the critics, its treatment of Islamic themes in a series of narrative subplots was quickly deemed blasphemous and Viking Penguin's refusal to heed demands for its withdrawal led to an international furor, culminating in an Iranian fatwa sentencing Rushdie to death. His crime? Responsibility for a book which was "compiled, printed and published in opposition to Islam, the prophet and the Koran" and "dared to insult the Islamic sanctities."

That Rushdie was forced to spend 10 years in hiding (and still lives under threat of execution) on the grounds that The Satanic Verses, a work of fiction, represented a "total distortion of the historical facts" about Islam is deeply ironic, given that a genuine critico-historical assault on "Islamic sanctities" had been under way for more than a decade with no repercussions.

Spearheaded by scholars at London University's School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), it focused largely on the Koran, which these so-called new historians of Islam subjected to modern historical and philological analysis. Their findings flatly contradict the Islamic account of its origins.

According to this account, the Koran represents the uncorrupted word of God, "constant, immaculate, unalterable and inimitable." It was transmitted to man through Muhammad, a prosperous Meccan merchant who received it via the angel Gabriel as a series of verse revelations between 610 and his death in 632. Uneducated and illiterate, Muhammad committed these revelations to memory before reciting them to his followers, who memorized them verbatim in turn. The killing of hundreds of these "memorizers" in the battle of Yamama in 633 alerted his successor as Muslim leader, the first caliph, Abu Bakr, to the danger that the revelations could be lost. He therefore gathered all available sources into a loose compilation called the suhuf which was then used by the third caliph, Uthman, to produce in the mid-650s a standardized text of the Koran. Copies were sent to Islamic communities with orders that all other versions be destroyed. Muslims believe this Uthmanic recension is the Koran as we have it today.

But according to the New Historians, there is no evidence that the Koran was compiled by Muhammad or canonized under Uthman; in fact, there is no proof it existed in any form before the end of the seventh century, and the first signs of a standardized codex date from the early 800s, 150 years after Uthman's death. In his 1977 survey Qur'anic Studies, the late professor of Semitic studies at SOAS, John Wansbrough, applied to the Koran "the instruments and techniques of biblical criticism" developed in the 19th century by German biblical scholars such as Friedrich Schleiermacher and Julius Wellhausen - i.e., treating it as a literary construct and comparing it to contemporary devotional works.

Read it all.

THE PLIGHT OF ISLAMIC WOMEN

Thanks to Marwan's Daughter for this excellent analysis of women who by birth or by compulsatory religion live diminished lives under the throes of Islam.

IN SOME QUARTERS IN AMERICA, some men believe that a woman must hold a full-time wage-earning job, as well as a second unpaid full-time job caring for the house, husband, and children. Anything else is seen as parasitical. The husband's parasiting off the woman's grinding second job goes unmentioned, of course.

These types of men interpret the Muslim view that a nikah-attached female is responsible solely for sexual availability to her husband as "protection." They view it as desirable, as the woman "does not have to work."

This resentful fantasy of females lazing in front of the television completely ignores Muslim reality: the women (in some Islamic countries, the majority of women) beaten freely and Koranically by their male owners; the female children molested and raped in nikah; the older and unwanted women divorced and left to starve because the Koran mandates no support; the women who lose their children; the uncovered and disobedient women who are harassed, attacked, mutilated by acid and knives, and murdered with the full collaboration of their parents, families, and entire communities—with the smiling approval of imams and government officials.

The dehumanizing Koranic injunctions that women are lesser beings, whose dress, words, movements, behavior, and participation in the public sphere must be restricted to be "holy" completely elude Western men who think this way. They can't even perceive the hideous injustice of a "heaven" where men whore with female robots for eternity, while their wives . . . wait, one supposes. They see only women whose sole responsibility is "putting out," and this makes them both resentful and envious—as a Muslim male is entitled to four females, not just their one. Yet they do not see this as simple prostitution—they see it as "protection."

The fear and blood and misery, the narrowed world, the bars on the windows and in the mind, are completely irrelevant. "She doesn't have to work." That is the beginning, and the end, of the "protection" analysis.

NONE SO BLIND

WHO WROTE THE KORAN, and why? Don't tarry, read what one ex-Muslim has to say on this most idiosyncratic theme. Some say Allah was the author. Others say it was Gabriel the archangel. Others maintain that Muhammed himself dictated it to his scribes. The more truthful answer may surprise certain readers.

Don't take this infidel's word. Read what the rational apostate Abul Kasem has revealed in his own search for clarity.

And while we are at it, how about some statistics to put some autumn chill in the late August air.

The CIA World Fact Book (2007) indicates that as long as the Muslim population remain a distinct minority, i.e. less than 2% in any country they inhabit, they are peace-loving and not a threat. At 2%+ they begin as if on signal to rear their ugly heads and begin to proselytize. Testing the reactions of host country, they then spew venom in their mosques against host country natives.

From 5% onward they begin to push for everything halal, demand separation in schools, institute the hijab, begin the setting up of islamic schools with the introduction of Islam in native education curriculum, demanding mosques for prayers when in actuality it is to have a mass of several thousand ready to murder the natives at the given signal, and hassle for recognition and implementation of Sharia, first on their own Muslims but in reality to convert the whole world to Sharia.

When these sex maniacs (95% of rapists in the West jails are Muslims) reach 10% of the population, lawlessness is naturally increased as a right to perceived offense resulting in threats, property damage, placard carrying, burning cars and buildings/embassies as an allah-given decree.

When Europe's Muslim parasites reach 40% natives should willingly enjoy widespread massacres, terror gangs, rapes of women, girls, and babies in the open. Maintain your silence lemmings with multi-culti political correctness. At 60% forced conversions begin. Accept the slap that will be given to you when you pay jizya and do it with a smile.

At 80% expect ethnic genocide. Then nearing 100% the West can get the peace they got suckered into by their loony leftists, whacky liberals who would by then either have their throats slit ala Theo Van Gogh who was a leftist, or would have embraced the murderous cult and metastasized into "soldiers of Islam" hunting down their own brethren and kin in a bloodbath of terror. Think that this is not possible in the West? Just recall the French Revolution and the Communist Revolution. And Nazi Germany. Fear is a powerful motivator.

Once Islamicized, then you'd start killing each other in a race to prove oneself more Islamic than your neighbor. Note the terminal Shia-Sunni divide.

To their favor, Russia and China, despite their own penchant for totalitarian control, understand full well the death knell of the cult called Islam and do not resort to this namby pamby so-called political correctness that stymies the West but identifies each threat, confronts it, and snuffs it. Along with India, these two regimes embrace the 21st century and all that is in front of them. On the other hand, the West seems to prefer to slide into suicide through self-hatred, hatred of country, culture, religion and allow themselves to be ushered back to 7th century.

Be warned. The future is clear, if the blind continue to insist on coddling this self-declared enemy.

PLAIN AND SIMPLE, AMPLIFIED

THE GREAT DANE linguist, Tina Magaard, has nailed it well (from Fjordman):

"Islamic texts encourage terror and fighting to a far larger degree than the original texts of other religions, concludes Tina Magaard. She has a PhD in Textual Analysis and Intercultural Communication from the Sorbonne in Paris, and has spent three years on a research project comparing the original texts of ten religions. “The texts in Islam distinguish themselves from the texts of other religions by encouraging violence and aggression against people with other religious beliefs to a larger degree. There are also straightforward calls for terror. This has long been a taboo in the research into Islam, but it is a fact that we need to deal with," says Tina Magaard.

Moreover, there are hundreds of calls in the Koran for fighting against people of other faiths. “If it is correct that many Muslims view the Koran as the literal words of God, which cannot be interpreted or rephrased, then we have a problem. It is indisputable that the texts encourage terror and violence. Consequently, it must be reasonable to ask Muslims themselves how they relate to the text, if they read it as it is," says Tina Magaard."

JERUSALEM NEVER MENTIONED IN KORAN

RIPPED FROM JIHAD WATCH, this is exciting news for al of us who know the truth about the so-called Palestinian people and the Muslim grip on Israel:

Anti-dhimmitude on...Al-Jazeera. "Israeli on Arab TV: J'lem Was Ours When Moslems Worshipped Idols," by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu for Israel National News, June 5 (thanks to Seth):

Bar Ilan University political scientist Dr. Mordechai Kedar told a Moslem show host on the Arabic-language Al Jazeera television network, "Jews were in Jerusalem while your ancestors were drinking wine and blowing to idols." In a heated debate with the narrator, he added, "We don't need your permission to build" in the capital of Israel, Jerusalem.

The encounter occurred earlier this week, when Jews around the world celebrated Jerusalem Unification Day. Dr. Kedar has frequently appeared on the widely viewed Qatar-based network but this time encountered a sharp attack from the show's host, Jimal Rian.

"Building in Jerusalem is another nail in the coffin in negotiations with the Palestinian Authority," narrator Jimal Rian asserted. Dr. Kedar answered in fluent Arabic, "This was our capital 3,000 years ago, and we were here when your forefathers were drinking wine, burying girls alive and worshipping pre-Muslim idols. This is our city and it will be our city forever."

His reference to Muslims drinking wine, which is forbidden in Islam, infuriated the host. Rian wagged his finger in the air and said excitedly, "If you want to talk about history, you cannot erase Jerusalem from the Koran, and don’t attack the Muslim religion if we want to continue talking."

Dr. Kedar replied, "Jerusalem is not mentioned even once in the Koran. Jerusalem is a Jewish city."

The Al Jazeera host responded by quoting a verse from the Koran in which he thought Jerusalem was mentioned by name, but stopped in the middle upon realizing that it only refers to "the farthest place."

That would be Qur'an 17:1. "The farthest place" (al-aqsa) is identified in Islamic tradition with Jerusalem, but there is no mention of Jerusalem by name in that verse or in any other Qur'anic verse.

Dr. Kedar: "Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Koran even once. You can't rewrite the Koran on air on Al Jazeera."
He's right. It isn't.

Rian changed the subject to "settlements" and asked Dr. Kedar why Israel is building 1,000 new apartments and deciding to build thousands more while there are rumors that "Jerusalem will include all of the West Bank [Judea and Samaria]. The Bar Ilan researcher replied. "My friend, Israel is not counting the number of apartments that Qatar is building on the Qatar Peninsula so why are you doing so in Jerusalem? Jerusalem is our city forever and is not an issue for you, for Al Jazeera or for anyone else. Period. Jerusalem belongs only to Jews.

Replying to Rian's question if Dr. Behar's assessment is the basis for talks with the Palestinian Authority (PA), he declared, "My friend, I invite you to Jerusalem so you can see with your own eyes that it has become a flourishing city after it was in ruins under Arab rule until 1967. We rebuilt the city and opened it to Christians, Moslems and Jews equally, unlike under Muslim rule" that prohibited other religions....

Indeed.

KORAN POSTER DRAWS NO OUTRAGE

Poster in Amsterdam apparently without incident

THE NETHERLANDS IS SUFFERING from Koran fever, but Amsterdam seems not to be affected. The Tropenmuseum has put up some two hundred posters of an Iranian Koran throughout the city, as part of an image campaign. There has been hardly any response.

The Netherlands is in commotion because of the plans of anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders to show a movie about the ‘Fascist’ Koran. That the Koran posters of the Tropenmuseum appeared during this controversy is a coincidence, for the posters were planned months ago.

Still, previous attacks on the Koran did play a role in the decision to choose this subject for the posters. “We wanted to show what kind of book it is”, says Dimitry van den Berg, the person at the museum who is responsible for the campaign. “But the most important reason to show this Koran was simply that it’s a very beautiful object”.

Van den Berg had expected that the Koran posters would elicit responses, but this was hardly the case. “Maybe a few people asked how to obtain the poster, but not more than usual”. Also, there are no indications that the posters have provoked more vandalism than usual. Some asked whether the man on the poster represents Muhammad, but that is not the case.

The campaign targets the so-called ‘cosmopolitans’ as defined by the Motivaction agency: people with an international orientation, often high-educated and with an interest in culture.

Previous analyses had revealed that the visitors of the museum mainly consist of cosmopolitans, post-materialists (idealists who vote Green Party) and post-modern hedonists (focusing more on experiences). Especially among cosmopolitans new visitors might be recruited, it was thought.

However, this did require some work on the museum’s image. Some people still associate the Tropenmuseum with colonialism, a stuffy Third World centre or educational activities for children, Van den Berg says. The current campaign intends to show that the museum has beautiful objects that have an interesting story to tell.

All posters show an authentic object against the background of a story painted by a contemporary artist. In the case of the Koran, the painting shows a man who consults a Mullah on which woman to choose. The Mullah reads the Koran and concludes that the woman on the right is the right one for him.

On the occasion of exhibitions on Morocco and Turkey, the Nieuwe Kerk organised activities to attract ethnic minority visitors. The Tropenmuseum does not engage in ethnomarketing, says Van den Berg. “We try to select themes that appeal to all Dutch people, including the new Dutch”.

The campaign will run until the end of this year. By then it will be evaluated whether the image of the museum has in fact changed.

SPEAKING OF DEPORTING MUSLIMS

Writes some misunderstander of the times in which he lives:

But let me ask you this. How do the Dutch plan to transport them out? Will it be in ships, like King Ferdinand did to Jews in 1492? Or should we transport them in cattle cars, as Hitler did in 1942? Never again means never again for anyone. THAT'S why Fitna and "Fitna logic" deserves widespread condemnation.

He is aptly reproved by this crusader:

If you really bothered to understand the film, you would realize it is a protest against the minority of radical Muslims who are causing all the problems and a wake up call to the silent majority of Muslims who do nothing to oppose the Islamic supremacist terrorism that is based on the Koran by the violent terrorists. Fitna logic? The cold hard fact is that every country has its own culture and historically has expected immigrants to adopt the culture to which it is arriving. Why should Muslims be any different because a few of them are violent and cannot synthesize the fact they are not overlords and special cases as their "noble koran" insists they are.

Dozens of Islamic websites gleefully show the same pictures of violence shown in Fitna, supported by the same warfare quotations from the Qu'ran. So where is the culpability now?

We have the usual apologists and nut jobbers who try to defend this Islamic rage against Fitna by saying that somehow we who are free haven't been 'educated' (i.e., not brainwashed) about Islam, or they simply lie about the facts at hand.

Here are some facts:

(1) A Muslim cleric declared "The Jews are the Jews. They are the ones who must be butchered and killed."

(2) Interspersed with images from the July 7 bombings in London are pictures of the placards of radical British Muslims. "Be prepared for the real holocaust" is the slogan carried by one woman in a burqa.

(3) Another Muslim cleric gives us a REAL education about his religion: "The day will come when we rule America. The day will come when we rule Britain and the entire world."

Please take note. These are MUSLIMS making these remarks (NOT Jews, Christians, Zorastorians, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, Homosexuals, et al.). Bottom line is that these dolts who are attacking Fitna or the Danish cartoons or just about anything that point out indisputable facts are admitting how hateful it is when it is Muslims themselves—using these same those texts from the Qu'ran—who are spewing this hate.

But like the self-hating bigots they are, these limp-wristed apologists blame those who point these rather easily observable facts out o the general public.

Wake up, my friends! How many more Theo Van Goghs (who was actually murdered), Pim Fortuyn, Salman Rushdies, Setptember 11s, train and nightclub bombings, et cetera, have to be suffered before we wake up to what is really going on with the Muslim world.

The Muslim cleric tried to "educate" us as to his meaning, if you have the ears to hear, and the eyes to see: Muslim leadership is planning to overrun the West and take away our hard-won freedoms. They plan to force innocent young girls into a life of slavery via forced marriages, genital mutilation, stonings and whippings, gang rapes, and being murdered in the name of 'honor.'

Are we that jaded or blind that we desire this kind of life? Didn't we move past much of this already?

People complain about the Christian Right in the United States. Even many of the so-called "moderate" Muslims make the most extreme fundamentalists in ANY OTHER religion look like a bunch of hippies. Many of these Muslims make Pat Robertson look like Pat Boone—yet when Muslims say things that are resolutely barbaric, no one in the media or national leadership utters a peep. No one bans these dangerous websites that regularly advocate terrorism and murder. Yet, we who only wish to live in the liberty and grace of our own heritage are accused of being hateful when we point out what THESE BARBARIANS THEMSELVES say!

In many ways I'm more concerned about the so-called "moderate" Muslims who work behind the scenes to hijack our liberal values of democracy and tolerance in order to destroy and subvert those gifts than I am about their terrorist brethren. At least Al-Qaeda has the "decency" so far to only hijack planes and trains. Their so-called "moderate" counterparts, and as Lenin might have put it, their "useful idiot' apologists are quite busy hijacking our laws and freedoms, threatening fellow passengers, corporations, schools and universities, with lawsuits and considerations for special priviledges, blurring the line between religion and state far beyond that which the ACLU takes the other religions to task for.

A CLUE FOR MANKIND

JAMIE GLASOV has done it again! With its usual candor and insight, Front Page offers this insight of what ails the West in its own defense against Islamic jihad:

FP: Bill Warner, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Warner: Thank you Jamie for this opportunity.

FP: Tell us a bit about the Center for the Study of Political Islam.

Warner: The Center for the Study of Political Islam is a group of scholars who are devoted to the scientific study of the foundational texts of Islam-Koran, Sira (life of Mohammed) and Hadith (traditions of Mohammed). There are two areas to study in Islam, its doctrine and history, or as CSPI sees it-the theory and its results. We study the history to see the practical or experimental results of the doctrine.

CSPI seems to be the first group to use statistics to study the doctrine. Previous scientific studies of the Koran are primarily devoted to Arabic language studies.

Our first principle is that Koran, Sira and Hadith must be taken as a whole. We call them the Islamic Trilogy to emphasize the unity of the texts.

Our major intellectual breakthrough is to see that dualism is the foundation and key to understanding Islam. Everything about Islam comes in twos starting with its foundational declaration: (1) there is no god but Allah and (2) Mohammed is His prophet. Therefore, Islam is Allah (Koran) and the Sunna (words and deeds of Mohammed found in the Sira and Hadith).

Endless ink has been wasted on trying to answer the question of what is Islam? Is Islam the religion of peace? Or is the true Islam a radical ideology? Is a moderate Muslim the real Muslim?

This reminds a scientist of the old arguments about light. Is light a particle or is light a wave? The arguments went back and forth. Quantum mechanics gave us the answer. Light is dualistic; it is both a particle and a wave. It depends upon the circumstances as to which quality manifests. Islam functions in the same manner.

Our first clue about the dualism is in the Koran, which is actually two books, the Koran of Mecca (early) and the Koran of Medina (later). The insight into the logic of the Koran comes from the large numbers of contradictions in it. On the surface, Islam resolves these contradictions by resorting to "abrogation". This means that the verse written later supersedes the earlier verse. But in fact, since the Koran is considered by Muslims to be the perfect word of Allah, both verses are sacred and true. The later verse is "better," but the earlier verse cannot be wrong since Allah is perfect. This is the foundation of dualism. Both verses are "right." Both sides of the contradiction are true in dualistic logic. The circumstances govern which verse is used.

For example:

(Koran of Mecca) 73:10: Listen to what they [unbelievers] say with patience, and leave them with dignity.

From tolerance we move to the ultimate intolerance, not even the Lord of the Universe can stand the unbelievers:


(Koran of Medina) 8:12: Then your Lord spoke to His angels and said, "I will be with you. Give strength to the believers. I will send terror into the unbelievers' hearts, cut off their heads and even the tips of their fingers!"

All of Western logic is based upon the law of contradiction-if two things contradict, then at least one of them is false. But Islamic logic is dualistic; two things can contradict each other and both are true.

No dualistic system may be measured by one answer. This is the reason that the arguments about what constitutes the "real" Islam go on and on and are never resolved. A single right answer does not exist.

Dualistic systems can only be measured by statistics. It is futile to argue one side of the dualism is true. As an analogy, quantum mechanics always gives a statistical answer to all questions.

For an example of using statistics, look at the question: what is the real jihad, the jihad of inner, spiritual struggle or the jihad of war? Let's turn to Bukhari (the Hadith) for the answer, as he repeatedly speaks of jihad. In Bukhari 97% of the jihad references are about war and 3% are about the inner struggle. So the statistical answer is that jihad is 97% war and 3% inner struggle. Is jihad war? Yes-97%. Is jihad inner struggle? Yes-3%. So if you are writing an article, you can make a case for either. But in truth, almost every argument about Islam can be answered by: all of the above. Both sides of the duality are right.

FP: Why, in your view, is there so much ignorance about the history and doctrine of political Islam in the West?

Warner: First, let's see how ignorant we are about the history of political Islam. How many Christians can tell you how Turkey or Egypt became Islamic? What happened to the Seven Churches of Asia mentioned in Paul's letters? Find a Jew who can tell you the Jewish history of dhimmitude (second class citizens who serve Islam). What European knows that white women were the highest priced slaves in Mecca? Everyone knows how many Jews Hitler killed, but find an unbeliever who can tell you how many died in jihad over the last 1400 years.

We are just as ignorant about the doctrine of Islam. An FBI agent gets two hours of training on Islam and most of that is how not to offend the imam. We are fighting in Iraq. Who utilizes the political, military doctrine of Islam to plan strategy? Who can find a single rabbi or minister who has read the Koran, Sira and Hadith? What governor, senator, congressmen or military leader displays a knowledge of the political doctrine of Islam? Try to find a course available in a college about Islamic political doctrine and ethics. Graduates are schooled in Islamic art, architecture, poetry, Sufism, and a glorious history that ignores the suffering of the innocent unbelievers. Graduates read comments about the Koran and Hadith, but do not read the actual doctrine.

FP: So why this ignorance?

Warner: Let's start at the beginning. When Islam burst out of Arabia into a decaying Byzantine world, the unbelievers recorded it as an Arabic invasion. Similarly, the invasion of Eastern Europe was by Turks; the invasion of Spain was by Moors. Our scholars were incapable of even naming the invaders.

Mohammed killed every single intellectual or artist who opposed him. It was fear that drove the vast majority of the media not to reprint the Mohammed cartoons, not some imagined sensitivity. Fear is a fabulous basis for ignorance, but that is not enough to explain it all. What accounts for the almost psychotic aversion to knowledge about Islam? Beyond fear is the realization that political Islam is profoundly foreign to us.

Let's examine the ethical basis of our civilization. All of our politics and ethics are based upon a unitary ethic that is best formulated in the Golden Rule:

Treat others as you would be treated.

The basis of this rule is the recognition that at one level, we are all the same. We are not all equal. Any game of sports will show that we do not have equal abilities. But everyone wants to be treated as a human being. In particular, we all want to be equal under the law and be treated as social equals. On the basis of the Golden Rule-the equality of human beings-we have created democracy, ended slavery and treat women and men as political equals. So the Golden Rule is a unitary ethic. All people are to be treated the same. All religions have some version of the Golden Rule except Islam.

FP: So how is Islam different in this context?

Warner: The term "human being" has no meaning inside of Islam. There is no such thing as humanity, only the duality of the believer and unbeliever. Look at the ethical statements found in the Hadith. A Muslim should not lie, cheat, kill or steal from other Muslims. But a Muslim may lie, deceive or kill an unbeliever if it advances Islam.

There is no such thing as a universal statement of ethics in Islam. Muslims are to be treated one way and unbelievers another way. The closest Islam comes to a universal statement of ethics is that the entire world must submit to Islam. After Mohammed became a prophet, he never treated an unbeliever the same as a Muslim. Islam denies the truth of the Golden Rule.

By the way, this dualistic ethic is the basis for jihad. The ethical system sets up the unbeliever as less than human and therefore, it is easy to kill, harm or deceive the unbeliever.

Now mind you, unbelievers have frequently failed at applying the Golden Rule, but we can be judged and condemned on its basis. We do fall short, but it is our ideal.

There have been other dualistic cultures. The KKK comes to mind. But the KKK is a simplistic dualism. The KKK member hates all black people at all times; there is only one choice. This is very straightforward and easy to see.

The dualism of Islam is more deceitful and offers two choices on how to treat the unbeliever. The unbeliever can be treated nicely, in the same way a farmer treats his cattle well. So Islam can be "nice", but in no case is the unbeliever a "brother" or a friend. In fact, there are some 14 verses of the Koran that are emphatic-a Muslim is never a friend to the unbeliever. A Muslim may be "friendly," but he is never an actual friend. And the degree to which a Muslim is actually a true friend is the degree to which he is not a Muslim, but a hypocrite.

FP: You mentioned earlier how logic is another point of profound difference. Can you touch on that?

Warner: To reiterate, all of science is based upon the law of contradiction. If two things contradict each other, then at least one of them has to be false. But inside of Islamic logic, two contradictory statements can both be true. Islam uses dualistic logic and we use unitary scientific logic.

Since Islam has a dualistic logic and dualistic ethics, it is completely foreign to us. Muslims think differently from us and feel differently from us. So our aversion is based upon fear and a rejection of Islamic ethics and logic. This aversion causes us to avoid learning about Islam so we are ignorant and stay ignorant.

Another part of the aversion is the realization that there is no compromise with dualistic ethics. There is no halfway place between unitary ethics and dualistic ethics. If you are in a business deal with someone who is a liar and a cheat, there is no way to avoid getting cheated. No matter how nice you are to a con man, he will take advantage of you. There is no compromise with dualistic ethics. In short, Islamic politics, ethics and logic cannot be part of our civilization. Islam does not assimilate, it dominates. There is never any "getting along" with Islam. Its demands never cease and the demands must be met on Islam's terms: submission.

The last reason for our aversion to the history of political Islam is our shame. Islam put over a million Europeans into slavery. Since Muslims can't be enslaved, it was a white Christian who was the Turkish sultan's sex slave. These are things that we do not want to face.

Jews don't want to acknowledge the history of political Islam, because they were dhimmis, second class citizens or semi-slaves, just like the Christians. Jews like to recall how they were advisors and physicians to powerful Muslims, but no matter what the Jew did or what position he held, he was still a dhimmi. There is no compromise between being equal and being a dhimmi

Why should a Hindu want to recall the shame of slavery and the destruction of their temples and cities? After Hindu craftsmen built the Taj Mahal, the Muslim ruler had their right hands cut off so that they could not build anything as beautiful for anyone else. The practice of suttee, the widow throwing herself on the husband's funeral pyre, came about as a response to the rape and brutality of the Islamic jihad as it sweep over ancient Hindustan.

Blacks don't want to face the fact that it was a Muslim who rounded up their ancestors in Africa to wholesale to the white slave trader. The Arab is the true master of the African. Blacks can't accept the common bond they share with whites: that both Europeans and Africans were slaves under Islam. Blacks like to imagine Islam is their counterweight to white power, not that Islam has ruled them for 1400 years.

Dualistic logic. Dualistic ethics. Fear. Shame. There is no compromise. These are the reasons we don't want to know about Islam's political history, doctrine or ethics.

FP So is there such a thing as non-political Islam?

Warner: Non-political Islam is religious Islam. Religious Islam is what a Muslim does to avoid Hell and go to Paradise. These are the Five Pillars-prayer, charity to Muslims, pilgrimage to Mecca, fasting and declaring Mohammed to be the final prophet.

But the Trilogy is clear about the doctrine. At least 75% of the Sira (life of Mohammed) is about jihad. About 67% of the Koran written in Mecca is about the unbelievers, or politics. Of the Koran of Medina, 51% is devoted to the unbelievers. About 20% of Bukhari's Hadith is about jihad and politics. Religion is the smallest part of Islamic foundational texts.

Political Islam's most famous duality is the division of the world into believers, dar al Islam, and unbelievers, dar al harb. The largest part of the Trilogy relates to treatment of the unbelievers, kafirs. Even Hell is political. There are 146 references to Hell in the Koran. Only 6% of those in Hell are there for moral failings-murder, theft, etc. The other 94% of the reasons for being in Hell are for the intellectual sin of disagreeing with Mohammed, a political crime. Hence, Islamic Hell is a political prison for those who speak against Islam.

Mohammed preached his religion for 13 years and garnered only 150 followers. But when he turned to politics and war, in 10 years time he became the first ruler of Arabia by averaging an event of violence every 7 weeks for 9 years. His success did not come as a religious leader, but as a political leader.

In short, political Islam defines how the unbelievers are to be dealt with and treated.

FP: Can you touch briefly on the history of political Islam?

Warner: The history of political Islam starts with Mohammed's immigration to Medina. From that point on, Islam's appeal to the world has always had the dualistic option of joining a glorious religion or being the subject of political pressure and violence. After the immigration to Medina, Islam became violent when persuasion failed. Jihad entered the world.

After Mohammed's death, Abu Bakr, the second caliph, settled the theological arguments of those who wished to leave Islam with the political action of death by the sword. The jihad of Umar (the second caliph, a pope-king) exploded into the world of the unbelievers. Jihad destroyed a Christian Middle East and a Christian North Africa. Soon it was the fate of the Persian Zoroastrian and the Hindu to be the victims of jihad. The history of political Islam is the destruction of Christianity in the Middle East, Egypt, Turkey and North Africa. Half of Christianity was lost. Before Islam, North Africa was the southern part of Europe (part of the Roman Empire). Around 60 million Christians were slaughtered during the jihadic conquest.

Half of the glorious Hindu civilization was annihilated and 80 million Hindus killed.

The first Western Buddhists were the Greeks descended from Alexander the Great's army in what is now Afghanistan. Jihad destroyed all of Buddhism along the silk route. About 10 million Buddhists died. The conquest of Buddhism is the practical result of pacifism.

Zoarasterianism was eliminated from Persia.

The Jews became permanent dhimmis throughout Islam.

In Africa over 120 million Christians and animists have died over the last 1400 years of jihad.

Approximately 270 million nonbelievers died over the last 1400 years for the glory of political Islam. These are the Tears of Jihad which are not taught in any school.

FP: How have our intellectuals responded to Islam?

Warner: The basis of all the unbeliever's thought has collapsed in the face of Islamic political thought, ethics and logic. We have already mentioned how our first intellectuals could not even name the invaders as Muslims. We have no method of analysis of Islam. We can't agree on what Islam is and have no knowledge about our suffering as the victims of a 1400-year jihad.

Look at how Christians, Jews, blacks, intellectuals and artists have dealt with Islamic doctrine and history. In every case their primary ideas fail.

Christians believe that "love conquers all." Well, love does not conquer Islam. Christians have a difficult time seeing Islam as a political doctrine, not a religion. The sectarian nature of Christian thought means that the average non-Orthodox Christian has no knowledge or sympathy about the Orthodox Christian's suffering.

Jews have a theology that posits a unique relationship between Jews and the creator-god of the universe. But Islam sees the Jews as apes who corrupted the Old Testament. Jews see no connection between Islam's political doctrine and Israel.

Black intellectuals have based their ideas on the slave/victim status and how wrong it was for white Christians to make them slaves. Islam has never acknowledged any of the pain and suffering it has caused in Africa with its 1400-year-old slave trade. But blacks make no attempt to get an apology from Muslims and are silent in the presence of Islam. Why? Is it because Arabs are their masters?

Multiculturalism is bankrupt against Islam's demand for every civilization to submit. The culture of tolerance collapses in the face of the sacred intolerance of dualistic ethics. Intellectuals respond by ignoring the failure.

Our intellectuals and artists have been abused for 1400 years. Indeed, the psychology of our intellectuals is exactly like the psychology of the abused wife, the sexually abused child or rape victim. Look at the parallels between the response of abuse victims and our intellectuals. See how violence has caused denial.

The victims deny that the abuse took place: Our media never reports the majority of jihad around the world. Our intellectuals don't talk about how all of the violence is connected to a political doctrine.

The abuser uses fear to control the victim: What was the reason that newspapers would not publish the Mohammed cartoon? Salman Rushdie still has a death sentence for his novel. What "cutting edge" artist creates any artistic statement about Islam? Fear rules our intellectuals and artists.

The victims find ways to blame themselves: We are to blame for the attacks on September 11, 2001. If we try harder Muslims will act nicer. We have to accommodate their needs.

The victim is humiliated: White people will not talk about how their ancestors were enslaved by Islam. No one wants to claim the victims of jihad. Why won't we claim the suffering of our ancestors? Why don't we cry about the loss of cultures and peoples? We are too ashamed to care.

The victim feels helpless: "What are we going to do?" "We can't kill 1.3 billion people." No one has any understanding or optimism. No one has an idea of what to try. The only plan is to "be nicer."

The victim turns the anger inward: What is the most divisive issue in today's politics? Iraq. And what is Iraq really about? Political Islam. The Web has a video about how the CIA and Bush planned and executed September 11. Cultural self-loathing is the watchword of our intellectuals and artists.

We hate ourselves because we are mentally molested and abused. Our intellectuals and artists have responded to the abuse of jihad just as a sexually abused child or a rape victim would respond. We are quite intellectually ill and are failing at our job of clear thinking. We can't look at our denial.

FP: So summarize for us why it is so crucial for us to learn the doctrine of political Islam.

Warner: Political Islam has annihilated every culture it has invaded or immigrated to. The total time for annihilation takes centuries, but once Islam is ascendant it never fails. The host culture disappears and becomes extinct.

We must learn the doctrine of political Islam to survive. The doctrine is very clear that all forms of force and persuasion may and must be used to conquer us. Islam is a self-declared enemy of all unbelievers. The brilliant Chinese philosopher of war, Sun Tsu, had the dictum-know the enemy. We must know the doctrine of our enemy or be annihilated.

Or put another way: if we do not learn the doctrine of political Islam, our civilization will be annihilated just as Egypt's Coptic civilization was annihilated.

Since unbelievers must know the doctrine of political Islam to survive, CSPI has written all of its books in simple English. Our books are scholarly, but easy to read. As an example, anyone who can read a newspaper can pick up A Simple Koran and read and understand it. It is not "dumbed down" and contains every single word of the original.

Not only is the language simple, but logic has been used to sort and categorize. Context and chronology have been restored. The result is a Koran that is an epic story ending in triumph over all enemies of Allah. All of our books and philosophy may be found at our center's website.

THE EXEGESIS: FUTURE SHOCK?

Bible: The Antichrist is an unparalleled political, military and religious leader that will that emerge in the last-days.

Islam: The Mahdi is an unparalleled political, military and religious leader that will emerge in the last-days.

Bible: the False Prophet is a secondary prominent figure that will emerge in the last-days who will support the Antichrist.

Islam: the Muslim Jesus is a secondary prominent figure that will emerge in the last-days to support the Mahdi.

Bible: The Antichrist and the False Prophet together will have a powerful army that will do great damage to the earth in an effort to subdue every nation and dominate the World.

Islam: The Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus will have a powerful army that will attempt to control every nation of the earth and dominate the World.

Bible: The False Prophet is described essentially as a dragon in lamb’s clothing.

Islam: The Muslim Jesus literally comes bearing the name of the one that the world knows as “The Lamb of God: Jesus Christ.” Yet the Muslim Jesus comes to murder all those who do not submit to Islam.

Bible: The Antichrist and the False Prophet establish a New World Order.

Islam: The Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus establish a New World Order.

Bible: The Antichrist and the False Prophet institute new laws for the whole earth.

Islam: The Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus institute Islamic law all over the earth.

Bible: The Antichrist is said to “change the times.”

Islam: It is quite certain that if the Mahdi established Islam all over the earth, he would discontinue the use of Saturday and Sunday as the weekend or days of rest but rather Friday, the holy day of Islam. Also, he would most certainly eliminate the Gregorian calendar (A.D.), and replace it with the Islamic calendar (A. H.) as is used in every Islamic country.

Bible: The Antichrist and the False Prophet will both be powerful religious leaders who will attempt to institute a universal world religion.

Islam: The Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus will institute Islam as the only religion in the earth.

Bible: The Antichrist and the False Prophet will execute anyone who does not submit to their world religion.

Islam: Likewise, the Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus will execute anyone who does not submit to Islam.

Bible: The Antichrist and the False Prophet will specifically use beheading as the primary means of execution for non-conformists.

Islam: The Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus will use the Islamic practice of beheading for executions.

Bible: The Antichrist and the False Prophet will have a specific agenda to kill as many Jews as possible.

Islam: The Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus will kill as many Jews as is possible until only a few are left hiding behind rocks and trees.

Bible: The Antichrist and the False Prophet will attack to conquer and seize Jerusalem.

Islam: The Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus will attack to re-conquer and seize Jerusalem for Islam.

Bible: The Antichrist will set himself up in the Jewish temple as his seat of authority.

Islam: The Mahdi will establish the Islamic Caliphate from Jerusalem.

Bible: The False Prophet is said to do many miracles to deceive as many as possible into supporting the Antichrist.

Islam: The Mahdi himself is said to control the weather and the crops. His face is said to glow. We can also assume that since Jesus is viewed as having been empowered by Allah to work miracles when he was here on earth the first time, he will most likely be expected to continue to do so when he returns.

Bible: The Antichrist is described as riding on a white horse in the Book of Revelation

Islam: The Mahdi is described as riding on a white horse (ironically from the same verse).

Bible: The Antichrist is said to make a peace treaty with Israel for seven years.

Islam: The Mahdi is said to make a peace treaty through a Jew (specifically a Levite) for exactly seven years.

Bible: Jesus the Jewish Messiah will return to defend the Jews in Israel from a military attack from a vast coalition of nations led by the Antichrist and the False Prophet.

Islam: The Dajjal, the Islamic Antichrist will gain a great Jewish following and claim to be Jesus Christ and fight against the Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus.

Bible: The antichrist spirit specifically denies the most unique and central doctrines of Christianity, namely the trinity, the incarnation and the substitutionary death of Jesus on the cross.

Islam: Islam doctrinally and spiritually specifically denies the most unique and central doctrines of Christianity, namely the trinity, the incarnation and the substitutionary death of Jesus on the cross.

Bible: The primary warning of Jesus and the Apostle Paul was to warn Christians of the abundance of deceit and deception in the last-days.

Islam: Islam is perhaps the only religion in the earth that practices deceit as one of its tools to assist its own ascendancy. It actually has a specific doctrine which allows and even calls for deception to be used to achieve its desired end.

Bible: The specific nations pictured in the Bible as being part of the final empire of the Antichrist are all Islamic nations.

Islam: All Muslims are commanded to give their allegiance to The Mahdi as the final Caliph and Imam (leader) of Islam.

Bible: From the Bible and History we learn that the final Antichrist empire will be a revived version of the Empire that succeeds the Roman Empire

Islam: The Empire that succeeded the Roman/Byzantine Empire was the Islamic Ottoman Empire

Bible: When Antichrist emerges, there will already be some form of system in place that will be poised to receive him as a Savior and to give allegiance to him.

Islam is already the second largest religion and will at present growth rates become the largest religion within a few decades. Islam is awaiting the coming of the Mahdi with a universal anticipation.