Mission Europa Netzwerk Karl Martell

Archive for January, 2009

Parallel Societies in Telfs

Posted by paulipoldie on January 7, 2009

by Baron Bodissey


Below is a report from our Austrian correspondent ESW about the Austrian city of Telfs, which has a large unassimilated Turkish population, and lives in denial about the existence of any problems.

The Austrian Broadcasting Corporation (ORF), currently under fire for its worrying financial situation, has upped the ante by providing its viewers another one-sided perspective of problems with (Muslim) integration.

Telfs murderORF devoted its Sunday prime time program to integration problems. This included a movie about the murder of a Turkish girl and her Austrian boyfriend found dead in the forests surrounding the city of Telfs. Telfs, located in the western part of Austria, is most famous for its relatively large Turkish population and its mosque sporting a 15-meter minaret (pdf). According to its website, Telfs has 15,000 inhabitants of which approximately 2,500 are of Turkish descent. Of the 2,500 Turkish-Muslim inhabitants, 65% are Austrian citizens. The official website concedes that their integration into the host society will most likely take many years. Due to the rapidly growing Muslim community and the presence of its two mosques there is a need for active inter-religious dialogue.

Temel Demir, an official of ATIB (Union der Türkisch-Islamischen Kulturvereine) and the initiator of the building of the mosque, says, “There are no problems between us and the Austrians.” He is right, because there is no interaction between them. Those who settled in Telfs in the 1960’s built their own infrastructure consisting of coffee houses, hairdressers, and supermarkets, where little or no German is needed. Turks and Austrians sit next to each other during school, but as soon as the bell rings they go their separate ways. It is in towns like these where parallel societies are most obvious, despite the continued denial of the Green parties everywhere. Whether in Berlin, in Cologne or in Vienna, as soon as Muslims demand the public display of their religious symbols, pub-goers will ask themselves: Why don’t you speak proper German after 40 years of living in Austria? Why can’t your children get jobs other than those in factories? Why aren’t your girls allowed to grow up and live the way our girls do?

Mosque in TelfsThere was a lot of controversy surrounding the building of the mosque and its minaret. Even the members of the Greens felt uncomfortable, but it was ultimately the mayor of Telfs, representing the conservative party (ÖVP) who gave the green light and got death threats in return. Temel Demir says, “The minaret is benign, comparable to a church tower, just built with a small difference. It is definitely not a political sign.” The Muslim community had to make a promise never to call to prayer from the minaret.

According to statistics, 56 out of 148 children born in 2006 had Turkish parents. There are seven kindergartens in Telfs; all of them have groups where only half of the children speak German. The headmistress complains of Turkish parents who speak the local dialect and whose children don’t speak a single German word, saying they had also learned German in kindergarten.

The school’s headmaster also has tales of problems. “The situation is worse than ever before. No one knows the reality on the ground, not the state minister (the prime minister of an Austrian state, in this case Tyrol), not the chancellor, not the president.” He believes things will only change if and when the women finally learn German. “Maybe then these children will show interest in school excursions to Vienna or language trips or ski instruction courses.” Attendance numbers are at a catastrophic low. No money, parents say. The headmaster dismisses those words as an excuse.

To return to the story of the prime time movie: It’s a rather simple story revolving around an Austrian and a Turkish family, which included all the necessary clichés: The “evil”, “right-wing” Austrian warning about the dangers of “us mixing with them” on the one side; on the other side, the poor, almost angelic Turkish family, very traditional, the mother in her headscarf, her two girls in love with Austrian, non-Muslim boys, one of them murdered (and pregnant), her son and her husband in charge of all matters relating to the family’s honor. There is some discussion about honor killings and segregation of sexes. However, the end was disappointing: It was not an honor killing, but the victims’ friend who committed the crime, precisely because he wanted to prevent the mixing of Austrian and Turkish blood. At the very end of the movie, the Austrian and the Turkish father met in the mosque and “peacefully” sat next to each other.
– – – – – – – –
It’s a pity that the movie never addressed the problems — actually the impossibility — of a friendship or relationship between a Turkish girl and a non-Muslim boy. None of the characters depicted in the movie discussed the Quran and its prescriptions for the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims. The reason became clear during the panel discussion that followed the movie.

Preceding the panel discussion, however, there was a half-hour program called “Am Schauplatz” (“On the scene”), which reported on the deep division evident in Telfs between the native Austrians and their Turkish co-inhabitants. The viewer was taken to Turkish coffee-shops where not a single Austrian could be seen, but Turkish men and no women. The scene in a local, Austrian bar was as expected: men and women mingling, laughing, and when asked, commenting on the segregated society in Telfs. The camera also captured an apartment block where all tenants sport Turkish surnames. A local architect was interviewed in an empty office, explaining that he was forced to lay off all of his employees due to the lack of orders. No one is interested in building houses or apartments in Telfs; potential tenants always ask whether neighbors are Austrians or Turks, deciding that they would not invest in an apartment or house in a Turkish neighborhood.

The local FPÖ (Freedom Party) politician weighs in: “A minaret constitutes a sign of victory.” The Turkish population simply does not want to integrate into the local society: “They would rather take over the entire town”, he adds. The mayor of Telfs, on the other hand, has been called the “Turkish mayor” by many in the city because of his support for the building of the mosque with its visible minaret. The Turks, on the other hand, complain about the locals dealing with them as second-class citizens.

The evening culminated in an embarrassing discussion panel with an ill and ill-prepared moderator, the movie’s author, Anas Shakfeh (president of the Islamic faith community), a Roman Catholic priest, the public official in charge of integration matters in Telfs, a Turkish-born expert on migration, and a theologian cum author. Not only was there no real discussion but complete agreement, the entire hour of babbling and taqiyya was a complete waste of time.

Anas Shakfeh slyly employed all means of his taqiyya repertoire, blaming any problem either on culture or on religion, but not on Islam. Felix Mitterer, the author of the movie, appeared utterly clueless, at one point addressing Shakfeh during a short wake-up time, when the theologian asked Shakfeh about Muslim marriages: “Now I understand why one of your secretaries contacted me and asked me to change the sexes of the main characters!” Mitterer apparently was unaware that a Muslim girl may not marry a non-Muslim man. Just when the discussion appeared to get underway regarding precisely this point, the priest interrupted to explain that he remembers Northern Ireland and how Catholic and Protestants were also unable to get married! When the priest also added that all religions had a common core (which one he kept secret), Shakfeh who was seated next to him, was a very happy and content man indeed! The so-called migration expert chimed in once in a while, saying that she wants to marry a man of her choosing. Shakfeh kept adding that while honor killings and forced marriages do happen, the Islamic faith community does not condone this behavior and does everything in its power to prevent this from happening. And anyway, “This is a cultural thing and has nothing to do with religion.”

The viewer certainly got the impression that there is no problem whatsoever in Austria between the local population and the Muslim immigrants. The Austrian Broadcasting Corporation, under total dhimmi control and riding on a wave of appeasement, neglected to invite a single person with a critical view. Thus, with the exception of the theologian, there was no dissenting voice to be found. The moderator tried to ask Shakfeh a somewhat controversial question, which Shakfeh answered in taqiyya-mode, which in turn satisfied the moderator. Utterly unsatisfactory and unworthy of a discussion. What an embarrassing evening! And dangerous, because the population is lulled into a false sense of normalcy.

(Mosque photo credit: Donau-University Krems)

Posted in Islam, News | Leave a Comment »

Tears of Jihad – Der Islam hat mindestens 270 Millionen Tote zu verantworten

Posted by paulipoldie on January 6, 2009

These figures area rough estimate of the death of non-Muslims by the political act of jihad.


Thomas Sowell [Thomas Sowell, Race and Culture, BasicBooks, 1994, p. 188] estimates that 11 million slaves were shipped across the Atlantic and 14 million were sent to the Islamic nations of North Africa and the Middle East. For every slave captured many others died. Estimates of this collateral damage vary. The renowned missionary David Livingstone estimated that for every slave who reached a plantation, five others were killed in the initial raid or died of illness and privation on the forced march.[Woman’s Presbyterian Board of Missions, David Livingstone, p. 62, 1888] Those who were left behind were the very young, the weak, the sick and the old. These soon died since the main providers had been killed or enslaved. So, for 25 million slaves delivered to the market, we have an estimated death of about 120 million people. Islam ran the wholesale slave trade in Africa.

120 million Africans


The number of Christians martyred by Islam is 9 million [David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends AD 30-AD 2200, William Carey Library, 2001, p. 230, table 4-10] . A rough estimate by Raphael Moore in History of Asia Minor is that another 50 million died in wars by jihad. So counting the million African Christians killed in the 20th century we have:

60 million Christians


Koenard Elst in Negationism in India gives an estimate of 80 million Hindus killed in the total jihad against India. [Koenard Elst, Negationism in India, Voice of India, New Delhi, 2002, pg. 34.] The country of India today is only half the size of ancient India, due to jihad. The mountains near India are called the Hindu Kush, meaning the “funeral pyre of the Hindus.”

80 million Hindus


Buddhists do not keep up with the history of war. Keep in mind that in jihad only Christians and Jews were allowed to survive as dhimmis (servants to Islam); everyone else had to convert or die. Jihad killed the Buddhists in Turkey, Afghanistan, along the Silk Route, and in India. The total is roughly 10 million. [David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends AD 30-AD 2200, William Carey Library, 2001, p. 230, table 4-1.]

10 million Buddhists


Oddly enough there were not enough Jews killed in jihad to significantly affect the totals of the Great Annihilation. The jihad in Arabia was 100 percent effective, but the numbers were in the thousands, not millions. After that, the Jews submitted and became the dhimmis (servants and second class citizens) of Islam and did not have geographic political power.

This gives a rough estimate of 270 million killed by jihad.

Posted in Islam, Must Read | Leave a Comment »


Posted by paulipoldie on January 6, 2009

The language of Islam is dualistic. As an example, there is never any reference to humanity as a unified whole. Instead there is a division into believer and kafir (unbeliever). Humanity is not seen as one body, but is divided into whether the person believes Mohammed is the prophet of Allah or not.

Kafir is what the Koran and Islam call the unbelievers. Kafir is the worst word in the human language.

The Koran defines the kafir and says that the kafir is:

Hated- 40:35 They who dispute the signs of Allah [kafirs] without authority having reached them are greatly hated by Allah and the believers. So Allah seals up every arrogant, disdainful heart. and despised by Allah.

Mocked- 83:34 On that day the faithful will mock the kafirs, while they sit on bridal couches and watch them. Should not the kafirs be paid back for what they did?

Punished- 25:77 Say to the kafirs: My Lord does not care for you or your prayers. You have rejected the truth, so sooner or later, a punishment will come.

Beheaded- 47:4 When you encounter the kafirs on the battlefield, cut off their heads until you have thor-oughly defeated them and then take the prisoners and tie them up firmly.

Confused- 6:25 Some among them listen to you [Mohammed], but We have cast veils over their [kafirs] hearts and a heaviness to their ears so that they cannot understand our signs [the Koran].

Plotted against- 86:15 They plot and scheme against you [Mohammed], and I plot and scheme against them. Therefore, deal calmly with the kafirs and leave them alone for a while.

Terrorized- 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 kafirs’ hearts, cut off their heads and even the tips of their fin-gers!”

Annihilated- 6:45 So the kafirs were annihilated. All praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds.

Killed- 4:91 If they do not keep away from you or offer you peace or withdraw their hostilities, then seize them and kill them wherever they are. We give you complete authority over them.

Crucified- 5:33 The only reward for those who war against Allah and His messengers and strive to com-mit mischief on the earth is that they will be slain or crucified, have their alternate hands and feet cut off, or be banished from the land. This will be their disgrace in this world, and a great torment shall be theirs in the next except those who repent before you overpower them. Know that Allah is forgiving and merciful.

Made war on- 9:29 Make war on those who have received the Scriptures [Jews and Christians] but do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day. They do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden. The Christians and Jews do not follow the religion of truth until they submit and pay the poll tax [jizya], and they are humiliated.

A Muslim is not the friend of a kafir- 3:28 Believers should not take kafirs as friends in preference to other believers. Those who do this will have none of Allah’s protection and will only have themselves as guards. Allah warns you to fear Him for all will return to Him.

A kafir is ignorant- 6:111 Even if We had sent down the angels to them [kafirs], the dead had spoken to them, and We had gathered all things before their eyes, they would not believe unless Allah had willed it, but most of them are ignorant.

Evil- 23:97 And say: Oh my Lord! I seek refuge with You from the suggestions of the evil ones [kafirs]. And I seek refuge with you, my Lord, from their presence.

Disgraced- 37:18 Tell them, “Yes! And you [kafirs] will be disgraced.” a partner of Satan 25:55 And still they worship others besides Allah who can neither help nor hurt them. The kafir is Satan’s ally against Allah. Unclean- 9:28 Oh, believers, only the kafirs are unclean.

Cursed- 33:60 They [kafirs] will be cursed, and wherever they are found, they will be seized and mur-dered. It was Allah’s same practice with those who came before them, and you will find no change in Allah’s ways.

Stolen from- Bukhari 5,59,537 On the day of Khaybar, Allah’s Apostle divided the spoils of war of Khaybar with the ratio of two shares for the horse and one share for the foot soldier.

Raped- Ishaq 759 [Mohammed’s official biography] On the occasion of Khaybar, Mohammed put forth new orders about forcing sex with captive women. If the woman was pregnant she was not to be used for sex until after the birth of the child. Nor were any women to be used for sex who were unclean with regard to Muslim laws about menstruation.

Christians and Jews are infidels, but infidels are kafirs, too. Polytheists are Hindus, but they are also kafirs. The terms infidel and polytheist are religious words. Only the word “kafir” shows the common political treatment of Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, animist, atheist and humanist.

The word kafir should be used instead of “unbeliever”, the standard word. Unbeliever is a neutral term. The Koran defines the kafir and kafir is not a neutral word. A kafir is not merely someone who does not agree with Islam, but a kafir is evil, disgusting, the lowest form of life. Kafirs can be tortured, killed, lied to and cheated. So the usual word “unbeliever” does not reflect the political reality of Islam.

Posted in Islam, Must Read | 1 Comment »

Das Studium des politischen Islam

Posted by paulipoldie on January 6, 2009


(Auszug aus dem Interview)

von Jamie Glazov


5.Februar 2007


Hervorhebungen und Link durch den Übersetzer

Der heutige Gast des Frontpage Interviews ist Bill Warner, Direktor des Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI). Ziel des CSPI ist es, durch seine Publikationen die Doktrin des politischen Islam zu lehren und es hat zu diesem Zweck eine Serie von Büchern veröffentlicht. Herr Warner ist nicht der Autor dieser CSPI Schriften, er ist lediglich der Vertreter einer Gruppe von Gelehrten, welche die Autoren sind.

FP (FrontPageMagazine): Erzählen sie uns ein bisschen vom CSPI.

W (Bill Warner): Das CSPI besteht aus einer Gruppe von Wissenschaftlern, welche sich dem  Studium der Grundlagentexte des Islam – des Korans, der Sirat (das Leben Mohammeds) und der Ahadith (überlieferte Tradition Mohammeds) – widmen. Es gibt 2 Gebiete im Islam, welche untersucht werden müssen – seine Doktrin und seine Geschichte – oder wie die Leute vom CSPI sagen: die Theorie und ihre Resultate. Sie untersuchen die Geschichte um die praktischen oder experimentellen Resultate der Doktrin erkennen zu können.

CSPI scheint die erste Gruppe zu sein, welche Statistik im Studium der Doktrin anwendet. Vorgängige wissenschaftliche Studien des Korans konzentrierten sich v.a. auf die arabische Linguistik.

Unser erstes Prinzip ist es, den Koran, die Sirat und die Ahadith als ganzes zu betrachten. Wir nennen sie die islamische Trilogie um die Einheit der Texte zu betonen.

Unser hauptsächlicher intellektueller Durchbruch besteht darin, dass wir erkannt haben, dass Dualität die Grundlage und der Schlüssel ist, um den Islam zu verstehen. Alles im Islam marschiert in einer Zweierkolonne auf, beginnend mit der Gründungserklärung:

1) es gibt keinen Gott außer Allah
2) Mohammed ist Sein Prophet.  
Das islamische Glaubensbekenntnis

Demzufolge besteht der Islam aus Allah (Koran) und der Sunnah (Worte und Taten Mohammeds welche in der Sirat und in den Ahadith gefunden werden können).

Es ist viel Tinte verschwendet worden beim Versuch, die Frage „Was ist Islam?“ zu beantworten. Ist der Islam eine Religion des Friedens? Oder ist der wahre Islam eine radikale Ideologie? Ist der gemäßigte Muslim der wahre Muslim?

Unser erster Hinweis auf die Dualität finden wir im Koran selber, welcher eigentlich aus 2 Büchern besteht, der (frühere) Koran Mekkas und er (spätere) Koran Medinas. Einsicht in die Logik des Korans gewinnen wir aus einer großen Zahl ihm innewohnender Widersprüche. Oberflächlich gesehen löst der Koran diese Widersprüche indem er sich der „Abrogation“ bedient. Dies bedeutet, dass der später geschriebene Vers den früheren ersetzt. Abrogation

In Tat und Wahrheit jedoch wird der Koran von den Muslimen als das perfekte Wort Allahs betrachtet und somit gelten beide Verse als heilig und wahr. Der spätere Vers ist zwar „besser“ aber der frühere kann auch nicht falsch sein, weil Allah ja perfekt ist. Dies ist die Grundlage für den Dualismus. Beide Verse sind „richtig“. Beide Seiten dieses Widerspruches sind unter dem Gesichtswinkel dieser dualistischen Logik wahrhaftig. Die Umstände bestimmen, welcher Vers gerade benützt wird.

Dazu zwei Beispiele:

1. vom Koran Mekkas:
Sure 73, Vers 10:
Und ertrag in Geduld, was sie sprechen, und flieh von ihnen  in geziemender Flucht.

Von Toleranz bewegen wir uns zur letztendlichen Intoleranz, nicht einmal der Herr des Universums erträgt mehr die Ungläubigen:

2. vom Koran Medinas:
Sure 8, Vers 12:
Und als Dein Herr den Engeln offenbarte: „Ich bin mit euch, festigt darum die  Gläubigen. Wahrlich in die Herzen der Ungläubigen werfe ich Schrecken. So haut auf ihre Hälse und haut ihnen jeden Finger ab. Anhang 10

Die gesamte westliche Logik basiert auf dem Gesetz des Widerspruchs; wenn zwei Dinge sich widersprechen ist mindestens eines davon falsch. Islamische Logik jedoch ist dualistisch; zwei Dinge können sich widersprechen und trotzdem beide wahr sein.

Kein dualistisches System kann sich mit einer Antwort zufrieden geben. Dies ist der Grund warum die Auseinandersetzung über den „wahren“ Islam kein Ende nimmt und niemals eine Lösung gefunden werden kann. Es gibt nicht eine einzig richtige Antwort. Islamische Toleranz

Dualistischen Systemen ist nur mit Statistik beizukommen. Es ist sinnlos darüber zu streiten, ob eine Seite des Dualismus wahr sein soll.


Benützen wir zum Beispiel Statistik wenn wir die Frage erörtern, was der wahre Jihad beinhaltet. Ist es das spirituelle Ringen mit dem eigenen Bösen oder ist es die Kriegsführung mit einem äußeren Feind? Schauen wir bei den Ahadith des Bukhari nach, weil er sehr oft von Jihad spricht.  97% der Referenzen betreffend Jihad sind kriegerischer Natur und 3% sprechen von einem inneren Konflikt. … Bedeutet Jihad Krieg? Ja; 97%. Bedeutet Jihad innerer Konflikt? Ja; 3%. Wenn also zu diesem Thema ein Artikel geschrieben wird, kann man beides beweisen, …. beide Seiten der Dualität sind richtig.

FP Warum herrscht Ihrer Meinung nach soviel Ignoranz im Westen, wenn es um die Geschichte und Doktrin des politischen Islam geht?

W Werden wir uns zuerst bewusst, wie wenig wir über die Geschichte des politischen Islam wissen. Wie viele Christen können sagen, wie die Türkei oder Ägypten islamisiert wurden? Was geschah mit den Sieben Kirchen Asiens, welche in den Briefen des Pauls erwähnt werden? Finde einen Juden, der die Geschichte der jüdischen Dhimmitude (Zweitklassenbürger, welche dem Islam dienen)   Dhimmitude und Schutzgelderpressung erzählen kann. Welcher Europäer weiß, dass für weiße Sklavinnen in Mekka Höchstpreise erzielt wurden? Jedermann kennt die Zahl der Juden, welche von Hitler umgebracht wurden. Finde jedoch einen Ungläubigen, welcher Dir sagen kann, wie viele im Jihad in den letzten 1400 Jahren getötet wurden.

Wir wissen genauso wenig über die Doktrin des Islam. Ein FBI Agent bekommt ein zweistündiges Training über Islam. Die meiste Zeit davon wird darauf verwendet, ihn zu lehren, korrekt mit einem Imam umzugehen. Wir kämpfen im Irak. Wer benützt die politische Militärdoktrin des Islam um strategisch zu planen? Wer kann einen einzigen Rabbiner oder Priester finden, welcher den Koran, die Sirat oder die Ahadith gelesen hat? Welcher Gouverneur, Senator, Kongressabgeordnete oder militärischer Führer legt Kenntnis über die politische Doktrin des Islam an den Tag? Suchen Sie eine Vorlesung an einer Universität, wo Kenntnisse über islamische politische Doktrin und Ethik vermittelt werden. Hochschulabsolventen werden in islamischer Kunst, Architektur, Poesie, Sufismus und über die glorreiche Geschichte des Islam unterrichtet, welche das Leiden der unschuldigen Ungläubigen ignoriert. Sie lesen Kommentare über den Koran und die Ahadith und nicht die eigentliche Doktrin.

FP Also: woher stammt diese Ignoranz?  

W Lass uns beim Anfang beginnen. Als der Islam von Arabien her in das zerfallende byzantinische Reich durchbrach, nahmen die Ungläubigen dies als arabische Invasion wahr. Auf ähnliche Weise wurde Osteuropa von den Türken überfallen und Spanien wurde von den Mauren erobert. Unsere Schriftgelehrten waren unfähig, die Eindringlinge beim Namen zu nennen.

Mohammed tötete jeden Intellektuellen oder Künstler welcher sich gegen ihn stellte Ermordung von Abu Rafi Sallam. Meuchelmorde

Es war reine Angst, welche die Mehrheit der Medien dran hinderte, die Mohammed-Cartoons zu drucken und nicht eine imaginäre Einfühlsamkeit. Angst vor der Wahrheit ist eine famose Basis für Ignoranz, aber nicht der einzige Grund, dies alles zu erklären. Was ist Schuld am schon fast psychotischen Widerwillen sich über den Islam Wissen anzueignen? Jenseits von Angst liegt die Erkenntnis, dass der politische Islam zutiefst fremd ist für uns.

Untersuchen wir die moralische Grundlage unserer Zivilisation. Alle unsere politischen und ethischen Regeln basieren auf einer einheitlichen Werteidee, welche am besten als die Goldene Regel umschrieben wird:


Behandle andere so, wie du selber behandelt werden möchtest.

Diese Regel hat Gültigkeit auf Grund der Erkenntnis, dass wir alle auf einer grundlegenden Ebene gleich(berechtigt) sind. Wir sind nicht alle gleich(geartet). Jeder Sportanlass zeigt, dass wir nicht alle dieselben Fähigkeiten haben. Aber alle wollen wir als menschliche Wesen behandelt werden. Ganz besonders wollen wir von Gesetzes wegen gleichberechtigt und sozial gleichgestellt sein. Auf der Grundlage der goldenen Regel – der Gleichheit aller Menschen – haben wir die Demokratie errichtet, die Sklaverei beendet und alle Männer und Frauen politisch gleichberechtigt. Also ist die Goldene Regel eine vereinheitlichende Ethik. Alle Menschen müssen gleich behandelt werden. Alle Religionen wenden die eine oder andere Version der Goldenen Regel an außer dem Islam.

FP Worin unterscheidet sich der Islam denn in Bezug auf  diese Regel?

W Der Begriff „menschliches Wesen“ hat im Islam keinerlei Bedeutung. Es gibt den Begriff der Menschheit nicht, es gibt lediglich die Dualität der Gläubigen und der Ungläubigen. Betrachten wir doch die ethischen Aussagen, welch in den Ahadith zu finden sind. Ein Muslim sollte nicht lügen, betrügen, töten oder stehlen. Aber ein Muslim darf einen Ungläubigen belügen, täuschen oder töten wenn es der Verbreitung des Islam dient.

Im Islam gibt es keinerlei universelle ethische Aussagen. Muslime werden auf eine Art und Weise behandelt und Ungläubige auf eine andere. Der Islam kommt am nächsten zu einer universellen ethischen Aussage indem er befiehlt, dass sich die ganze Welt dem Islam unterwerfen muss. Ziel des „Heiligen Krieges“ Nachdem Mohammed zum Propheten geworden war, behandelte er nie mehr einen Ungläubigen auf dieselbe Weise wie einen Muslim. Der Islam negiert die Wahrheit der Goldenen Regel.

Übrigens ist diese dualistische Ethik die Basis für Jihad. Dieses System erklärt den Ungläubigen für subhuman und deshalb ist es ein leichtes, ihn zu töten, zu verletzen oder zu täuschen. jihad

Natürlich haben wir Ungläubigen oft in der Anwendung der goldenen Regel versagt. Aber wir können auf dieser Basis be- und verurteilt werden. Wir sind unzulänglich, betrachten jedoch diese Regel als unser Ideal.

FP Sie haben vorher die große Differenz in der Logik erwähnt, können Sie diesen Punkt weiterführen?

W  Ich wiederhole: jegliche Wissenschaft basiert auf dem Gesetz der Widersprüchlichkeit. Wenn sich zwei Dinge widersprechen, dann ist zumindest eines davon falsch. In der islamischen Logik jedoch können zwei widersprüchliche Aussagen beide wahr sein. Islam wendet dualistische; wir einheitlich-wissenschaftliche Logik an.

Diese islamische dualistische Logik und Ethik ist uns vollkommen fremd. Muslime denken und fühlen anders als wir. Also basiert unser Widerwillen auf Angst sowie einer Ablehnung der islamischen Ethik und Logik. Dieser Widerwillen bewirkt, dass wir es vermeiden, Wissen über den Islam in Erfahrung zu bringen. Also sind und bleiben wir ignorant.

Ein anderer Teil dieses Widerwillens ist unsere Erkenntnis, dass keine Kompromisse mit der dualistischen Ethik möglich sind. Es gibt keine Position auf halbem Weg … Wenn man ein Geschäft mit einem Lügner und Betrüger abschließt, kann man es nicht verhindern, betrogen zu werden. Egal wie nett man zu ihm auch ist, er wird einen übers Ohr hauen. In der dualistischen Logik gibt es keinen Kompromiss. Kurzum, islamische Politik, Ethik und Logik können nicht an unserer Zivilisation teilhaben. Islam passt sich nicht an, Islam dominiert. Die beste Gemeinschaft Es wird niemals ein friedliches Auskommen mit dem Islam geben. Seine Forderungen hören nie auf und müssen auf Grund seiner Bedingungen erfüllt werden: Unterwerfung. Der “Heilige Krieg” als Pflicht und Prüfung für die Gläubigen

Ein weiterer Grund für unsere Abneigung gegen die Geschichte des politischen Islam ist unsere Scham. Islam hat über eine Million Europäer versklavt. Weil Muslime nicht versklavt werden können, war eine weiße Christin die Sexsklavin des türkischen Sultans. Diesen Tatsachen wollen wir uns nicht stellen.

Die Juden ihrerseits wollen die Geschichte des politischen Islam nicht anerkennen, weil sie genauso wie die Christen Dhimmis (Zweitklassbürger oder Halbsklaven) waren. Die Juden erinnern sich jedoch gerne daran, dass sie Berater und Ärzte der mächtigen Muslime waren. Egal was für eine Position der Jude auch immer eingenommen hatte, er war und blieb ein Dhimmi.

Warum sollen sich die Hindus an die Scham der Versklavung und die Vernichtung ihrer Tempel und Städte erinnern?  Nachdem Hindu Handwerker den Taj Mahal errichtet hatten, befahl der muslimische Herrscher, dass ihnen die rechten Hände abgehackt wurden damit sie für niemand anderen ein so schönes Gebäude bauen konnten. Der suttee Brauch dass sich eine Witwe auf den brennenden Leichnam ihres Gatten stürzte war die Reaktion auf die Vergewaltigung und die Brutalität der islamischen Jihadisten, welche über das alte Hindustan hinwegfegten.

Schwarze wollen sich nicht der Tatsache stellen, dass es Muslime waren, die ihre Vorfahren in Afrika zusammentrieb und sie engros an die weißen Sklavenhändler verkaufte. Der Araber ist der wahre Herr der Afrikaner. Die Schwarzen können die gemeinsame Verbindung mit den Weißen nicht akzeptieren, dass Europäer und Schwarze beide unter dem Islam versklavt waren. Sie fantasieren gerne, dass der Islam das Gegengewicht zur weißen Macht darstellt und nicht, dass sie vom Islam während 1400 Jahren beherrscht worden sind.

Dualistische Logik. Dualistische Ethik. Angst. Scham. Es gibt keinen Kompromiss. Dies sind die Gründe, warum wir nichts über islamische politische Geschichte, Doktrin und Ethik erfahren wollen.

FP  Gibt es also so etwas wie nicht – politischen Islam?

W  Nicht – politischer Islam ist religiöser Islam. Es ist das, was der Muslim praktiziert, um zu vermeiden in die Hölle zu kommen und vielmehr ins Paradies einzugehen. Es gibt die 5 Säulen – Gebet, Almosen, Pilgerfahrt nach Mekka, Fasten und die Erklärung abzuliefern, dass (Allah der einzige Gott und) Mohammed sein letztendlicher Prophet sei. Das islamische Glaubensbekenntnis

Aber wenn man die Trilogie berücksichtigt, bestehen keine Zweifel über die Doktrin. Mindestens 75% der Sirat (Lebensgeschichte Mohammeds) handelt von Jihad. Ungefähr 67% des in Mekka aufgeschriebenen Korans handelt von den Ungläubigen oder von Politik. Im medinensischen Koran widmen sich ganze 51% der Verse den Ungläubigen. Etwa 20% der Hadithsammlung von Bukhari handelt von Jihad oder Politik. Religion ist der geringere Bestandteil der grundlegenden islamischen Schriften. 

Die berühmteste Dualität des politischen Islam ist die Aufteilung der Welt in dar al Islam (Welt der Muslime) und dar al harb (Welt der Ungläubigen). Ziel des „Heiligen Krieges“ Der größte Teil der Trilogie bezieht sich auf die Behandlungsweise der kafir (Ungläubige). Sogar die Hölle wird zum Politikum; im Koran gibt es 146 Referenzen dazu. Nur 6% sind in der Hölle wegen moralischen Missetaten wie Mord, Diebstahl etc. Die anderen 94% sind dort wegen der (intellektullen) Sünde des Widerspruchs gegen Mohammed, ein politisches Verbrechen. Folglich ist die islamische Hölle ein politisches Gefängnis für Dissidenten. Mohameds Handlungen sind von Allah göttlich legitimiert

Mohammed predigte seine Religion während 13 Jahren und gewann nur 150 Anhänger. Als er sich jedoch der Politik und Kriegsführung zuwandte, wurde er innerhalb von 10 Jahren der erste Regent Arabiens indem er durchschnittlich alle 7 Wochen einen Akt von Gewalt verübte … Sein Erfolg kam nicht, als er ein religiöser, sondern als er ein politischer Führer war. Zeit in Medina

FP Können sie kurz die Geschichte des politischen Islam umreißen?

W  Sie beginnt mit der Auswanderung Mohammeds nach Medina. Von diesem Zeitpunkt an hatte der Ruf des Islam gegenüber der Welt immer mit der dualistischen Option zutun, entweder dieser gloriosen Religion beizutreten oder politischem Druck und Gewalttätigkeit ausgeliefert zu sein. Nach der Auswanderung nach Medina wurde der Islam gewalttätig, nachdem seine Überzeugungskraft versagt hatte. Der Jihad betrat die Weltbühne.

Jihad zerstörte den christlichen mittleren Osten und ein christliches Nordafrika. Dann kamen die persischen Zoroastrier und die Hindus an die Reihe. Die Geschichte des politischen Islam ist die Zerstörung der Christenheit des mittleren Ostens, Ägyptens, der Türkei und Nordafrikas. Die halbe Christenheit war dahin. Vor dem Islam war Nordafrika der südliche Teil Europas (d.h. des römischen Reiches). Rund 60 Millionen Christen wurden während der Eroberungszüge durch Jihad vernichtet.

Die Hälfte der glorreichen Hinduzivilisation wurde ausradiert; 80 Millionen Hindus wurden umgebracht.

Jihad zerstörte den ganzen Buddhismus entlang der Seidenstrasse. Zirka 10 Millionen Buddhisten kamen um. Die Bezwingung des Buddhismus ist das praktische Resultat von Pazifismus.              

Innerhalb des Islam wurden die Juden zu immerwährenden Dhimmis.

In Afrika fielen während der letzten 1400 Jahren über 120 Millionen Christen und Animisten dem Jihad zum Opfer.

Ungefähr 270 Millionen Ungläubige starben während der letzten 1400 Jahren für den Ruhm des politischen Islam. …

FP  Wie haben unsere Intellektuellen auf den Islam reagiert?

W  Die Grundlage des gesamten Gedankengutes der Ungläubigen ist zusammengekracht in der Konfrontation mit islamischem politischen Denken, Ethik und Logik. Wir haben bereits erwähnt, dass unsere ersten Intellektuellen die muslimischen Eroberer nicht einmal mit Namen nennen konnten. Wir haben keine Methode, den Islam zu analysieren. Wir kommen nicht überein, was den Islam ausmacht und wir haben keine Kenntnisse über unser Leiden als Opfer eines 1400 Jahre dauernden Jihad.

Die Christen glauben daran, dass „Liebe alles besiegt“. Nun gut, aber auch die Liebe besiegt den Islam nicht. …

Die Juden haben eine Theologie welche eine einzigartige Beziehung  zwischen ihnen und ihrem Schöpfergott hergestellt hat. Der Islam jedoch betrachtet die Juden als Affen, welche das alte Testament korrumpiert haben. Die Juden können den Zusammenhang zwischen islamischer politischer Doktrin und der Situation von Israel nicht erkennen.

Multikulturalismus ist eine Bankrotterklärung gegenüber der Forderung des Islam, dass sich jede Zivilisation ihm unterwerfen muss. Die Toleranzkultur bricht zusammen, wenn sie sich der heiligen Intoleranz der dualistischen Ethik gegenüber sieht

FP Bitte fassen Sie zusammen, warum es für uns so außerordentlich wichtig ist, dass wir die Doktrin des politischen Islam zu verstehen lernen.

W Der politische Islam hat sämtliche Kulturen welche er erobert hat oder in die er eingewandert ist vernichtet. Die Gesamtzeit dieser Vernichtung kann mehrere Jahrhunderte dauern. Wenn der Islam jedoch einmal im Aufstieg begriffen ist, versagt er nie. Die Gastkultur verschwindet und stirbt aus.

Wir müssen die Doktrin unserer Feinde kennen oder wir werden vernichtet werden.

Posted in Must Read | Leave a Comment »

The Five Principles of (Political) Islam

Posted by paulipoldie on January 6, 2009

Islam’s Trilogy of three sacred texts is the Koran and two books about the life of Mohammed. When the Trilogy is sorted, categorized, arranged, rewritten and analyzed, it becomes apparent that five principles are the foundation of Islam.

All of Islam is based upon the Trilogy—Koran, Sira (Mohammed’s biography) and Hadith (his Traditions).
Most of the Islamic doctrine is political, not religious. Islam is a political ideology.

Islam divides the world into Muslims and unbelievers, kafirs.

Political Islam always has two different ways to treat kafirs—dualistic ethics. Kafirs can be abused in the worst ways or they can be treated like a good neighbor.

Kafirs must submit to Islam in all politics and public life. Every aspect of kafir civilization must submit to political Islam.

These Five Principles can be put in five words—Trilogy, politics, kafirs, dualism and submission. These five words bring clarity and ease of learning about political Islam.

Up until now Islam has been hard to understand because it seemed complex and contradictory and did not make sense. But, once you see how the Five Principles work, everything falls into place. Complexity becomes simplicity. Chaos becomes order.

All CSPI books are based on these Five Principles.

 1. trilogy

The Trilogy contains three books—

The Koran is what Mohammed said that the angel Gabriel said that Allah said. But the Koran does not contain enough guidance for one to be a Muslim. The Koran repeatedly says that all of the world should imitate Mohammed in every way. Mohammed’s words and deeds are called the Sunna. The Sunna is found in two different texts—the Sira and Hadith.

The first source of the Sunna is the Sira which is Mohammed’s biography. The most authoritative version is by Ibn Ishaq.

The other source of the Sunna is the Hadith, the Traditions of Mohammed. There are several versions of Hadith, but the most commonly used is by Bukhari.
So the Trilogy is the Koran, Sira and Hadith.

2. political islam

Political Islam is the doctrine that relates to the unbeliever, the kafir. Islam’s relationship to the kafir cannot be religious since a Muslim is strictly forbidden to have any religious interaction with them The religion of Islam is what is required for a Muslim to avoid Hell and enter Paradise.

The Trilogy not only advocates a religious superiority over the kafir—the kafirs go to Hell whereas Muslims go to Paradise—but also its doctrine demands that Muslims dominate the kafir in all politics and culture. This domination is political, not religious.

As mentioned earlier, the Koran has 61% of its text devoted to the kafir. The Sira (Mohammed’s biography) has about 75% of its text devoted to the kafir and jihad.

Islam’s success comes primarily from its politics. In thirteen years as a spiritual leader, Mohammed converted 150 people to his religion. When he became a political leader and warrior, Islam exploded in growth, and Mohammed became king of Arabia in ten years.

Islam has a complete doctrine of how to treat the kafir that is found in the Trilogy.

3. kafirs

Non-believers are so important that they have several names. Christians and Jews are called People of the Book or infidels. Other religious names for non-Muslims are atheist, polytheist, and pagan. But the Koran uses one word that includes all of the religious names. That name is kafir, an Arabic word.

Kafir is usually translated as unbeliever, but that translation is wrong. Unbeliever is a neutral word. The Koran is very clear about the kafir. Indeed, the Koran defines the kafir by how it speaks of them. Kafirs are the lowest and worst form of life. Kafirs can be robbed, murdered, tortured, enslaved, crucified and more. Later in this chapter, more of the Koran’s doctrine of the kafir is given in some detail. But the key point is that a kafir is not only a non-Muslim, but also a person who falls under a different moral code from the Muslim.

The Koran is devoted to the division between those who believe Mohammed, Muslims, and those who do not, kafirs. This grand division of the Koran means that there are two points of view of the Koran—the view of the Muslim and the view of the kafir.

4. dualism

The third principle is duality, and is unique to Islam. As an example, here is a verse from the Koran:

109:2 I do not worship what you worship, and you do not worship what I worship. I will never worship what you worship, and you will never worship what I worship. You to your religion, me to my religion.

This sounds very tolerant, but this verse was written later:

9:5 When the sacred months are passed, kill the kafirs wherever you find them. Take them as captives, besiege them, and lie in wait for them with every kind of ambush. If they submit to Islam, observe prayer, and pay the poor tax, then let them go their way. Allah is gracious and merciful.

Now we have absolute intolerance. This contradiction is normal for the Koran and is even addressed in the Koran. The solution to contradiction is called abrogation where the later verse is better than the earlier verse.

The logic here is very important. Since Allah is perfect and the Koran is the exact words of Allah, then both contradictory verses are true, but the later verse is better or stronger. This leads to dualistic logic where two contradictory facts can both be true.

5. submission

Islam means submission and Muslim means one who has submitted. It is clearly stated in the Trilogy that all kafirs and their civilizations must be annihilated. Mohammed’s success depended on violence to persuade kafirs that he was the prophet of Allah.

Submission is political, as well as religious. Islam demands that kafirs submit in every aspect of public life.  Every part of kafir culture is an offense to Allah.

Posted in Islam, Must Read | 2 Comments »

Refuting Counter-Terrorism Dhimmitude

Posted by paulipoldie on January 6, 2009

After the Mumbai jihad a friend received a letter from someone who works in counter-terrorism. The friend is an apologist for Islam. The counter-terrorism friend poses their dhimmitude (apologies) so skillfully that it is worth countering their arguments.

The argument goes on for a full page. The conclusion is that Islam is not anyone’s enemy, but radical Islam is a threat to everyone. The argument does not include a single fact taken from Islamic doctrine. Everything is based upon what some Muslims have told them. In a court of law, such “proof” is called hearsay. In short, the argument can be summarized by: I know some good Muslims; hence, Islam is good.

The background for my argument is the doctrine of Islam. Every Muslim, without exception, will tell you that the Koran is the perfect, complete, universal word of the only god, Allah. The Koran insists that Mohammed is the perfect model, pattern, of behavior for all Muslims. Mohammed’s behavior is so important to Islam that it has a special name, Sunna. The Sunna is found in two texts, the Sira (Mohammed’s sacred biography) and the Hadith (the sacred traditions of Mohammed). All of Islamic doctrine is based upon three texts: the Koran, the Sira, and the Hadith, the Trilogy.

I will not quote from the letter, but will summarize the points. They are the same points of all the other “experts.”

“Moderate Muslims are not silent.”
Well, we have to grasp the thick end of the wedge first. What is a “moderate Muslim?” What defines moderate? There are two references for moderation. The counter-terrorism friend’s reference is “nice.” A moderate is a nice person who won’t harm a kafir (an unbeliever).

But we are talking about a Muslim, so the only valid reference for moderation is Islam, not “nice.” It is the model of Mohammed who determines what Islam is. So if a Muslim imitates the Sunna of Mohammed, then they are moderate. Sunna is the words and deeds of Mohammed, the perfect pattern for all Muslims. The Koran says over 70 times that all Muslims are to imitate Mohammed in every detail of their life. To that end Islam has an enormous literature about Mohammed in the Sira (his sacred biography) and the Hadith (his sacred traditions).

At this point we meet the main sticking point in understanding the doctrine of Islam. Muslims are to be Mohammedans and follow the Koran. But which Mohammed and which Koran do they follow? Mohammed preached the religion of Islam in Mecca for 13 years and gained 150 followers. In Mecca the Koran is generally religious.

Then Mohammed moved to Medina and became a politician and warrior. In 10 years time he annihilated the Jews of Medina, who were half of the town’s citizens. Then he turned to attacking all kafirs. In the last 9 years of his life he was involved in a violent event every 6 weeks, on the average. He died without a single enemy left in Arabia. The Koran in Medina is political in nature and very violent.

So there are two Korans-the Meccan Koran and the Medinan Koran. In the same way there are two Mohammeds-Meccan Mohammed and Medinan Mohammed. The confusing thing is that the two Mohammeds and the two Korans contradict each other. But the Koran gives a rule for resolving the contradictions-the later is better and stronger than the earlier. So Medina abrogates Mecca. The bad news is that jihad developed in Medina and all the “nice” verses are weaker than the intolerant verses.

But the earlier “nice” verses are still true. After all, the Koran is the exact words of Allah, who never lies. So Islam holds two contradictory positions on all politics. This is dualism. But the dualism is very confusing. Islam must be one or the other. Right? No. It is both at the same time. There is an Escher print that illustrates this dualism very well. Look at the print. Do you see angels or devils? Notice that you can’t see both at the same time.

The Western mind has been trained that both sides of a contradiction can’t be true. So the question arises? Which of the two Korans is the real Koran? Which of the two Mohammeds is the real Mohammed? We see this when people say: that is not the real Islam. Or: he is not a real Muslim. The entire question of which is the real Islam misses the point that Islam embraces both sides of the contradiction. Islam is killing kafirs. Islam is being tolerant of kafirs. Islam is both tolerant and peaceful and intolerant and murderous.

Go back to the Escher illustration. Does it make any sense to ask if it is a picture of angels? Or to ask if the devils are the “real” illustration? No, it is about both and any attempt to argue one over the other misses the point. Both of them are needed for the illustration to work. In the same way, Islam can only be BOTH Mecca and Medina.

Let’s return to the point of the “moderate” Muslim. Now we have to ask the question: is this Muslim a moderate of the Meccan variety or of the Medinan variety? Mohammed Atta, who was the lead jihadist on September 11, 2001, was a moderate of the Medinan sort. Just like Mohammed. Or is the “moderate” Muslim of the Meccan, generally religious and nice, type? The counter-terrorism expert does not make it clear which type she actually means, since it could be either.
The term “moderate” Muslim has no meaning because it does not identify which side of Islam the moderate is.

But we all know that what is meant is that moderate Muslims speak nicely and we are not afraid of them. They mean a Meccan Muslim when they use the word “moderate.” Let’s tackle his claim that the moderate Muslims are not silent. They may not be silent in dealing with kafirs, but they are silent in dealing with Medinan Muslims. Why? Two reasons. Medina was violent and most people are afraid of violence. That is the reason violence works. But there is a second reason. Remember that the Medinan jihadic Koran is better than the Meccan version. Medina trumps Mecca and Muslims know this.

“Radical Islamic groups”
What does “radical” mean? Killing, robbing, enslaving, assassination, torture, deceiving, jihad? As long as those behaviors occur with the kafirs on the receiving end, they are all acts that were performed by Mohammed. If Mohammed did them then they are not radical. Mohammed defines the middle of the road–normative behavior.

What happened in Mumbai, India, the World Trade Towers and Beslan, Russia was not radical. Each and every action at those sites was based upon the Sunna of Mohammed.

It is time to dwell a moment on the word “kafir.” The strict meaning of kafir is unbeliever, but unbeliever is a neutral term. The Koran defines kafir by its usage. Kafirs can be robbed, raped, crucified, tortured, deceived, enslaved, plotted against, insulted and more. Kafir is the worst word in human language. Our counter-terrorism expert is a kafir and does not know it.

“moderates are using the Koran to prove the radicals to be wrong”
Anytime anyone only references the Koran when they are talking about Islam, you are dealing with a deceiver or an ignorant person. The Koran is only 16% of the Islamic canon. The Koran does not have enough in it to accomplish even one of Islam’s vaunted Five Pillars. The Sira and the Hadith compromise the 84% of Islamic canon that shows a Muslim how to be a Muslim.

The Hadith devotes 20% of its text to jihad. The Sira devotes 75% of its words to jihad. Which “moderate” can deny those facts?

The Meccan Koran devotes 67% of its words towards kafirs, not Muslims. The Medinan Koran devotes 51% of its material to the kafir. Out of all this material in the Koran some of it in Mecca seems to promise goodness to the kafir, but the later Koran takes away the chance of goodness.

The “radicals,” the Medinan Muslims, are right. The Meccan Muslims are deceivers, perhaps of themselves, but certainly deceivers without any doctrinal basis.
Let’s vet the Muslim experts. If anything they say agrees with Mohammed then they are right. If anything the Muslim says disagrees with Mohammed then they are wrong. So who needs a Muslim? Go straight to Mohammed, the Sira and the Hadith. We don’t need hearsay; we need facts, Mohammed’s facts, and not Islamic gossip.

I don’t care about what any Muslim says, except Mohammed. Actually, there is one, and only one, Muslim who will give you the straight truth-an apostate, one who has left Islam. But apostates tell us that no one believes them. Obviously, our counter-terrorism expert has never talked with any apostates.

“I don’t think maligning Islam’s holy man is proper behavior”
Since when is quoting from the Sira and Hadith maligning? Mohammed gave out the rules for rape in jihad. He owned sex slaves, told Muslims it was good to beat their wives, laughed when his enemy’s heads were thrown at his feet. It’s in the book. Such behavior goes on for page after page, year after year. Why is referring to facts maligning?

“The counter-terrorism expert is a Jew and gives two incidents of how Muslims have helped Jews. In Albania some Muslims did not turn Jews over to Nazis, some Muslims helped a Jewish kid on the NY streets and became good friends.”
Sure, many Muslims have been good to kafirs. Dualism allows for that. But let’s examine what Mohammed did to the Jews; that is Sunna.

In the Mecca Mohammed portrayed himself in the line of Jewish prophets and that his angel was Gabriel, a Jewish angel. Large parts of the Meccan Koran are derived from the Old Testament, but all of the stories have been modified to preach that Allah destroys all of those who do not listen to his prophets. Other than that Mohammed is the Jew’s best friend.

Then he moved to Medina, which was half Jewish, and they told him that he was not a prophet. Both Mohammed’s and the Koran’s attitude changed about the Jews. (It is interesting how well the Koran tracks Mohammed’s political progress. This parallel might cause the cynic to wonder if Mohammed wrote the Koran.)

In Medina Mohammed attacked, robbed and exiled the first two Jewish tribes. The third tribe was enslaved, sold for profit to be used for jihad and the 800 male members were executed in one day. Before that Mohammed had two different Jews assassinated for speaking against him. After every Jew was gone in Medina, Mohammed went 100 miles out his way to attack the Jews of Khaybar. They had done nothing to Mohammed. (Does this remind you of the Jews in Mumbai?)

After he had crushed them, he tortured the Jewish leader to death (does this remind you of Mumbai?), took their land and made the Jews Islam’s first dhimmis. Dhimmis had no civil rights and had to pay a tax of half of all their income to Islam. Then on his deathbed, Mohammed banished the Jews from Arabia. His annihilation of the Jews in Arabia was 100%, better than Hitler
Hitler hated Jews, but it was not until the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem gave him the idea of extinction (taken from the Sunna of Mohammed when he annihilated the Jews of Medina), that the death camps were planned. Only 6.8% of Mein Kamph is Jew hatred, whereas, 10.6% of the Medinan Koran is involved in Jew hatred. So the Koran of Medina has more Jew hatred than Mein Kamph, but who is counting?

That is the Sunna of Mohammed.
Andrew Bostom’s seminal encyclopedia, The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, is 766 pages of disgusting bigotry by Islam. But for this Jew in counter-terrorism, his three examples show that Islam is the friend of the Jews.

There are 14 verses in the Koran that say that a Muslim is not the friend of the kafir. Here is one about the Jews:

Koran 5:51 “O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.”

But let’s be clear here. Isn’t it strange that people assume that a Muslim is only influenced by Islam? Every Muslim actually has three parts: Meccan Muslim, Medinan Muslim and kafir-Muslim.

To the degree a person is ruled by Islam, they are not a kafir’s friend. But “Muslims” are also influenced by the Golden Rule (the Golden Rule is not part of Islamic dualistic ethics) and can actually be a friend of a kafir, because the kafir-Muslim is not following Islamic ethics, but kafir ethics.

So if the Muslim is actually your friend, then in that moment he is not Islamic. But there is another possibility. Mohammed repeatedly told Muslims to deceive kafirs when it would advance Islam. So the friendship may be deception. Tragic, isn’t it? (Please do not respond and say that Islam has a Golden Rule. Give me the quote from the doctrine. Islam has two sets of rules-one for Muslims and a second for kafirs. The very word for all non-Muslims, kafirs, denies the Golden Rule. Mohammed treated Muslims one way and kafirs another way. Ethical dualism is Sunna.)

The counter-terrorism expert is not unique. Their arguments are the same as Bush, Kennedy, Pelosi, the FBI chief and the rest of the politicians, media experts and religious leaders. His arguments are standard Government Issue.

Here is the problem. All of my arguments are based upon the actual doctrine. When I talk about Islam I use the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith. Their arguments are based upon hearsay and opinion. But according to the media and university intellectuals I am a hate[-]filled bigot and they are a beacon of goodness. Lies are good. Truth is bigotry. Can we say Orwellian?

I can defend my statements. I believe in critical thinking and facts. I want our government “experts” to give an argument to defend their doctrine of hearsay and opinion. What is the argument for not reading the Koran, Sira and Hadith? What is the argument for deliberate ignorance?

Don’t argue that the doctrine of political Islam is too hard to understand. The bookstores and web are filled with the information about the Islamic Trilogy. Look it up. This argument is only five pages long.

The counter-terrorism expert believes that they hold the high ground on knowledge and morals. Their position is the highest one because they do not indulge critical thinking. They accept hearsay as not just a better source of knowledge about Islam, but also the true source of knowledge. Hearsay is the only moral position. Those who argue from facts from the Islamic doctrine and history are bad people who contradict “nice” people. Facts must submit to feelings in political correctness.

Ignorance has become the high moral ground. Not just the high moral ground, but the only moral ground. Those who quote the Koran, Sira and Hadith should be maligned, and no discussions of the fact-based philosophy should be allowed in any venue of respectability among the government, universities, or the media.

Notice that nowhere in this argument do I deny anything he has said. I merely offer some more facts that I want to add to the balance sheet. Their arguments are not wrong, but tragically short of all the information. That is all that is needed-all the facts. But knowing all the facts is bigotry. The experts say that facts are to be suppressed and act accordingly.

Our counter-terrorism experts are doctrine deniers. They deny that Islam has a doctrine and that it should ever be read. Two kinds of people know the doctrine of Islam-Muslims and kafirs. It is the dhimmis who deny the doctrine of Islam-dhimmi doctrine deniers.

Today the complete source material for all of political Islam can be held in one hand and easily read. Therefore, it all boils down to the question: How can any “expert” justify the first statement about Islam without having read the Koran, Sira and the Hadith?

Bill Warner

Permalink /blog/refuting-counter-terrorism-dhimmitude/

Posted in Islam, Must Read | Leave a Comment »

Maldives: Ministry Asks Police To Ban Discos

Posted by paulipoldie on January 1, 2009

Ibrahim Mohamed

The ministry of Islamic affairs appealed to the Maldives Police Service on Wednesday to end to all the discos organised for New Year’s Eve celebrations.

Police sergeant Ahmed Shiyam confirmed Dr Abdul Majeed Abdul Bari, the minister of Islamic affairs, had made an official request to the police commissioner, Ahmed Faseeh, for police to take action regarding this matter.

“We will be taking steps in accordance to the ministry’s request,” said Shiyam, but he did not comment on what action the police would take.

Dr Bari refused to comment on the issue on Wednesday.

Sheikh Mohamed Shaheem Ali Saeed, the state minister of Islamic affairs, said the ministry had formally requested the police stop the discos from taking place because they were contrary to Islam. He added the ministry had received complaints from the public.

“We have received hundreds of complaints asking for a ban on the DJs,” he said. “So, the number of people who are against having DJs is greater than the number who wants them.”

“Even a police official has informed us that they have also been receiving complaints.” he said.

According to Shaheem, it is haram or forbidden in Islam for both sexes to dance together.

Article 10 of the Constitution states the religion of the Maldives is Islam and Islam shall be the basis for all laws in the land.

Although Article 27 stipulates everyone has the right to freedom of expression, the right only exists as long as it is “not contrary to any tenet of Islam”.

Shaheem said the ministry had met with and advised some of the people organising the events.

“They said a lot of money had been invested to organise the events and it would be a great financial loss if the discos were cancelled,” he said. “They added they would not organise more discos in the future.”

Hussain Ibrahim, a prominent lawyer, agreed there was no law which permitted discos.

Ibrahim, also a former constitutional assembly member, said discos were forbidden in Islam and as such would be contrary to the Constitution.

“I can’t believe it,” said 25-year-old Ali Hussain after hearing the ministry’s decision. “It’s a big surprise. I’ve been celebrating New Year’s Eve for the past five years by going to discos. Boys and girls want to dance to music on this night.”

Hussain added if discos are banned, circumcision parties should also be forbidden.

“In circumcision parties, men and women dance very closely, so the ministry’s decision is unfair.” he said.

Posted in Human Rights - menschenrechte, Islam | Leave a Comment »