Refuting Counter-Terrorism Dhimmitude

Original link

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