Why Are We Afraid of Islam?

Bengazi Panel - ANSWERS QUESTIONS ABOUT MUSLIMS

Whitewashing Islam: 20 Errors on 20/20

The media can't seem to get their facts straight when they discuss Islam.

The Bush Islamic Doctrine

Original article

The Bush Islamic Doctrine

We were introduced the power of political Islam on September 11, 2001. For a few people 9/11 was a declaration of war against our civilization and those people have been struggling against Islam. It is time to stop and ask: How are we doing? We are losing on every front.

A definition: Kafirs are the non-Muslims who are fighting against Islam. Dhimmis are the apologists for Islam—the media, Obama, George Bush, the professors, preachers, priests, politicians, pundits and rabbis.

Why are the kafirs losing? Because Islam is so strong? No, because we are waging war with a strategy that is destined to fail. We are losing because we using a losing strategy. George Bush planted the seeds of our strategy when he declared that 9/11 was an act of terrorists and he laid out the strategy that would lead to our cultural self-destruction. Here is the Bush Islamic doctrine:

· Islam is a religion similar to Christianity. Christians, Jews and Muslims all worship the same god.
· The problem is terrorism, not Islam, hence, “The War on Terror.”
· There are moderate Muslims and a few extremist Muslims.
· A good Muslim means that Islam is good.
· “Radicals” cause the violence.
· Islam is found in the Koran.
· The “bad stuff” in the Koran is just how it is interpreted.
· Good Muslims will reform the “terrorists.”

Not a single item is true. Each and every one is false and has no basis in Islamic doctrine. But everybody bought it. Why? For the same reason that Bush said it. It was the academic doctrine of Islam that the Ivy League taught. The media, professors, preachers, priests, politicians, pundits and rabbis had all been taught the same doctrine to interpret Islam. The Bush doctrine is not only unquestioned, but now has achieved the status of revealed truth. To deny it is to be a bigot.

So Bush did not create the doctrine, he was just a spokesman for the elites. There is a great irony in calling it the Bush doctrine, since more progressives/liberals/Leftists/Democrats believe it than do conservatives. Boxer, Reid, Pelosi and Obama are advocates of the Bush doctrine.

Let’s see how the Bush doctrine works to prevent actual learning about the truth of Islam. Take the jihad in Mumbai, India where several Jews and hundreds of Hindus were injured and murdered. The words “Islam” and “Muslims” were barely mentioned by the media. The problem was terrorism, not jihad. The dhimmis did not want to malign the moderate Muslims by bringing up the Islam angle. It was just a few radicals who had highjacked Islam who attacked the kafirs in Mumbai.

How many mindless (mindless on the part of the Christians and Jews) interfaith dialogues have we seen? Religious leaders all get on stage and go on about how they worship the same god. Not one of these so-called Christian and Jewish leaders has actually read the Koran. It is the Koran that defines Allah and if you don’t know what is in it, you don’t know anything about Allah. But not to worry. The Bush doctrine holds it to be true and that is enough. What religious leader has had the time over the last eight years to read the Koran or the life of Mohammed? They have had plenty of time, but they don’t need to do so; they are comforted by the lies of the Bush doctrine.

The Cork in the Bottle

Let’s say that you are talking to a dhimmi and you bring up some evil of Islam. What do they say?

· Christians did bad things, too.
· There is violence in the Bible, too.
· They (jihadis) are some fundamentalist/radical types. All fundamentalists are bad. Most Muslims are just like everybody else.
· The ultimate mind cork: “I know this Muslim at work. He is nice. Subtext: I can’t hear you.” (A good Muslim means that Islam is good.)

Every thrust is parried with the Bush doctrine of Islam. The Bush doctrine is the cork in the bottle. Every time we try to pour some wine of truth into a dhimmi’s head, it is corked by the Bush doctrine.

Terror

And how have we responded to the Bush Islamic doctrine? For the most part, we have bought the Bush terror model of Islam. We try to stuff everything into terror/jihad. Since no one likes terror/jihad, it can be condemned. But Islam is very clever. There are four kinds of jihad—sword, pen, tongue and money. If they skip the terror part and go straight to the soft jihad, then the kafirs talking about the terror/jihad approach to Islam are soon ignored. The media skips the terror/jihad now. There have been numerous jihadist events in America, but the FBI and the media never admit that Islam is involved. The worst was Mumbai, India. It was pure jihad, the attack on the Jews proved that, but Islam and the Muslims were never mentioned. No Islam here. Move right along. There is no man behind the curtain.

The terror approach bears a relationship to crying “Wolf!” After while, no one really worries about terror and the lack of it proves that Islam is good.

The major problem with dealing with “terror” is that it takes away from watching the real destructive force in America—Sharia law and the slow Islamification of our culture.

Education and Debate

When you are trying to educate someone about Islam, it helps to go over the Bush doctrine and point out that not a single statement in it is true. Up front, challenge their beliefs.

‘Too Christian’ for Academia?

A four-volume encyclopedia gets pulped in the name of political correctness.

Original article
By Edward Feser

Wiley-Blackwell, a major academic press, was set to release its four-volume Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization this month. According to the encyclopedia’s editor, George Thomas Kurian, the set had been copy-edited, fact-checked, proofread, publisher-approved, printed, bound, and formally launched (to high praise) at the recent American Academy of Religion/Society of Biblical Literature conference. But protests from a small group of scholars associated with the project have led the press to postpone publication, recall all copies already distributed, and destroy the existing print run. The scholars’ complaint? The Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization, they have reportedly argued, is “too Christian.” “They also object to historical references to the persecution and massacres of Christians by Muslims,” Kurian says, “but at the same time want references favorable to Islam.”

Political correctness in academic publishing is nothing new, but it would be unusual, to say the least, for ideological pressure to lead a publisher to reverse itself so late in the process, especially given the significant financial losses involved in pulping a print run of a gigantic four-volume encyclopedia. As Kurian puts it, “This is probably the first instance of mass book-burning in the 21st century.”

Last week, Kurian e-mailed a memo to his nearly 400 contributors informing them of Wiley-Blackwell’s decision, and of his intention of pursuing on their behalf a class-action breach-of-contract lawsuit. Kurian’s memo was soon distributed on the e-mail list of the Society of Christian Philosophers, and is getting attention in the blogosphere. (Full disclosure: I am one of the contributors to the encyclopedia; to my knowledge, no complaints were raised about anything I wrote.)

The memo also claims that the “words or passages [the critics] want deleted” include “Antichrist,” “BC/AD (as chronological markers),” “Virgin Birth,” “Resurrection,” and “Evangelism.” “To make the treatment ‘more balanced,’” the memo says, the critics “also want the insertion of material denigrating Christianity in some form or fashion.”

Kurian reports that critics objected to contributions from a number of established scholars, some from prominent academic departments and widely published in mainstream journals and academic presses—their work was deemed too theologically conservative and orthodox.

A representative of Wiley-Blackwell has sent an e-mail of his own to the encyclopedia’s contributors, insisting that Kurian’s charges are “completely without foundation.” The press’s actions, the representative claims, stem simply from a concern for “standards of appropriate scholarship.” This concern has led it to decide that the work’s articles require further review before publication. The publisher has not explained why its academic standards did not prevent it from granting final editorial approval and printing the encyclopedia. To paraphrase John Kerry, it would seem that Wiley-Blackwell was for publication before it was against it.

__________________________________
— Edward Feser is the author of The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism.

Radical Islam - Terror In Its Own Words

Is It an Oreo Without the White Filling?

Original article
A reader asked this question:

A rabbi who was in a forum in Indonesia with an imam was impressed by some fascinating articles on the "LibForAll Foundation" website. It preaches a very tolerant and humanistic form of Islam. Do you think that a Hindu-influenced "indigenous" Islam of Indonesia is a kinder, gentler Islam than the venomous Whahabist fanatical-hate version currently being spread throughout South Asia and Indonesia by Saudi petro-dollars?

Let's start at the beginning. The rabbi is going to a Muslim website to learn about Islam, the real Islam. Why is the rabbi, a scholar, not going to the actual doctrine found in the Trilogy of Koran, Sira (life of Mohammed) and Hadith (traditions of Mohammed)? He has very real reasons for not doing this. He has never been taught anything about the doctrine of Islam. Rabbinical training does not include the doctrine or history of Islam. Rabbis know nothing about the story of Mohammed and the Jews. They know about Mien Kampf, but not about the Sira.

At this point of the story, we can put a Christian minister, a Buddhist priest or an atheist humanist in place of the rabbi-same story. This is a manifestation of being a dhimmi (a kafir who serves Islam). A dhimmi submits to Islam and agrees to be ignorant about it. This means learning about Islam only from Islamically-approved sources. Andrew Bostom has written the definitive book on Islamic persecution of the Jews over 1400 years, Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism. Many synagogues will not let him speak unless they have a Muslim on the stage with him to refute any errors by Andy, who is a Jew. So naturally this rabbi went to an Islamic website, instead of the Trilogy.

But to the point-the website promises a kinder and gentler Islam, not like that terrible extremist Islam. This is the ultimate dream of all non-Muslims. The dream is that moderate Muslims will forge a reformation. This dream ignores the simple fact that both the Wahabbis and the Taliban are reform movements. They do not dilute the doctrine found in the Trilogy.

So why is the Wahabbi the good Islam and the kinder/gentler Islam not possible? Islam means submit. Muslim means one who has submitted. Islam is the cause; Muslims are the effect. Islam makes Muslims; Muslims do not make Islam. What any Muslim says about Islam is immaterial. If what he says contradicts Mohammed, he is wrong. If what he says is confirmed by Mohammed, then he is right. Why not skip the Muslim and go directly to Mohammed?

The kinder/gentler Islam is based upon the Islam preached in Mecca for 13 years. Mohammed portrayed himself as a member of the lineage of Jewish prophets. The Koran in Mecca is heavily derived from the Jewish scriptures. Noah, Abraham, David and the others all appear in the Koran. Islam was portrayed as the real Judaism, while the Jews had corrupted the original teachings of their prophets. Mohammed was the super Jew; he was more Jewish than they were.

Then he went to Medina, where he became a politician and jihadist. The Jews of Medina (there were none in Mecca) said he was not a prophet. In short order he exiled the first two of the three Jewish tribes in Medina and took all of their wealth. The third tribe was crushed, its women and children enslaved, and the 800 men beheaded as Mohammed watched.

He then went 100 miles away to crush the Jews of Khaybar and made them dhimmis (semi-slaves). On his deathbed he exiled the Jews from Arabia.

Two different Mohammeds, two different Islams. So the answer to a reformation is to use the Meccan Koran and Meccan Islam. This is so easy. All of that nasty Jew hatred stuff is in Medina, so just drop it. No one wants to know about it anyway. It is the part that the rabbi refuses to acknowledge. His moral ground is ignorance. Not only is he refusing to look at Medinan Islam, he also refuses to know the history of 1400 years of dhimmitude under Islam. So drop the ugly truth and maintain the beautiful lie.

But there is a problem. Islam is a process; it is not static. Mecca is the beginning part of the process-you can't just throw it out. Then there is the matter of the Koran clearly stating that the later Islam is the stronger, better Islam. The Medinan Islam is the completion of Islam-you can't throw it out. Besides, it is the jihad of Medinan Islam that gave Mohammed his triumph. His 13-year stint of being a peaceful religious teacher in Mecca failed. He only garnered a 150 Muslims. When he went to Medina and became a politician and jihadist he converted 100% of Arabia to Islam in 10 years, annihilating the Jews in the process. Why would Islam throw out the winning strategy?

There is another dreadful problem. The Koran is perfect. The Sunna (Mohammed's pattern of the perfect life) is sacred. How can you reject what is perfect? That would mean labeling Medina as bad and evil. Rejecting Medina would also mean rejecting the code that the Sharia is based upon.

Islam is dualistic and has two natures in one body. It is like an Oreo cookie. It has the nice creamy white filling and the crisp dark outer chocolate wafers. Sure, you can just scrape out the white filling, but you can't call it an Oreo. The Oreo is the entire cookie. Islam is the same way; you can't have only one part. There is no Islam without Medina, just like there is no Oreo without the dark wafer.

Our rabbi (read preacher, priest, professor, pundit…) must get off his pathetic ground of ignorance about the doctrine and history of Islam and turn to knowledge of the entirety of Islamic doctrine which is no longer hard to do. The entire corpus of Koran, Sira and Hadith can be held in one hand and has been made easy to read. It is immoral to be so ignorant. Turn to Mohammed, not some imam. Then you will get the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Bill Warner

Symposium: Homegrown Jihadis

Original article
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, January 30, 2009


The recent Mumbai horror has been yet another chapter in the dark tale of homegrown terror, as evidence indicates that British-born Pakistanis were among the Mumbai terrorists.

In this special edition of Frontpage Symposium, we have assembled a distinguished panel to discuss the problem of the jihadization of homegrown Muslims. Our guests are:

Brigitte Gabriel, a terrorism expert and the founder of ACT! for America. Her new book is They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It.

Raheel Raza, a leading Muslim reformer, award winning writer, professional speaker, diversity consultant, documentary film maker and interfaith advocate. She is the author of Their Jihad . . . Not My Jihad. Visit her site at RaheelRaza.com.

Christine Williams, the producer and host of the live current affairs Canadian daily talk show On the Line. The program has been recipient of five international awards. She holds a degree in Research Psychology from McMaster University and has distinguished herself as a political and crime reporter.

Joan Lachkar, Ph.D., a licensed Marriage and Family therapist in private practice in Brentwood and Tarzana, California, who teaches psychoanalysis and is the author of How to Talk to a Narcissist (2007), The Many Faces of Abuse: Treating the Emotional Abuse of High -Functioning Women (1998), and The Narcissistic/Borderline Couple: A Psychoanalytic Perspective on Marital Treatment (1992). Dr. Lachkar speaks nationally and recently presented, "The Psychopathology of Terrorism" at the International Psychohistorical Association, and at the Rand Corporation. She is an affiliate member of the New Center for Psychoanalysis, and writes in the Journal of Emotional Abuse.

and

Dr. Nancy Kobrin, a psycho-analyst, Arabist, and counter-terrorism expert.

FP: Dr. Joan Lachkar, Dr. Nancy Kobrin, Brigitte Gabriel, Christine Williams and Raheel Raza, welcome to Frontpage Symposium.

Nancy Kobrin, let’s begin with you.

We have myriad terrorist-to-be growing up in the West today and this is a reality, obviously, that poses a major threat to the West’s security. Omar Khadr, a young Canadian kid who sits in Guantanamo today, is but one frightening example.

How do you see the psychic evolution of these kids? What are they taught and how do they become young men in a free society who detest their society and wish to not only perpetrate violence against its citizens, but also to kill themselves in doing so?

Kobrin: It is hard to believe how these extremists are proxies of their parents, parents who instil hatred so intense that they need an enemy to project into as early as the age of three. These children are really proxies. The need to hate and the need to have an enemy is in place by age three. According to the esteemed Turkish Cypriot Muslim psychoanalyst and prolific author Dr. Vamik Volkan, this is a preconditioned and learned behavior in the home. They are inculcated to externalize their rage and aggression outwards on to the target of the enemy, the infidel, as parents applaud and refuel the flames of hatred.

In many of my contributions, I have focused on the devalued female who grows up to be a young mother under such adverse and dire conditions. In particular her son, especially the first born, becomes her only outlet of power. The bitter tragedy is that son is misused only as object and not as a person with his own needs. I am sure Dr. Lachkar will have more to say about the abuses of the children in this regard.

A growing number of these families who raise children who are radicalized early on in the West are embedded in parallel cultures as they have not integrated into Western culture. They see no reason nor do they have a desire to do so. Because they lack the capacity for intimacy, they bond through violence and pain. In my work about maternal fusion, a group of people who have never developmentally separated, remain fused so that everyone must be like them or wiped out.

Often minors are used because they know that under Western law they will not be punished as severely. They are essentially brainwashed. Underlying this is the unspoken dirty little secret that they have been brutally abused by their own parents because they have not been "allowed" to have freedom. They are actually quite terrified but as Dr. Lachkar has put it so well -- they become the terror. It is a hop, skip and a jump back into these families to realize that these kids are mentally "enslaved" to embrace the parental program of hatred of the other. It should come as no surprise that such lack of freedom in early childhood to explore and to have one's own thoughts is deemed intolerable. In a bizarre way they seek to appease their parents' unconsciously by offering themselves up as victim/victimizers.

FP: The only freedom becomes to kill or to kill oneself. Thank you Dr. Kobrin.

Brigitte Gabriel?

Gabriel: To follow up on Dr. Kobrin's analysis of hate indoctrination at home, as a recipient of this Islamic hatred as a Christian (infidel) raised in a majority Muslim Middle East, we have a saying about this passionate hatred: "Children are fed hatred through their mother's milk."

The principle of revenge is so imbedded in Islam, and is so tied to honor, dignity and pride, that parents ensure that their children would take revenge on the wrong that has been done to the Islamic Ummah, and in particular the damage to the Islamic pride.

Islam is supposed to be superior to any other religion. Muslims are supposed to be superior to any other people. The Koran spells that out in clear detail and urges the Muslims to fight until there is no more Fitna (disbelief, non-Muslims) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone. Koran (8:39)

This diet of religious teachings when mixed with societal pressure in a small community especially a Muslim community living in the West spells disaster. Not only Muslims are reminded in Western countries of their inferiority especially when they compare their western societies to what they left behind, but also are reminded why they need to fight those whom they believe dishonored them (infidels) and humiliate them until westerners acknowledge the superiority of Islam.

Therefore every new generation of Muslims are looked at as the avengers of Islamic pride, and the only hope of resurrecting the Islamic empire. This concept of revenge and its importance, is so foreign to Western Christian cultures, westerners have a very hard time understanding it.

Lachkar: The question is: why would someone like Ahmed Khadr, raised with Western values, suddenly turn out to be consumed with hatred and violence and become a terrorist? If I were to rephrase the question, I would ask not where Khadr “physically” lives or was raised, but rather where he emotionally or internally lived. From a psychological psychohistorical perspective we then need to examine two aspects:

First, who does Khadr identify with and secondly how does he bond with his objects?

Dr. Kobrin underscores the first point by addressing childrearing practices whereby hatred and disdain for outsiders are so intense that the only recourse is to find an external enemy to project into. “We are the good guys the believers and all others are evil, corrupt, infidels and therefore must be destroyed!” I believe Brigitte Gabriel opens the pathway to this point as she states, “Children are fed hatred through their mother’s milk.”

To take this issue a step beyond, it is not only that the child “takes in the milk,” they identify or over-identify with the caretakers who they trust and look up to. Given the information we have we can assume that Khadr idealized the relationship with his father and the engulfment with the cult-like group contributed to the fantasy that to become a terrorist and suicide bomber was the highest achievement one could wish for. As clinicians, this is a red flag.

We must keep in mind that idealization is a powerful defense mechanism and with this defense comes the eradication of one’s mind and the ability to think. In my recently published book, How to Talk to a Narcissist, I refer to this as ego dysfunctionality. In sum, this leads us to a culture of people who have never advanced or kept up. To emphasize the cult-like nature of a society that breeds and perpetuates fusion, I quote Dr. Zakir, who explains why Muslims have not advanced, “It is become they moved away from the Koran and from their religion, that is why.”

The second point is the bonding process. Although Dr. Nancy Kobrin states that there is a “myriad of Omar Khadrs,” I would say there is only “one” -- Khadr. What I mean is that there is a united group of Muslims who form a collective group fantasy, bonding with a group of terrorists who provide some unconscious fantasy of belonging -- giving some semblance of meaning and purpose.

The idea of bonding and group identification has been grossly overlooked -- the entire concept of group identification, belonging and bonding becomes a more pervasive force than life itself. This dovetails with the concept the “brotherhood.” I remember when Nassar invented the slogan, “Drive the Jews into the Red Sea,” many Arabs were opposed, but gradually this slogan became the symbol for group identity giving purpose and meaning to the meaningless. Anything is better than the void, the black hole or the emptiness.

In essence, when we talk about bonding we are really asking: how does one bond to one’s objects through love or through pain? In many of my earlier papers, I refer to this as parasitic bonding, not only patients I see in clinical practice but how nations, groups and societies can form parasitic attachment to the “Mother of Pain.” I am reminded of a conversation with Dr. Kobrin, discussing how it is one thing to feel the pain, bit quite another to become the pain. This is not a far cry from a borderline or severely disturbed depressed patient who cannot differentiate between an act of feeling from the act of doing, actually becoming the pain. “I feel paralyzed by my losses therefore I become the paralysis.” I feel hatred toward the West, therefore I become the hatred! "I feel therefore I am!"

In sum, one might suggest it all comes down to shame, how they ward off shame and blame the West for their lack of advancement. Dr. Zakir Naikstates, “We are backwards because be go away from the Koran, away from religion and that is why we have not progressed as we did in from the 8th to the 12 Century” (You Tube-Zakir Naik - Why Muslims not as Advanced as Western World).

Williams: Radical Islam is an ideal demonstration of how a culture promotes collective hatred through its institutions and conditioning. In this dynamic, a structural hatred is perpetuated through a religious cause that must engender death in order to survive.

Dr. Kobrin profoundly pinpoints the mother-infant bond as a critical factor in the phenomenon we are exploring. When a child is raised with Salafi ideology--a traditional Sunni form of Islam that promotes Jihad by the sword--he is taught that hatred of unbelievers is the best demonstration of his love of the Qur’an, Allah and his own people. When this young Muslim is sent to a school in the West, his ideology faces an obstacle, so his beliefs are consistently reinforced within his family and like-minded believers. He thus learns to function within two parallel cultures -- as Dr. Kobrin indicated. He is proficient in the Western world by all appearances, but within his heart and soul are imbedded the hatred of his new society.

Many Westerners are under the false impression that if a Muslim appears to be functioning well within his community that this means that he has integrated. In 2006, then Australian Prime Minister John Howard urged Muslims to renounce terrorism, integrate and learn English. His recommendation was greeted with applause, but inherent in it was a dangerous delusion that a perceived integration is a genuine one. Recall the terrorist car bombing at Glasgow Airport in June 2007. Two of the accused were young medical doctors in the community, fully "integrated," and working under the Hippocratic oath to heal. What this reveals is a need to understand that a network of Jihadists are living among us and they are not necessarily identifiable.

Members of Radical Islam are far more clever than mainstream citizens of the West. They will use our weaknesses, exploit our vulnerabilities and friendliness, find loopholes in our constitution and without conscience seek to destroy us. We have been declared the enemy of Islam to be conquered by the sword, and by whatever means in between.

The concept of multiculturalism, which is heavily advocated in Canada, is an example of one of these loopholes. By definition multiculturalism advocates extending equitable status to all cultural and religious groups with no one culture predominating. Mainstream society--and some well intentioned, but naïve leaders—did not foresee that this could one day lead to a clash of cultures, leaving a society unprotected and vulnerable as a house without doors, while a clever enemy force uses its own rules against it. The drawback of multiculturalism is that its proponents do not recognize that there are dangerous doctrines which clash with our democracy (eg. Salafism). So imagine the folly of giving equitable status to such groups, bent on our destruction. That same enemy force is now using our own democracy against us in the upcoming U.N. sponsored Durban II Anti-Racism conference -- where the Western rights to free speech will be challenged as a Human Rights issue by Islamic representatives.

Following 9-11, The New York City Police Department developed a four-stage model to explain how the Jihadi-Salafi ideology provides the foundation for a message that drives the domestic radicalization process, and transforms an individual into a full blown Jihadist. This model includes the stream of Jihadists that were not raised within a radical family as we saw with one of the biggest anti-terrorism operations in North America since 9/11 in which 17 Canadian citizens, from teens to early 20s, were arrested in June 2006. Some of these were not from countries governed by Shariah law, but included a Jamaican and a Trinidadian as well.

Here is the four step process put forth by the NYPD and adopted by the CIA, Homeland Security and CSIS:

1. Pre-Radicalization: The point of origin for individuals before they even begin to be radicalized. In this stage, there must be a starting point of discontent, some trigger that causes a sense of alienation and with it a sense of unbearable powerlessness and worthlessness. A resulting anger now needs expression of which the budding Jihadist chooses to externalize, so he finds relief, belongingness and power through Salafism. The implication that the West is to blame for the budding Jihadist’s sense of alienation is an absurd accusation of which racism has been cited by many Muslim leaders as a fueling factor in the radicalization of youth by making them feel marginalized. What Muslims need to admit is that racism exists in every culture and it must never be allowed as an excuse to justify a sinister agenda. This excuse is no different that using poverty and racism as a justification for young, black gangsters shooting up the streets. Radical Jihadist leaders are abusing the vulnerabilities of youth who are striving like all youth to find a purpose and identity. They use their own young as objects to perpetuate their cause to conquer by the sword, even if it means blowing themselves up in the process.

2.Self-Identification: The second phase where individuals start to explore Salafi Islam. They begin to gravitate from their own identity and to begin associating themselves with individuals absorbed in Salafi Ideology. If not easily accessible, these like-minded individuals collaborate through the internet. The Department of Homeland Security has highlighted the terrorist al-Qaeda internet campaign which is aggressively recruiting young followers and distributing videos, sermons, and training manuals about the virtues of Jihad bil Saif (Jihad by the sword).

3. Indoctrination: In this third phase, the budding Jihadist is now engaged and sold out to Salafi ideology. He accepts it without question and is prepared to launch his indoctrination into action. He has fully departed from the self into the Jihadi-Salafi "brotherhood", the word used by Dr. Lachkar.

4. Jihadization: In this final stage, individuals have fully accepted that it is their responsibility to annihilate all enemies of Islam. They are now engaged in Jihad bil Saif as holy warriors or mujahedeen which includes planning, preparation and execution of terrorist attacks.

Through anti-terrorism laws, Federal governments and affiliated agencies are now responsible for the safety of its citizens. Airport security has been a top priority and should continue to be, however our first line of defense is local law enforcement. There is a need for policy implementation for law enforcement personnel to be highly trained in how to detect terrorists in their communities beginning with the mosques. Community policing should be used as a strategy, not only to make community members comfortable with law enforcement, but equally as a means to make criminal elements uncomfortable.

Raza: Thank you all. I’m glad to join this discussion and based on the comments made by the other panel members, let me point out some key concepts that jump out at us.

1. Do we have a problem? Yes

2. Is there a rise in radicalization of Muslim youth? Yes

3. Is the problem going to just go away by itself? No

4. Is there hope for the future? Yes

5. Is there an ongoing struggle within the faith for the soul of Islam? Yes

6. Do we slam an entire faith for the problems of a few? No

Let me start at the beginning. There are usually two ways to deal with a problem. One, we can point blame till the cows come home but never come to any conclusion because our fear and anger takes over. Or we can coolly discuss what went wrong and how we can begin to bring change. Being an eternal optimist, I’m in favor of the latter but in order to do this, we have to move away from rumor, bias, hearsay and mass generalizations.

The problem about Jihadization of our youth is a serious one and is exists. It won’t go away by itself and Canadian society won’t overnight become the Judeo-Christian society that it was. This is no longer a clash of civilizations’ theory about Islam and the West; when you have third generation Muslims in North America, we are dealing with Islam in the West. Muslims are here to stay and most of the 1 million Muslims in North America are ordinary 9–5 folks trying to make a decent living. However a small percentage is turning radical and even that small percentage is too much of a threat if that radicalization translates into violence.

While I agree with Nancy Kobrin and Dr. Lachkar that there are psychological reasons why youth are trapped in a circle of violence due to a vacuum in their lives, this is not the only reason. I do agree that hate is taught at home. However in the case of Muslim youth, there is also another, larger, more dangerous villain. Let’s talk about the real threat. Without trying to justify the situation, let me give you a picture of what’s happened in the past 30 years in the Muslim world. This impacts me directly as a Canadian, a woman and a progressive liberal Muslim.

Christine has spoken about the Wahhabi/Salafi ideology and that’s where most of the trouble lies. Let’s examine the breadth and scope of this movement which comes from Saudi Arabia via Afghanistan and Pakistan which are the base of al-Qaeda.

Supported by petro-dollars beyond our imagination, Saudi Arabia has funded mosques and Imams in North America to spread the Wahhabi/Salafi ideology which by the way, is not only anti non-Muslims but also anti Muslims who don’t tow their line of thinking. They have targeted shias, sufis and other sects of Muslims and when they find disagreement, they don’t balk at using force.

Not surprisingly, this movement considers Jews and Christians to be infidels. To this day, Saudi Arabia’s state version of Islam is founded on an exclusivist, misogynist interpretation of the Qur’an, intolerant of both interreligious and interreligious plurality. They thrive on hate for the other.

More recently, these exclusivist views have also been heavily promoted by young radicals who thrive on fundamentalism. The reasons for the rise of such groups are complex. Broadly speaking, these movements are a reaction against modernity, westernization, economic deprivation, perceived global domination by western powers (particularly the United States), and support by such powers for repressive regimes in predominantly Muslim lands. The failure of borrowed ideologies, such as capitalism, communism, or socialism, to deliver economic and social justice in many Muslim countries has created exclusivist groups seeking a “pure” and “authentic” language in which to criticize the failed modern Muslim state, a state which has marginalized, or displaced, traditional religious authorities in a bid to maximize political power.

These exclusivist groups use Islam as a political ideology. The commitment of such groups to understand Islam in a “pure” monolithic form, to engage in revisionist history, and to read religious texts in an exclusivist manner that denies any plurality of interpretations, has unleashed a struggle in the Muslim world between them and the liberal/progressive Muslims who uphold the pluralist teachings of the Qur’an.

Further to Christine’s point, multiculturalism, political correctness and the greed for votes, makes our own government turn a blind eye to the poison within our ranks. I’ve written and spoken about these phenomenon myriads of times to point out that the Wahhabi/Salafi ideology is built on hate and spews a nasty political message, blatantly ignoring the spiritual message of Islam. How and why would we in Canada accept hate being spewed from any pulpit? But it happens and continues to be tolerated much to our dismay.

To Brigitte Gabriel’s point about Islam being superior than any other religion and her quote from the Qur’an. This is correct as most Arabs consider themselves superior to all others – I just want to point out that this is not a teaching of Islam but human arrogance which has existed since the world began. The paradox of religious traditions being used to promote harmony and tolerance on the one hand, and to justify war and intolerance on the other, is not unique to Islam. History shows us that all religions, particularly their scriptures, have been interpreted by believers to justify a wide range of contradictory political, social, and cultural goals.

The particular verse mentioned by Brigitte, Koran 8:39 is interpreted very differently by Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar in The Sublime Qur’an (page 206) “Fight them until there is no persecution”.

However Brigitte makes the point that the radicals misuse and misinterpret the Qur’an to their own use and much of the problem lies here. It is within the framework of this dichotomy between a pluralist Qur’an and anti-pluralist interpretations that we can best understand the conflicting and contradictory uses of Quranic texts. This also proves that there is a huge divide between the theory and practice of Islam.

Having said all the above, I agree with all the panelists that we are faced with the reality of a huge problem and we can’t fight it alone. As a Muslim who finds truth, beauty and hope in my faith and the message of the Qur’an, I’m appalled, ashamed and aghast at what’s being practiced in the name of my faith. This is why I wrote “Their Jihad – Not my Jihad” to point out that the Jihad we need today is the struggle to put right what has gone so totally wrong. I’ve pointed out time and again that our youth are the future of tomorrow and if we don’t wake up to smell the coffee it will be too late. Do I want my two sons, the same age as Omar Khadr to be associated with him and the ideology of his family? No. My sons are as Canadian as hockey and maple syrup but they are Muslim. However I worry that we might 30 years too late. The Wahhabi/Salfi movement and ideology has gone unchecked for so long, that we have to play catch-up. Added to this, massive illiteracy in the Arab world and third world countries, adds to the number of youth becoming victims of Islamist mercenaries.

The solution doesn’t lie in blame or slamming the faith. We have to find ways to bring reform and change from within. This is where we, progressive liberal Muslims need the help of all of you to support our work and our voices which are drowned by the din of the fanatics. There is no way we can compete with the kind of financial support the political Islamist movement has from Saudi Arabia. But we have no choice but to keep speaking out and condemn those practices that reek of racism, arrogance, hate and violence.

Kobrin: I would like to cut to the chase and address Raheel’s use of the argument that all religions “do it” (i.e. have their arrogance and superiority and how that relates to the mindset of radicalization of the youth). It inflates that self-import, self-righteousness, grandiosity and omnipotence -- a potentially lethal mix.

With all due respect, I disagree and wish to address the fallacy of this Tu Quoque argument or what I call the “you do it too syndrome.” The key problem is who coopted revelation.

Judaism and Christianity’s revelations were coopted by the Prophet Muhammad as a tactical “end run” around the opponents in order to superimpose ideological political domination. Judaism did not coopt the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad nor did Christianity. The Jews just wanted to be left alone in Saudi Arabia but that was not possible. Instead they were harassed, murdered and annihilated. Something the Saudis don’t talk about.

It is the Prophet Muhammad who wrote Islam into a corner and its “arrogance” is much more problematic by having further created and taught to its vulnerably and perpetually shamed children that there are these dhimmis out there to be subjugated. This is an ideological splitting that dovetails unfortunately with an unconscious splitting of the love hate syndrome described by Dr. Lachkar.

How these radicalized youth bond in a regressed destructive group echoes and reflects the psychopathology found in the umma that has not adequately dealt with their internal but externalized inferiority complex. It is remarkable to me that the Saudis do not understand how revealing their group behaviors are. The female is so devalued this shows us that the males don’t feel very good about themselves. Indeed Brigitte used the word “fitna” and we know in slang it means a loose woman who cannot be controlled.

I agree with Dr. Lachkar that there is really only “one” Khadr in the sense that the group is so pathologically fused. I am quite familiar with the NYPD’s report and I have written at length about the converts to Islam and their radicalization such as Christian Ganczarski, the Al Qaeda terrorist who I believe functioned as the “psychological” handler of Nizar Nawar in the Djerba Synagogue Bombing. The French are now preparing to prosecute him and others in January 09. Ganczarski is a good example of how there is a commonality of a psychopathology that has good fit with radical Islamist ideologies and their terrorist groups.

As for the doctors who are involved in Jihad, it should not surprise us – doctors are essentially technicians, they are not humanists and they are in a way “engineers” of the body. Robert Jay Lifton wrote about the Nazi doctors and there is a similar problem. Yet the bottom line is that Islam’s hidden dark side of Jihad and its 24 Suras in the Qur’an, speak to and undercut its face as an alleged religion of peace.

Again, yes, there are many moderate Muslims. I myself was immersed in Aljamia for my doctoral work and the ball is in the court of the ummah in solving this problem. But first they must admit that there is a severe problem due to the ideologies which they embrace and that it exists. They have to accept their own failure to own responsibility for their passive aggressive behavior in not dealing with the hatred imbibed at ummi’s breast.

If they don’t, the youthful radicalized jihadis will continue to be the carriers of their own unresolved aggression and rage. To hide behind the argument that these are tribal and clan issues is a specious argument at best.

Having said all of this, we should never give up hope -- and dialogue is the best way to go in trying to resolve this problem.

Gabriel: Dr. Kobrin has touched on something very important here. Moderate Muslims must come to the point of admitting that there is a severe problem in the ideology itself and that it promotes intolerance and violence towards infidels and the moderates themselves. Just look at the Muslims that have been killed by these radicals. Moderate Muslims must organize and engage those enlightened, educated and westernized Muslims in the community to begin a dialogue to discuss the possibility of reform in Islam just as Christianity and Judaism have been reformed. You do not see any Jews today strapping bombs on their bodies and blowing up mosques in retaliation for suicide attacks, even though the old testament is clear about "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." Moderate Muslims must present the case to their community that if we do not reach out and talk with our children about Islamic reformation we are going to lose them to the jihadists.

Muslim women living in the West must come together and rise in defense of their western freedom and equality under the law and its protection. They know and see how their sisters live in the Middle East and under Islamic regimes and Sharia law around the world. We have already seen what happens when the radicals gain the upper hand in any Muslims society. Just look at Indonesia, Sudan, and Pakistan. Muslim women in the West have much more at stake here than men and have much more power to influence the new generation of Islamic children to modernize and reform. They should start organizing groups and recruiting to create a strong voice.

Muslims living in the West have no excuse to hide behind their silence. Our western democracies give them the right and the protection to stand up and be counted. It is astonishing how only few courageous and heroic Muslims are standing up and speaking out publicly against the Islamic jihadi behavior all the while being condemned and outcasted by their Muslim community. The silence of the majority speaks louder than the voices of the minority.

While we encourage and support those moderates speaking out financially and morally, we as non-Muslims must be realistic with our expectations and must be wise in evaluating how to fight the jihadists. While the moderates can only do so much in curbing the tide of hatred and radicalism because the lack of financial support like Raheel said to compete with the Saudi funded hatred, it is going to take the West a great will and resolve to unite as one to fight this enemy. Sadly, the jihadists are now in our communities and a part of western civilization. They know our laws, our freedoms, and way of thinking and they are using them against us to advance their agenda.

It is now up to us to stand together not as Muslims, Christians or Jews, but as westerners and children of democracies to ensure that the western freedoms we value and enjoy are not taken over by supremacist ideology.

Lachkar: I wish to express my gratitude to Dr. Glazov for providing a forum allowing us as psychoanalysts and psychohistorians to delve deeper beyond the political/historical to the psychological aspects of the conflict into the root causes. Having said this, I think I will go with Dr. Kobrin's theme regarding the role of the "devalued" women and show how the entire Jihad movement may constitute a collective group unconscious fantasy around the role of women. More specifically, the destruction and denigration of women as part of Middle Eastern culture.

In my view, the avoidance of democracy is basically a farce and an undercover movement to keep women repressed. Islamic jihadists train terrorists to destroy evil America, but beyond our capitalism, our democracy where is the "evil?" None of us have the answer, but one could speculate it comes down to one thing and one thing only -- the role of women. Just imagine if Saudi Arabia embraced democracy -- only to see Muslim women running around in sports cars wearing nothing more than their bikinis? To follow up on Gabriel's quote, even mother's milk becomes toxic. "Children are fed hatred through their mother's milk."

Women in Islamic regimes are nothing but sexual objects, and their injustices are only increasing. The religious terrorists are everywhere. They consider women as chattel slaves (Koran 4:34). The Koran also states that "men are the maintainers of women and spend their property on women; therefore, the good women must be obedient, and to those women on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them." And the Koran (2:223) tells men that their wives are “a field for you, so go into your field whenever you like."

As a couple therapist, I have learned that often the issues are not only over sex, money, children, but more about control, domination, envy, betrayal, jealousy -- just as issues in Islam are not about land, territory, religion, but more about honor, revenge, control, envy and domination. Although many of the male "abusers" I see in clinical practice may not be trained terrorists, nor do they stone women or bury them in the sand, they seem to share one common trait: hatred toward the mother. So hatred and revenge becomes the replacement for love (in Islamic terms love means honor (Karamah), honor translates to saving face which translates to revenge. Men would rather dominate and control women than free themselves from the prison of Islam, and it is this hatred that becomes more pervasive than life itself.

In psychoanalytic terms, Melanie Klein refers to this as envy of the breast. Because it is the breast that feeds, is needed and desired, it is also the breast that is envied and must be destroyed. For youths, this hatred then becomes highly eroticized and radicalized. So where deprivation was hatred and revenge shall be.

Williams: Brigitte Gabriel makes a crucial point in emphasizing that the West needs to unite as one to fight the enemy of radical Islam. Our disunity makes us extremely vulnerable to our enemies.

There is a cultural Jihad being waged on our society and radical Muslims are making dangerous inroads by exploiting the far Left – which shares Islamism’s goal of

undermining our Judeo-Christian roots, the corner stone of North-American democracy.

So it is the far Left which is playing a big role in helping paving the Islamists’ agenda against us. And it is important for us to identify the impulses that motivate the Left in its agenda. One of these impulses is a self-hatred that is rooted in a burning guilt of being (in their deluded imagination) the capitalist oppressor that is beating down the world’s victims. In this vision, the West becomes evil entity and, therefore, the Left excuses itself

from being concerned about the many pathologies within Muslim culture, such as the oppression of women and minorities etc.

The Left has also nurtured a false impression that anti-terrorism laws since 9-11 have been applied abusively against Muslims. This has helped to portray an image of Islam as a victim that is under threat from a racist, corrupt West. Thus, Jihad somehow becomes justified because it is seen as being defensive. The path of Jihad, therefore, is sanctioned for young budding Jihadists who are struggling with inner conflict.

The reality is that Salafi-Jihadists are bent on the destruction of the West and the far Left is playing straight into their hands. This is weakening Western resolve against Muslim extremists who will destroy their friendly leftist infidels when given the chance.

Let’s keep in mind that there is a reason why immigrants choose the so-called evil

capitalist West as their home. They are often fleeing oppression and poverty. And so we need to have moral clarity in terms of being able to say which civilization is better.

I would like to end by saying that moderate Muslims, like Raheel, play a significant ongoing role in the battle against Islamic extremism. It is a work in progress and hopefully the vision of a type of Muslim reform suggested by Brigitte Gabriel that will be realized at some point, amid the raging cultural Jihad within our borders.

Raza: Thank you Front page for this opportunity for discussion on a key subject which has become all the more poignant in light of the latest attacks on Mumbai.

The constant stress on "Islam is the enemy" reeks of ignorance especially in light of remarks like "It is the Prophet Muhammad who wrote Islam into a corner" when Islam was not written by Mohammad. However that will be another discussion because I don’t want get diverted into a defence of my faith.

I also find it rather naive for Kobrin to mention that Judaism and Christianity have not had a history of violence when my reading and understanding from Jewish and Christian scholars is to the contrary. However I never justify violence in the name of Islam for that reason. I have a simple analogy - if there is garbage in my house and my neighbours, its my ethical and moral duty to clean my house first before I criticise others and I think I have taken this critique of Muslims as a huge challenge and have never shied away from honest retrospection, which is important if we are looking for peace and change.

As Deepak Chopra advised in the aftermath of the Mumbai bloodbath, we have to work on this globally and as human beings together to eliminate terrorism.

To the point about Muslim women, I absolutely agree that we are our own worst enemy. As a progressive Muslim woman, I get more flack and hostility from Muslim women who believe we are to be silent and oppressed, than I do from males. I also think that when Muslim women rise to the challenge of speaking out against injustice and gender inequality (as many are in North America where they have the freedom to speak out) there will be change.

On a positive note, I am in Jerusalem with a Christian Minister and his wife and I see that there is hope if we have faith in humanity and stop the blame game to stand for a moment in the other person’s shoes. I will continue to forge ahead to build bridges of understanding, without slamming others because that only creates negativity and is of no practical value. When I criticize, I must also find solutions to the problem of violence and terror which affects all of us.

Thanks once again.

FP: With all due respect Ms. Raza, the comment made by Dr. Kobrin, “It is the Prophet Muhammad who wrote Islam into a corner,” is not to be taken literally in the sense that Dr. Kobrin thinks that Muhammad had a pen and paper. This ridiculing of Dr. Kobrin’s statement blurs the crucial point she is making. She is referring to the fact that the historical Muhammad left an example in word and deed for his followers. Scholars such as Bill Warner and Abul Kasem have outlined the historical record of Muhammed’s life that is based on Muslim sources. Robert Spencer has done the same in his recent book – also based on Islamic sources. The history of Muhammad that is recorded by Muslims themselves is that he engaged in holy warfare and preached the importance of war against unbelievers.

These facts are not raised to “blame a religion” but to raise an issue that is crucial if are ever going to take violent jihad out of Islam (if that is possible).

Ignoring the truth about Muhammad and how Muslims regard him will not help make the Mumbai Massacres of this world go away. And it is vital for us to honestly answer the following questions:

Upon whose teachings did the ideology of extremists such Syed Qutb and Maudoodi rely?

Upon whose teachings did the Mumbai terrorists operate?

If the Prophet Muhammad categorically rejected violence and jihad by word and deed would the Mumbai terrorists have been able to construct their ideology?

Would Islamic jihadists be waging jihad if they were unable to quote extensively from the Koran?

Clearly the problem we face is that jihadis get their inspiration and sanctioning for violence precisely from Muhammad and that is why they invoke Muhammad's example to justify acts of violence and terrorism.

So the only realistic approach for Muslims worldwide to take, if they want to make Islam a Religion of Peace, is to honestly come to terms with the violence that Muhammad practised in word and deed and to renounce it, reinterpret it and understand it in new ways. Imams everywhere must issue fatwas throughout the Muslim world against Islamic warfare and to categorically state that all support of it in Islamic texts is no longer valid.

Kobrin: A good metaphor to use in order to understand the point that I am trying to make with regard to 1. How psychological and cognitive functions work with 2. Islam’s ideologies might be the following. Think of a book like a biology text which has a chapter on the human body and there are transparent overlaps of the different organ systems. If you think of the main page of the basic anatomy, let’s call this the mother board of the mind with its psychological and cognitive functions. Then overlaying that like a transparency is a sheet of the ideologies. It is not a case of either one or the other but the combustible combination of using violence and terror in child rearing practices like beating one’s children at age 10 in order to force them to pray five times a day according to Tawfik Hamid, The Roots of Jihad, p. 18. Beating a child impairs emotional and psychological growth. It leads to a cognitive deficit and impairment. It is not the way to make a child smart. It makes a child into a raging bull jihadi.

This underlying text of terror instilled to control children is then overlaid with ideologies such at the 24 sura/chapters in the Quran that teach Jihad. But even more than that is that Islam’s ideologies demand that there is always an enemy but the enemy is not just the infidel, the enemy most engraved into the ideologies of Islam and taken to the extreme by the radical Islamists and jihadis is the Jew – the Jew/Israel/Zionists/ Israelis who are Dajjal – the anti-Christ along with other mythologies like Zaynab bint Al-Harith, the Jewess said o have poisoned the Prophet Muhammad and that he had three favorite sex slave concubines – two Jewesses and a Christian. I see no way that these emotionally lived beliefs held by the ummah can be ex-sponged from Islam's belief system because they anchor the fragile communal identity that loves to see itself as victim and then projects their rage and acts out their murderous violence on to the dhimmified Other. It reminds me of the Arabic saying - he hits me and cries and races me to complain. Another Arabic saying comes to mind with regard to the Islamic suicide bomber alleged martyr who is held up by the ummah as victim when in fact he is victim-victimizer. The Arabic saying for that one is -- There were no horses so they saddled the dogs.

Least we forget that dhimmi comes from the Arabic root dhmm which means to blame. Allow me to be clear, I don’t really care about the case of Zaynab bint Al-Harith who is said to have been the Jewess who poisoned the Prophet Muhammad -- while the hadith is considered to be “minor” as if that justifies the stereotype – as far as I am concerned as this Jewish woman psychoanalyst Arabist writing these words – it is not “minor”; it is a vile stereotype and projection that fueled the flames of rage which led to the brutal torture, mutilation and tragic murder of Rivka Holtzberg Z”l = may her memory be for a blessing – the Rabbetzin (wife of the rabbi) who was murdered in Mumbai's Chabad Nariman house.

Gabriel: You raise a good point Jamie by discussing the root of the ideology and what the leader Prophet Mohammed, whom the Muslims consider "Al Insan Al Kamil" the perfect man lived, fought and taught.

The sad reality is that most Muslims are silent about the Jihadists’ terrorism throughout the world because after all this is what the Koran and the whole religion of Islam is all about. For Most Muslims to denounce what the Jihadists are doing in the name of their religion would be like denouncing the prophet and the words of Allah who instructed Muslims to do exactly that, declare war on non-believers and fight them until they become subdued. The precedent was set by “the perfect man”, Al-Insan-Al-Kamil, Prophet Mohammed himself.

Prophet Mohammed himself as a warrior set the example that continues to inspire jihad. Prophet Mohammed ordered 27 military campaigns and led nine personally.

In my book "They Must Be Stopped" I discuss a report commissioned by the Pentagon in 2006. The Pentagon assigned intelligence analysts to write a report about the source of Islamic extremism flaring around the world. They wanted to find out what is driving educated young men, and in some cases women, to commit such horrible acts of suicide and murder. The outcome of the briefing was politically incorrect and explosive. It is the Koran, the holy Islamic book that is driving them. It is the religion itself straight from the mouth of the prophet Mohammed.

The Pentagon briefing paper was titled “Motivations of Muslim Suicide Bombers.” The analysts had studied the Koran and Islamic scripture to try to understand Islam and see how extremists had hijacked a “peaceful religion.” What they found out was that suicide bombers were carrying out the teachings of the Koran. They found out that the more a Muslim understood the Koran and its teaching, the more un-moderate he became as he headed towards the purer form of what Mohammad taught.

The report concludes: "Suicide in defense of Islam is permitted, and the Islamic suicide bomber is, in the main, a rational actor." Here are a few quotes straight out of the Koran that proves this conclusion.

Qur'an 9:29 "Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission."

Qur'an 8:39 "Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah."

Qur'an 9:14 "Fight them and Allah will punish them by your hands, lay them low, and cover them with shame. He will help you over them."

Qur'an 8:65 "O Prophet, urge the faithful to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination they will vanquish two hundred; if there are a hundred then they will slaughter a thousand unbelievers, for the infidels are a people devoid of understanding."

Qur'an 9:123 "Fight the unbelievers around you, and let them find harshness in you."

Qur'an 48:16 "Say (Muhammad) to the wandering desert Arabs who lagged behind: 'You shall be invited to fight against a people given to war with mighty prowess. You shall fight them until they surrender and submit. If you obey, Allah will grant you a reward, but if you turn back, as you did before, He will punish you with a grievous torture."

The pentagon briefing states:

"His actions (the suicide bomber) provide a win-win scenario for himself, his family, his faith and his God…The bomber secures salvation and the pleasures of Paradise. He earns a degree of financial security and a place for his family in Paradise. He defends his faith and takes his place in a long line of martyrs to be memorialized as a valorous fighter…And finally, because of the manner of his death, he is assured that he will find favor with Allah….Against these considerations, the selfless sacrifice by the individual Muslim to destroy Islam's enemies becomes a suitable, feasible and acceptable course of action."

The briefing was the culmination of endless hours by the Counterintelligence Field Activity, a Pentagon intelligence unit. The briefing cites many Koranic scriptures relating to Jihad and martyrdom.

Here are more examples of Holy Scriptures that drives and validates their belief, ideology and their sincere determination to do the right thing according to their religion:

Qur'an:8:12 "I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle."

Qur'an:8:39 "So, fight them till all opposition ends and the only religion is Islam."

Qur'an:8:59 "The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them. They are your enemy and Allah's enemy."

Qur'an:9:5 "fight and kill disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, beleaguer them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."

Not only are the radicals drinking their Islam straight but the holy book they read is like a bar tender who keeps filling up their glasses and pushing it across the bar reinforcing and motivating them towards greater atrocities in their religious stupor. We are committing a cultural suicide by turning a blind eye to the danger Islam spells out continually.

Going forward we must realize that the portent behind the terrorist attacks is the purest form of what the Prophet Mohammed created. It not radical Islam. It’s what Islam is at its basic core. A core that has been “peacefulized” over the past century as it became infused and diluted by the civilized and moderate norms of new adherents, by the strength of Western civilization, by the historic weakness of the Muslim world. But Muslims are no longer weak and no longer poor. They have traded their swords for AK47’s, RPG’s, TNT and missiles. They are spreading their oil wealth around the world to bring Islam back. The time of moderation and watered down religion is over, and the Islam of Mohammed is back. It’s not radical Islam. It is not Wahabbi Islam, it’s Mohammed’s original Islam.

FP: Thank you Brigitte.

I would like to say at this point that these issues are being raised here today because we are also seeking a potential solution and also reaching out to Muslims, such as Raheel Raza, who is with us on this panel.

Ms. Raza, the point here today is not us attacking you or your religion. We know that you reject the jihadists and their violence and that you believe that they do not represent Islam, which you yourself find to be a peaceful religion. We know you are a noble and very courageous Muslim who is standing up to the Islamic extremists and putting your life on the line in doing so, and we respect and support you.

It is obvious that an Islam headed by Muslims like you is an Islam that everyone has a stake in fighting for. But the problem is that jihadists find their inspiration from Islamic theology and from the example and words of their Prophet. And this issue is not going to go away without an honest confrontation with it. So we are interested in how Muslims like you who reject violent jihad deal with this and how you recommend that this issue must be dealt with so that jihadists and all Islamic extremists are categorically told and instructed that all of these teachings are invalid and non-Islamic. How is this going to happen? How can it happen?

Christine Williams go ahead.

Williams: Clearly there are undeniable texts which advocate Jihad. And while it is obvious that a large portion of Muslims choose to live a peaceful life, "moderate" Muslims have an obligation to give assurances to the non-Muslim world, in word and deed, that they are serious about battling the threat of Jihad.

And speaking of Jihad, there is never an excuse for such violence - and the Muslim world must categorically condemn it. For example, the Palestinian cause is always used by jihadis worldwide as a justification for their rage. On Israel's 60th anniversary, CBS news and the Associated Press publicized an audio of Osama bin Laden regurgitating the standard mantra of Islamic terrorists: that the reason for friction between the West and the Muslim world has always been the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. For a budding homegrown terrorist in the pre-radicalization stage of Jihadization, it is obvious what influence this statement by bin Laden would have on his psyche: "The Palestinian cause has been the main factor that, since my early childhood, fueled my desire, and that of the 19 freemen (Sept. 11 bombers), to stand by the oppressed, and punish the oppressive Jews and their allies. . . .We shall continue the fight, Allah willing, against the Israelis and their allies, in order to pursue justice for the oppressed, and we shall not give up one inch of Palestine, as long as there is still a single true Muslim alive."

But the historical record demonstrates that jihadis have always cynically and dishonestly hijacked the Palestinian issue as an excuse to perpetuate violence against Israel and the West. It is clear that this issue serves as a means to sanction the rage that homegrown jihadis poison themselves with, all the while ignoring their deeper inner struggles stemming from the destructive ideology to which they dedicate themselves and are brainwashed by.

So we have young Muslims growing up in the West and struggling with feelings of alienation, hatred and resentment for the reasons we have raised here today. The responsibility lies on the members of the Muslim community to intervene and to teach these young Muslims that Jihadization is not an option. Open discussion in the public forum is vital in this way, and Muslims and non-Muslims alike must come together to stymie and denounce the sinister agenda of Salafism.

In addition to this, governments and law enforcement have to be vigilant in ways that have been discussed throughout our panel discussion. In the end, we cannot allow political correctness to tie our hands and to stop us from defending ourselves against an enemy that seeks to destroy us.

Raza: Most of the points made are valid i.e. violent and armed Jihad is a threat and solutions must be found. I do believe as I said before, that the solution will have to come from within Islam. There needs to be a lot of re-interpretation and reclaiming of the spiritual message.

From the 1.2 billion Muslims and 72 sects, everyone is not a follower of Syed Qutub and Mawdoodi. Matter of fact for every reader of Syed Qutub, there are followers and readers of Dr. Abdul Aziz Sachedina and Professor Khaled Abou el Fadl. For every Mawdoodi reader, there are readers of Syed Hussain Nasr.

I spoke to my Christian Minister friend about the above verses from the Qur’an being quoted without historical context and he sent me a page of verses from the Bible speaking of violence and killing which I don’t want to reproduce here (but have on my system) and what he said was that Christians don’t reject Christianity because of the Crusades or Ireland, but have moved into a way of looking at their faith today and ignoring the violent verses. They have moved ahead.

We Muslims need to do that as well and reject those aspects of the faith that are not in sync with human values and tolerance. However in my humble opinion, this doesn’t stem from the Qur’an or life of Mohammad (by the way you might read other books on Mohammad’s life like Martin Lings). The problem clearly lies in the Wahhabi Salafi teachings (some people say they have changed the translation of the Quran) and the West is aware of this but not doing anything.

We need to replace current Jihad with Ijtihad but it will take education, vision and knowledge. I’m an eternal optimist and I see hope in North America.

Thank you for your time.

FP: The issue, of course, is that there is nothing in the New Testament that teaches that non-believers must be subjugated or killed. And the fact that books may exist on Muhammad’s that may point to something good about him is independent of the historical facts about his life.

Dr. Lachkar, final word goes to you.

Lachkar: Since the world is now engaged in a race between time and the rapid increase of terrorism, we do not have time to spare. Suicidal lunacy may require psychotherapeutic skills to cure. It is long past time to assign a central role for a psychotherapeutic peace counselors in the international relations of our precious world. Perhaps we could have peace counselors around the world, this would include outreach programs, meet with other Arab and Western mental health professionals, social/musical events, more cultural exchanges etc.

I would like to thank and show all my respect and appreciation for all the Muslim women and Muslim people who fight for their human rights and against terrorism. We all know many risk their lives and for that we bless and thank you. You are heroes. Dr. Glazov. thank you again for providing this forum for us where we can speak freely and share our divergent views.

FP: Thank you.

Dr. Joan Lachkar, Dr. Nancy Kobrin, Brigitte Gabriel, Christine Williams and Raheel Raza, thank you for joining Frontpage Symposium.

A special thanks to Christine Williams, who was the Godmother of this symposium. She created the idea from which this symposium grew and suggested many of the themes which spawned its life. Thank you Christine.

__________________________________________
Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's managing editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s Left Illusions. He is also the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left and the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union (McGill-Queens University Press, 2002) and 15 Tips on How to be a Good Leftist. To see his previous symposiums, interviews and articles Click Here. Email him at jglazov@rogers.com.

Islam - What the West needs to know

Never Again or Again and Again?

Original link

Of Interest

What is the Pakistan government's involvement in the Mumbai jihad attacks?
What do the Pakistani Muslims say about the Mumbai jihad attacks?
Whose winning the 'war on terror' and why can't the mainstream media name the enemy?
Jihad by the sword is horrific but there is another stealth jihad that rages in the USA.

"Never Again" Or "Again and Again"?

The Mumbai jihad attacks included the slaughter of Jews at the Chabad House. "Never again" could be called a Jewish mantra and some Jews have used it in response to the Mumbai jihad.

On the other hand, we have the Islamic doctrine of the Sunna of Mohammed. The average person thinks that Islam is contained in the Koran. However, the Koran is the smallest part of the Islamic doctrine and it does not contain enough information to practice even one of Islam's Five Pillars. (When someone tries to explain Islam only on the basis of quotes from the Koran, they are ignorant about the true doctrine of Islam.) The Koran says over 70 times that all Muslims must follow the sacred example of Mohammed's words and deeds, the Sunna. The Sunna is not found in the Koran, but it is found in the Sira (Mohammed's biography) and the Hadith (his traditions).

The amount of information in the Sunna is amazing. Since Mohammed is the perfect example for all Muslims, the smallest detail of his life was recorded. We know how he went to the bathroom, brushed his teeth and had sex. We also know how he waged jihad.

So by the dictates of the Koran, Muslims are required to repeat the life of Mohammed over again and again. Therefore, they must know the Sunna. It is for this reason that all Muslims are Mohammedans.

Now back to the Jews and their mantra, "Never again." Notice that this implies that you must know what has happened before if it is not to happen again. And while Jews may have catalogued and remembered wrongs from other enemies, the great majority of Jews do not have any knowledge about the Sunna of Mohammed as it applies to them. This is a great shame, because the slaughter of Jews at the Chabad House was done precisely according to the example of Mohammed.

For instance, the jihadists had to go out of their way to find the Jews. After Mohammed had attacked and destroyed all of the Jews in Medina he attacked the Jews of Khaybar. He had to go 100 miles across the desert to get to the Jewish town. He sought them out. And just as the Jews of Mumbai had never harmed a Muslim, neither had the Jews of Khaybar harmed Mohammed.

The forensic physician who looked at the bodies of the Jews said that they were tortured beyond recognition. This is Sunna. After Mohammed had attacked the Khaybar Jews, he knew that they had a buried treasure. He had the chief of the Jews staked out on the ground and built a fire on his chest to make him reveal the treasure. When the chief would not reveal the treasure by torture, Mohammed had him beheaded.

The jihad of Mumbai was done by the book. It was pure Sunna.

It was at Khaybar that Mohammed instituted the Sunna of the dhimmi. The Jews of Khaybar were the first dhimmis (people subjugated by Islam). Before this, Mohammed had killed, enslaved and exiled the Jews. But Khaybar was a farming community and the Muslims knew nothing about farming. So after Mohammed took all of the Jews' money and land, he left them to work the land and pay him half of the value of their crops. This payment to Islam was called the jizyha tax.

Later the rules of dhimmitude included the fact that dhimmis were forbidden to study the doctrine of Islam. Dhimmis were semi-slaves and had no civil rights. This is Sharia law.

At first Mohammed used the Jews as proof of his prophet-hood. After all, the same archangel who spoke to the prophets appeared to Mohammed. The first Koran, the one written in Mecca, contains many of the Jewish stories about Adam, Noah, Abraham and others. The plots are similar, but all the Jewish stories bring one message-Allah punishes all of those who do not listen to His prophets.

But Mecca had no Jews to refute him, so the Meccan Koran is favorable to the Jews, in general. Then when Mohammed moved to Medina, he found about half the town was Jewish. They told him he was no prophet and the Koran's attitude changed.

Before Mohammed died, every Jews in Arabia had been enslaved, murdered, assassinated, exiled or made a dhimmi. Two of his favorite slaves used for sex were Jews (the other was a Christian). Then on his deathbed he said that neither Jew nor Christian were to be left in Arabia. There are no Jews in Arabia today.

The "Again and Again" people know this history; it is Sunna. The "Never again" people don't. Who will win? The answer is that knowledge is stronger than ignorance. Ignorance is the taproot of dhimmitude.

"Never again" has no meaning if you don't know what happened before. There is a lesson here. He who has eyes, let him see.

Those who do not want to be dhimmis should educate themselves. The Islamic doctrine about the Jews can be found in Mohammed, Allah and the Jews by CSPI Publishing. An encyclopedic history of Islam and the Jews can be found in Andrew Bostom's definitive book, The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism.

WAIT!! What about all those peaceful Muslims, the moderate Muslims? Only a few Muslims are killer jihadists. Remember that there are two Korans. The early Koran written in Mecca is more religious and favorable to Jews. The Koran from Medina is the one that rants and condemns the Jews and preaches the dominance of political Islam over all kafirs, non-Muslims.

These two different Korans actually contradict each other, but since both are from Allah they are both true. The Koran says that if two verses of the Koran contradict each other, then the later Koran is better.

Most Muslims follow the Meccan Koran, but since Allah said that the later Koran is better than the early Koran, they cannot condemn its practice. This explains why we don't hear "moderate" Muslims condemn the jihadists. The Medinan Koran trumps the Meccan Koran. The jihadist is a better Muslim than a Meccan Muslim.

Bill Warner

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