Critical Podium Dewanand Islam
The Study of Political Islam - 1
Sacrifice code wfor0336
Sacrifice date 25 march 2009
The Study of Political Islam - 1
It is an excellent interview; the approach of using statistics to interpret
Islam is a brilliant insight. This article should be applied to other
scripture like Hinduism as well as including the Bible.
The Center's website is
and is well worth a visit.
It is claimed that Islam is the Religion of Peace, but in practice it
is the most brutal and tyrant religion of the world. How it is that the
most brutal and tyrant religion of the world can claim to be religion
of peace? Read the article for knowing the reasons for such contrasts.
The system of Islam and Christianity is based on falsehood, and their
claim of being religions of peace, love, and brotherhood is bogus. We
can strip them naked, and expose their falsehood royally.
By Jamie Glazov
Frontpage Interview's guest today is Bill Warner, the director of the
Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI). CSPI's goal is to teach
the doctrine of political Islam through its books and it has produced
a series on its focus. Mr. Warner did not write the CSPI series, but he
acts as the agent for a group of scholars who are the authors.
Information about the Center for the Study of Political
Warner: The Center for the Study of Political Islam is a group of scholars
who are devoted to the scientific study of the foundational texts of Islam-Koran,
Sira (life of Mohammed) and Hadith (traditions of Mohammed). There are
two areas to study in Islam, its doctrine and history, or as CSPI sees
it-the theory and its results. We study the history to see the practical
or experimental results of the doctrine. CSPI seems to be the first group
to use statistics to study the doctrine. Previous scientific studies of
the Koran are primarily devoted to Arabic language studies.
Our first principle is that Koran, Sira and Hadith must be taken as a
whole. We call them the Islamic Trilogy to emphasize the unity of the
Our major intellectual breakthrough is to see that dualism is the foundation
and key to understanding Islam. Everything about Islam comes in twos starting
with its foundational declaration: (1) there is no god but Allah and (2)
Mohammed is His prophet. Therefore, Islam is Allah (Koran) and the Sunna
(words and deeds of Mohammed found in the Sira and Hadith).
Endless ink has been wasted on trying to answer the question of what
is Islam? Is Islam the religion of peace? Or is the true Islam a radical
ideology? Is a moderate Muslim the real Muslim? This reminds a scientist
of the old arguments about light. Is light a particle or is light a wave?
The arguments went back and forth. Quantum mechanics gave us the answer.
Light is dualistic; it is both a particle and a wave. It depends upon
the circumstances as to which quality manifests. Islam functions in the
Our first clue about the dualism is in the Koran, which is actually two
books, the Koran of Mecca (early) and the Koran of Medina (later). The
insight into the logic of the Koran comes from the large numbers of contradictions
in it. On the surface, Islam resolves these contradictions by resorting
to "abrogation". This means that the verse written later supersedes
the earlier verse. But in fact, since the Koran is considered by Muslims
to be the perfect word of Allah, both verses are sacred and true. The
later verse is "better," but the earlier verse cannot be wrong
since Allah is perfect. This is the foundation of dualism. Both verses
are "right." Both sides of the contradiction are true in dualistic
logic. The circumstances govern which verse is used.
(Koran of Mecca) 73:10: Listen to what they [unbelievers] say with patience,
and leave them with dignity .
From tolerance we move to the ultimate intolerance, not even the Lord
of the Universe can stand the unbelievers:
(Koran of Medina) 8:12: Then your Lord spoke to His angels and said,
"I will be with you. Give strength to the believers. I will send
terror into the unbelievers' hearts, cut off their heads and even the
tips of their fingers!"
All of Western logic is based upon the law of contradiction-if two things
contradict, then at least one of them is false. But Islamic logic is dualistic;
two things can contradict each other and both are true.
No dualistic system may be measured by one answer. This is the reason
that the arguments about what constitutes the "real" Islam go
on and on and are never resolved. A single right answer does not exist.
Dualistic systems can only be measured by statistics. It is futile to
argue one side of the dualism is true. As an analogy, quantum mechanics
always gives a statistical answer to all questions.
For an example of using statistics, look at the question: what is the
real jihad, the jihad of inner, spiritual struggle or the jihad of war?
Let's turn to Bukhari (the Hadith) for the answer, as he repeatedly speaks
of jihad. In Bukhari 97% of the jihad references are about war and 3%
are about the inner struggle. So the statistical answer is that jihad
is 97% war and 3% inner struggle. Is jihad war? Yes-97%. Is jihad inner
struggle? Yes-3%. So if you are writing an article, you can make a case
for either. But in truth, almost every argument about Islam can be answered
by: all of the above. Both sides of the duality are right.
FP: Why, in your view, is there so much ignorance about the history
and doctrine of political Islam in the West?
Warner: First, let's see how ignorant we are about the history of political
Islam. How many Christians can tell you how Turkey or Egypt became Islamic?
What happened to the Seven Churches of Asia mentioned in Paul's letters?
Find a Jew who can tell you the Jewish history of dhimmitude (second class
citizens who serve Islam). What European knows that white women were the
highest priced slaves in Mecca? Everyone knows how many Jews Hitler killed,
but find an unbeliever who can tell you how many died in jihad over the
last 1400 years.
We are just as ignorant about the doctrine of Islam. An FBI agent gets
two hours of training on Islam and most of that is how not to offend the
imam. We are fighting in Iraq. Who utilizes the political, military doctrine
of Islam to plan strategy? Who can find a single rabbi or minister who
has read the Koran, Sira and Hadith? What governor, senator, congressmen
or military leader displays a knowledge of the political doctrine of Islam?
Try to find a course available in a college about Islamic political doctrine
and ethics. Graduates are schooled in Islamic art, architecture, poetry,
Sufism, and a glorious history that ignores the suffering of the innocent
unbelievers. Graduates read comments about the Koran and Hadith, but do
not read the actual doctrine.
FP: So why this ignorance?
Warner: Let's start at the beginning. When Islam burst out of Arabia
into a decaying Byzantine world, the unbelievers recorded it as an Arabic
invasion. Similarly, the invasion of Eastern Europe was by Turks; the
invasion of Spain was by Moors. Our scholars were incapable of even naming
Mohammed killed every single intellectual or artist who opposed him.
It was fear that drove the vast majority of the media not to reprint the
Mohammed cartoons, not some imagined sensitivity. Fear is a fabulous basis
for ignorance, but that is not enough to explain it all. What accounts
for the almost psychotic aversion to knowledge about Islam? Beyond fear
is the realization that political Islam is profoundly foreign to us.
Let's examine the ethical basis of our civilization. All of our politics
and ethics are based upon a unitary ethic that is best formulated in the
Treat others as you would be treated.
The basis of this rule is the recognition that at one level, we are
all the same. We are not all equal. Any game of sports will show that
we do not have equal abilities. But everyone wants to be treated as a
human being. In particular, we all want to be equal under the law and
be treated as social equals. On the basis of the Golden Rule-the equality
of human beings-we have created democracy, ended slavery and treat women
and men as political equals. So the Golden Rule is a unitary ethic. All
people are to be treated the same. All religions have some version of
the golden Rule except Islam.
FP: So how is Islam different in this context?
Warner: The term "human being" has no meaning inside of Islam.
There is no such thing as humanity, only the duality of the believer and
unbeliever. Look at the ethical statements found in the Hadith. A Muslim
should not lie, cheat, kill or steal from other Muslims. But a Muslim
may lie, deceive or kill an unbeliever if it advances Islam.
There is no such thing as a universal statement of ethics in Islam.
Muslims are to be treated one way and unbelievers another way. The closest
Islam comes to a universal statement of ethics is that the entire world
must submit to Islam. After Mohammed became a prophet, he never treated
an unbeliever the same as a Muslim. Islam denies the truth of the Golden
By the way, this dualistic ethic is the basis for jihad. The ethical
system sets up the unbeliever as less than human and therefore, it is
easy to kill, harm or deceive the unbeliever.
Now mind you, unbelievers have frequently failed at applying the Golden
Rule, but we can be judged and condemned on its basis. We do fall short,
but it is our ideal.
There have been other dualistic cultures. The KKK comes to mind. But
the KKK is a simplistic dualism. The KKK member hates all black people
at all times; there is only one choice. This is very straightforward and
easy to see.
The dualism of Islam is more deceitful and offers two choices on how
to treat the unbeliever. The unbeliever can be treated nicely, in the
same way a farmer treats his cattle well. So Islam can be "nice",
but in no case is the unbeliever a "brother" or a friend. In
fact, there are some 14 verses of the Koran that are emphatic-a Muslim
is never a friend to the unbeliever. A Muslim may be "friendly,"
but he is never an actual friend. And the degree to which a Muslim is
actually a true friend is the degree to which he is not a Muslim, but
FP: You mentioned earlier how logic is another point
of profound difference. Can you touch on that?
Warner: To reiterate, all of science is based upon the law of contradiction.
If two things contradict each other, then at least one of them has to
be false. But inside of Islamic logic, two contradictory statements can
both be true. Islam uses dualistic logic and we use unitary scientific
Since Islam has a dualistic logic and dualistic ethics, it is completely
foreign to us. Muslims think differently from us and feel differently
from us. So our aversion is based upon fear and a rejection of Islamic
ethics and logic. This aversion causes us to avoid learning about Islam
so we are ignorant and stay ignorant.
Another part of the aversion is the realization that there is no compromise
with dualistic ethics. There is no halfway place between unitary ethics
and dualistic ethics. If you are in a business deal with someone who is
a liar and a cheat, there is no way to avoid getting cheated. No matter
how nice you are to a con man, he will take advantage of you. There is
no compromise with dualistic ethics. In short, Islamic politics, ethics
and logic cannot be part of our civilization. Islam does not assimilate,
it dominates. There is never any "getting along" with Islam.
Its demands never cease and the demands must be met on Islam's terms:
The last reason for our aversion to the history of political Islam is
our shame. Islam put over a million Europeans into slavery. Since Muslims
can't be enslaved, it was a white Christian who was the Turkish sultan's
sex slave. These are things that we do not want to face.
Jews don't want to acknowledge the history of political Islam, because
they were dhimmis, second class citizens or semi-slaves, just like the
Christians. Jews like to recall how they were advisors and physicians
to powerful Muslims, but no matter what the Jew did or what position he
held, he was still a dhimmi. There is no compromise between being equal
and being a dhimmi
Critical Podium Dewanand Islam
All rights reserved.