"Aghast" Scholarship
February 13, 2010
Claude Salhami was 'aghast' at a recent politicalislam.com newsletter-Is
a Nice Muslim a Good Muslim? He replied to the newsletter with his Scourge
of 'Islam Experts', but he missed my point.
The point of the Nice Muslim newsletter is that the doctrine of Islam
is inhuman, not that Muslims always practice the Islamic doctrine at all times.
A Muslim can be a fine person in dealing with a kafir when they are not practicing
Islam. A summary of the Nice Muslim argument is:
- The Koran defines the kafir, a non-Muslim. A kafir is hated and plotted
against by Allah. Kafirs can be killed, tortured, crucified, raped, insulted,
enslaved and deceived. Kafir is the worst word in the human language. A kafir
does not have any positive attributes. - There is no Golden Rule in Islamic ethics. The Koran repeats 12 times that
a Muslim is not the friend of a kafir. - Mohammed repeatedly said that it is good to deceive the kafirs, if it advances
Islam. - Mohammed destroyed each and every kafir neighbor. It is Islam's purpose
to make all kafirs submit to Islam. - A Muslim can only be a true friend to a kafir by the use of the Golden Rule,
a non-Islamic principle.
The conclusion is that there is no good in Islam for the kafir. Sure there
are those 2.6% of the Koranic words that seem to be good, but in every case
the so-called good verses are abrogated later.
Anyone who implements the doctrine of Islam is not the friend of a kafir. If
they are actually a friend, it is because of the power of the Golden Rule, not
Islam. There is no good in Islam for the kafir. Note that this result was reached
without the use of a single verse of the Koran (no cherry picking), but uses
the systemic nature of its kafir doctrine.
Mr. Salhami makes these points in his reply:
- On many occasions Christians have acted badly and Muslims have acted well.
So? Christians and Muslims are people. You can prove anything you want by choosing
the right member. He also has some remarks about Christianity. To which I reply:
I only discuss Islam, not comparative religion.
- There are good Muslims and bad Muslims and we should not confuse the two.
What is meant by 'good' Muslims? Do we judge by the Islam of Medina or by the
Golden Rule? If we judge by Islam of Medina, then Osama bin Laden is a good
Muslim. Of course, by the Golden Rule he is not so nice. Stay with the doctrine
of Islam in judging Muslims. A good Muslim is one who follows Islamic doctrine,
not one who is likable.
- Mr. Salhami uses his personal experience with Muslims to learn about Islam.
This confuses cause and effect. Islam is the cause and Muslims are the effect.
A nice Muslim does not prove a nice Islam. Learning from Muslims is Muslim-ology,a
sociological personal endeavor. Learning about Islam from the Koran, Sira, Hadith
and Sharia law is learning about Islam.
- He criticizes my use of the coined term, kafir-Muslim.
I will grant him this criticism and thank him for it. A much better term is
Golden-Rule Muslim. Muslims, like all humans, have an innate sense of the truth
of the Golden Rule and use it at times. However, this is an un-Islamic act since
Islam does not have a Golden Rule.
All of the nice Muslims Mr. Salhami meets in the Middle East will not teach
him anything about the suffering of their kafir ancestors during the jihad invasion
and the centuries of being dhimmis living under the horror of Sharia law. He
won't learn how the native civilization has been annihilated and replaced with
the civilization of Islam. They will not tell him about the murder of millions
of innocent Christians, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, animists and Hindus to create
the Islamic civilization.
His nice Muslim friends will not instruct him in the vision, strategy and tactics
of jihad to annihilate all kafir civilizations. Nor will his nice Muslim friends
ever explain Islam's dualistic ethical system, with one set of ethics for kafirs
and a different set of ethics for their Muslim brothers.
Mr. Salhami is aghast at the self-taught scholars in Islam. There is a good
reason for their appearance. The university trained 'experts' are apologists
for Islam. They are trained in denial and justification and produce the type
of scholarship that allows the army to investigate Major Hasan's jihad at Fort
Hood and never refer to Islam.
The 'experts' give us the history of Islamic conquest and imperialism and praise
it as the glorious rise of Islam. The 'experts' teach courses in women's studies
and ignore Sharia law and Mohammed's treatment of women. They lecture on slavery
and never mention the Muslim wholesaler who sold the slaves to the white man
on the wooden ship or the Islamic slave trade in North Africa, East Africa,
Europe and India. The denial goes on and on as the 'experts' drive our university
policy. Is there a course in any American university system that is critical
of Islamic political ideology? Indeed, the 'experts' argue that such a course
would be bigotry.
It is the media 'experts' that give us jihad at Mumbai, India and never mention
Islam. It is the 'experts' that give us the Official
Islam that Bush and Obama talk about. Nice stuff-Official Islam. Too bad
it does not exist.
So, it is no wonder that when we have such dhimmified professors, university
trained 'experts' and media that professionals from other fields start reading
the Koran, Sira and Hadith to see for themselves what the ideology actually
is that drives the contradictions between current events and what we are told.
When you understand that the entire doctrine of Islam is found in Koran, Sira and Hadith,
you realize that Islam is simpler than the 'experts' told us. All three texts
have been made readable today and any disciplined person can become well informed.
The 'experts' have failed us, and we must teach ourselves.
It is easy to be an expert. Know Mohammed and the Koran (the book he brought
about). If what you say agrees with the Koran or Mohammed, then you are right.
If it does not agree with Mohammed, then it is wrong, no matter who you are.
Mr. Salhami, buckle your seatbelt and prepare to be aghast again. It is a war
between the university-trained dhimmi 'experts' and the self-taught kafir scholars
who stand on the doctrine found in the Koran, Sira and Hadith. We will use critical
thought on the doctrine and history of political Islam.
The 'experts' will talk about nice Muslims, criticize Christianity and the
West, while not holding Muslims responsible for their ideology. Every Muslim
must be held accountable for Islamic political doctrine and its bloody history.
Bill Warner,
Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com Use and distribute
as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.
|
 |
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment