Islam: Conclusion

All politics must submit to Islam. It is the purpose of Islam to replace the U.S. Constitution with Islamic law called shariah.

Every Muslim can act in two different ways. The first is based upon the Meccan Qur'an and Meccan Sunna. The second way is the Medinan Qur'an and Medinan Sunna. But a Muslim also has a third way of acting.

Kafir civilization is very strong in many ways. Nearly everything you can pick up and hold in your hand comes from kafir civilization. Nearly all products are based upon patents and copyrights. The Islamic world does not produce any significant work in the world of ideas. All democratic politics and most media and culture are based upon kafir thought. The modern world is kafir, and Islam exists inside of that. So every Muslim is also part kafir. It is almost impossible for a Muslim not to be part kafir.

Every Muslim is part Meccan-Muslim, part Medinan-Muslim and part kafir-Muslim. So what any Muslim does is based upon which type of Muslim he is. A Muslim is a person who makes personal decisions, so it is never possible to predict what a person who calls himself a Muslim will do or say.

If you have a Muslim friend or an associate at work and they are a nice person, you must have more than once said this doctrine can't be right, because "the person I know at work is such a nice person, and all of this doctrine of Islam sounds so dreadful." Well, let's stop and ask what you mean by "a good Muslim." Is he a good Muslim or is he a good person? Those are separate questions because, quite frankly, until you know the doctrine of Islam, and until you know the history of Islam, you really can't make any judgments as to whether or not the person at work or your friend is a good Muslim or not. Being a good Muslim does not depend upon anything about the kafir and the kafir's judgments. No. Whether a person is a good Muslim or not depends upon the doctrine of Islam. It is the doctrine of Islam that makes a Muslim. We must compare the Muslim with the doctrine, not the Muslim with what we think as good.

For example, Osama bin Laden is a good Muslim. He strictly follows the Koran of Medina, the greater Koran, the one that was written later, the one that Allah said abrogates the earlier. What you may mean when you say he's a 'good Muslim' is that he is simply a good person. Let's consider this.

Even in Mohammed's day, there are many references to the fact that Muslims did not want to engage in Jihad. Those Muslims were called hypocrites. Perhaps your friend who is such a good person is not really a "good" Muslim. And there's another thing about the good Muslim - you say he is your friend. How does his friendship stack up against the fourteen verses in the Koran which clearly and explicitly state that the kafir is never the friend of the Muslim?

What you probably have in your friend is a good person. A good Muslim follows the doctrine of Islam, and following the doctrine of Islam means seeing you as a kafir. Your friend is a human being before he is a Muslim, and the Golden Rule exerts a powerful force upon everyone, including those who profess the Islamic faith. Perhaps what you have in your friend is merely someone who is naturally following the Golden Rule and is therefore a good person. But notice, as long as he is actually really your friend, then he is not a good Muslim. Contradictory, isn't it? And not only is it contradictory, it's very sad.

Most Muslims are part Meccan Muslim, part Medinan Muslim and part kafir Muslim, just like your friend.

In earlier articles on this site, I mentioned that the Five Principles of Political Islam could be used as a tool to understand Islam. Let's review the Five Principles, and then see how to use them to analyze Islam by asking the right questions.

The first principle is that every word and action by Islam is based on the Qur'an, Sira and Hadith. In short, it is all based on Muhammad.

So, in analyzing anything Islamic, ask the question: What did Muhammad do or say that relates to this? Is this Meccan or Medinan Islam?

The second principle is, that if it deals with kafirs, it is political, not religious. The question is: how are kafirs involved? How is the religious "teflon shield" being used?

The third principle is that all non-Muslims are kafirs.

The question is: how is this based on the division between Islam and kafirs? Kafirs are always wrong and Muslims are always right. Ask questions like: how is it all the kafir's fault? How is the problem not Islam's fault?

The fourth principle is: dualism means that Islam can treat you two different ways.

The question is: How is dualism working here? What are the two opposing choices available here? What is the other side of the contradiction that is not being talked about?

The fifth principle is that the kafir must submit to Islam in politics and public matters.

The question is: what is the pressure to yield to Islamic values and dictates?

Really, all of the five principles can be summarized in two sentences. Everything that Islam does to kafirs is political and is based upon the Trilogy, the Qur'an and Muhammad. The treatment of kafirs is dualistic and kafirs must submit to political Islam.

Or, the five principles can be reduced to five words: Trilogy, politics, kafir, duality, submission.

Let's apply these principles by looking at an old problem---the so-called Israel - Palestinian problem.

First, there is a massive amount of the Trilogy about the Jews. Do you ever hear any news report that quotes either Muhammad or the Qur'an?

Is the interaction between the Palestinians and Israelis political or religious?

The Jews of Israel are kafirs. The kafirs are always wrong and the Muslims are always right. In any of the reporting of the conflict, do you ever read any self-examination by the Palestinians?

Duality. What is the whole truth? What are the two different ways that Islam has in dealing with Jews?

Submission. How are the kafir Israelis being asked to yield or submit to Islam? What are the demands on kafirs? How is it that Islam will not change?

In order to understand the five principles, you have to know Muhammad. If you know Muhammad, then you know Islam; if you do not know Muhammad, you do not know Islam. The five principles will allow you to understand Islam based upon its own doctrine and history.

We must have a clear and analytic study of Islam. What we want to do is to examine this ideology by giving it a cold, hard, analytic look. We need to understand that the religion is of no concern to the kafir. The religion is simply for those who want to go to Islamic heaven or avoid Islamic hell. We must take an analytic look at Islam and see its political nature and its political history.

Political Islam will continue to have its way if we don't learn about it. What is its way? It is clearly politically expansive. Our Constitution must fall, according to the doctrine of Islam. Now, you laugh, and say, "That's impossible. I mean, we're so strong, nothing could affect our Constitution." But the power of Islam grows daily in this country, and it feeds upon ignorance. The Qur'an of Mecca is used as the 'teflon shield' as more and more politics in Washington, D.C. are affected by the 'religion of peace.' Ignorant people, diplomats, congressmen, and senators don't know any better. We must demand that they educate themselves. We must demand that our leadership change and understand political Islam.

We have to ask this question: Why do our tax dollars fund universities that are formally devoid of the doctrine of political Islam? It is not taught at any university. How can this be? Why can't our tax dollars be used to teach the history of 270 million dead? Why can't our tax dollars be used to teach the real and complete history of slavery?

By educating yourself, you are making a difference. By encouraging others to learn about political Islam, you can make a huge difference. This war is not a war against terrorism. This war is a war against ignorance. And the enemy is not Islam. Islam is simply a doctrine. The enemy is our own passive ignorance. That is our enemy. We must do battle against ignorance, because this is a case in which the truth is on the side of the kafir.

It is not that Islam is so strong. The problem is that our ignorance makes us weak.

The above text is taken from the website Political Islam.

Islam: Tears of Jihad

The tears of jihad refers to the deaths of 270 million people over a 1400-year period. They were all killed for the same reason: they did not believe that Muhammad was the prophet of Allah.

After Muhammad died, Abu Bakr was elected caliph---basically, the supreme ruler of all Islam, which included both spiritual guidance and political guidance. He was sort of a combination of both pope and king. Abu Bakr spent his three years in office basically making sure that Muslim Arabs did not leave Islam. The apostasy wars continued during his entire time in office. An apostate is one who wants to leave his religion, and this is a fatal offense---a capital crime---in Islam.

After Abu Bakr died, Umar became the second caliph. Umar picked up where Muhammad left off, continuing Muhammad's efforts to attack the Christians north of Arabia. Those Christians were kafirs because they had not submitted to Islam.

At this time, the Middle East was not even remotely the same as we think of it now. It was basically a Greek culture. The Greeks were sailors and businessmen, which allowed the Greek culture to spread all around the rim of the Mediterranean, including Syria and Northern Egypt. Even North Africa was a Greek culture. And, of course, all of Anatolia (Turkey) was Greek. It was a highly sophisticated culture, but it had overwhelming problems, which could be defined as age, degeneracy and decay.

The Greeks had been at war with the Persians for a long time. This continual war left both the Persians and the Greeks weak. The 900-year rule of Greek culture in the Mediterranean was coming to an end. The Greeks were very divided along religious lines. People are different and interpret things in different ways, so, people being imperfect as they are, Christianity had several doctrinal variations, and the Greeks in Constantinople had a different theological view of Christianity than those in Jerusalem, Syria and Egypt. These divisions were strong enough to cause ill will between them, and this was the world that Umar invaded and conquered.

The conquest progressed so fast that Umar found it difficult to govern what he had. Still, he now had enormous wealth from the fall of Syria, Persia, Iraq, Egypt and North Africa. In thirty years time, all of Greek culture, except Anatolia, was destroyed. An entire new world order came about.

At first, the Christians were pretty much left to govern themselves and just send taxes to Medina. But after the consolidation of the empire under Uthman, things began to change. Islam was no longer conquering more territory. Instead, it was consolidating the territories it had conquered. The age of the dhimmi had arrived. Being a dhimmi involved paying heavy taxes, but it also began to involve being a second-class citizen in your own home country. In Egypt, for instance, the Coptic culture was especially despised. Now the Copts, who were the descendants of the Egypt of the Pharaohs, had become Christians. The Coptic language was thousands of years old. If, as a Christian, you spoke the Coptic language in front of your new Arab (Muslim) masters, your tongue was cut out. That was the life of the dhimmi.

North Africa became Islamic, and 600 years of Christianity disappeared. The culture of the Greeks, Romans, and the Europeans were annihilated. Then the pressure began against Greek Anatolia.

The Arab Muslims despised the Christians with a terrible fervor. You may say, “But in the Qur’an, it speaks well of the Christian.” Religiously speaking, that may be true, but that was written when Muhammad was in Arabia.

Now, everywhere the Muslims looked, they saw Christians who were wealthy, educated and very sophisticated. The Arabs were none of those things. They just wanted to crush the Christian kafirs. The 900-year-old world of the Middle East completely changed. (Note that it has not changed in the last 1400 years, except for becoming even more Islamic.)

The Christians had no idea what hit them. They never called the invaders Muslims; instead, they called them Arabs or Saracens. Here are some of the words they left behind:

The sword of the Saracen, beastly and demonic savages. Evil, God-hating Saracens destroyed crops, burned cities and drove the survivors before them.

This was the world that was created by Islam, and that would later cry out to the Christians in Europe, "Help us!" Indeed, the treatment of the Christians was only a little better than slaves.

After the Middle East was conquered, Arabia turned its sights on Constantinople in Anatolia. This became a long-term goal, which took a few hundred years to accomplish. Their first step was to kill Armenians. In one town, they brought together all of the Armenian leaders, took them down to the church and burned the church, which fell in on top of the Armenian leaders.

In another town in Anatolia, when you came to pay your dhimmi tax, you got a special brand from a hot iron on your arm. If you were found and you did not have a brand, the first thing they did was to cut off the arm that should have held the brand. It didn't hurt very long because the next thing they did was to cut off your head.

There was one Greek Bishop who offered to debate the Muslims with regards to Islam and Christianity. The Muslims listened to his debate for two hours, then they cut off his head.

Another Bishop invited them to a debate, so they, too, debated for the afternoon. When the debate was over, the Muslims took the bishop, cut out his tongue, hauled him out to the desert and left him to die.

Needless to say, acts like this began to teach the Christians what their place was in this new order. It was a place of the dhimmi, a semi-slave. They could still have their church buildings---those that were left. Christianity could not be seen or spoken of beyond the church or the home. For a Christian to try to convert a Muslim was a death sentence.

Christians were actually forbidden to read the Qur’an. This element is important, because it helps to insure an ignorance of the Christian by his Islamic rulers. This has had a 1400-year effect. Christians or other kafirs still do not study either the history or the doctrine of Islam. To not study the history or doctrine of Islam makes anyone, including a Christian, a dhimmi.

Dhimmitude starts with ignorance. The cure for dhimmitude is knowledge. Once a dhimmi becomes aware of the doctrine of persecution and the history of persecution, the dhimmi's eyes are opened and the dhimmi becomes a kafir.

The destruction in Anatolia took several hundred years. We have one accounting from a Muslim historian who gladly reports the figure of the destruction of 30,000 church buildings. Now some of the better church buildings had a special fate reserved for them. Those sites became mosques. When it conquers, Islam has built its mosques on top of where the best church building or temple was. It is ever thus, because this is the way of Muhammad or Sunna.

Destroying religious art is also the way of Muhammad. As soon as Islam conquered any town, the churches were desecrated. The Christians could move back into them later, if Islam decided to let them stand. Art---in particular religious art---is an affront to Islam. Muhammad's first act upon returning to Mecca, after he prayed, was to destroy all the religious art. We see this in Egypt, for instance, where the nose of the Sphinx has been knocked off. We see this along the silk route, where all of the Buddhist murals in caves have had the eyes pecked out and the mouth taken out. It was Islam who invented the act of ‘defacing.’

There was an interesting side effect for those who had already been conquered, as the conquest ebbed and flowed in Constantinople. If the Arabs lost a battle in Constantinople, then back in Egypt, for example, there would be angry riots, simply because of the fact that the Christians had beaten the Muslims in war, and, in those riots, the Christians would be killed.

This persecution was what set the stage for the Christians in the Middle East to cry out to their brothers in Europe, “Please help us,” and the response of the Europeans in the Crusades was to try to help them. So, the history of the Crusades is one of the few times where Christians tried to help other Christians in the Middle East. The Crusades should be a point of pride, and should be studied to see what can be done to help Christians against Islam.

In the East, jihad was not just against the Christians; it was against everyone. The Persian Empire at this time had already been crushed. Zoroastrianism, the religion of the Persians, was annihilated. It was annihilated to such a degree that today, historians are not really sure of the true nature of the Zoroastrian religion, because so many of their sacred texts were destroyed.

Islam moved onward towards Hindustan. Due to jihad, what we think of as India today is actually only about half of its original territory. But on the way to Hindustan, Islam stopped off in Afghanistan and destroyed the Buddhism that was there.

They then turned to the Hindus. The attack against the Hindus was similar to the ones against the Christians, Buddhists and Persians. When Islam started attacking the Persians, there was a parlay---a conference---before the battle, and the Persian general asked, "Who are you and why are you here," because the Persians had never really fought the Arabs. And here, in a hadith, is what Islam told him: "Our prophet, the messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you until you worship Allah alone or pay the jizyah, the dhimmi tax, and our prophet has informed us that our Lord says, whoever amongst us is killed shall go to paradise and lead a life of great luxury. Whoever amongst us remain alive will become your master." This is the perfect statement of jihad.

Now, here is a statement by one of the conquering Muslim generals of India, Tamerlane: "My principle aim in coming to Hindustan has been to accomplish two aims. The first is to war with the kafirs, the enemies of Muhammad, and by this holy war, be able to claim a reward in paradise. The other was that the army of Islam might gain by plundering the wealth of the kafirs. Plunder in war is as lawful as a mother's milk to a Muslim."

You can see that the reason for invading Hindustan was exactly the same reason as invading Persia, and it was the same reason for invading Anatolia and the Middle East. It's important to realize this, because many times people think that, when the Muslims invaded, maybe the people there got what was coming to them in some way. No; the only way you had to be---the only ‘fault’ you had to have---was to be a kafir, and the Hindus were kafirs.

Just as the culture of the Middle East was crushed, the culture of the Hindu was crushed. You need to know that the Hindu that we see today is not the same Hindu before Islam. Islam changed the Hindu. Before Islam, the Hindus had been a proud culture. They were a leader in intellectual theory, mathematics and philosophy. And they were very wealthy.

Hindustan had been an Empire for a thousand years, and it had been relatively peaceful. In times of peace, you accumulate a great treasure. That was one of the things that happened in Afghanistan with the Buddhists. They were very prosperous, because they had given up war. It turns out that the Buddhists were a demonstration of what happens when you deal with Islam by saying, “We are peaceful people, we will do whatever you want.” What happened to the peaceful Buddhists was that the pacifists were annihilated. Witness the fact that half of the Hindu culture still remains behind, because it had a warrior caste. None of the Buddhist culture remains in Afghanistan.

Here is a typical story: 20,000 jihadists and thousands of mercenaries laid siege to a city in Hindustan. A traitor in the city, in exchange for money, gave them a clue as to how they could place ladders up against one particular portion of the wall and penetrate the city. The Muslims poured into the city. For three days, they did nothing but kill. They didn't even rob the bodies. It's very interesting. The General gave the job of killing the Hindus to only his most religious men, and after three days, they stopped the killing and began to rob the bodies. While the killing was going on, the women and children were raped, because rape always accompanies jihad.

In the end, the Hindus were crushed. Half their territory was gone. They were sold into slavery. There are some remnants of this in the geography books. There is, in Afghanistan, a mountain range called the Hindu Kush. ‘Hindu Kush’ means the funeral pyre of the Hindu.

What we now call Pakistan was originally a part of India. This petitioning of Pakistan (so that it would become purely Islamic), which happened under the British, led to the destruction of about a million Hindus in the partition that led to the creation of the state of Pakistan.

The name ‘Pakistan’ for a Muslim division of British India was put forward in 1930 by Choudhary Rahmat Ali (1897–1951) from names of the Muslim parts of the subcontinent: Punjab, the Afghan Northwest Frontier, Kashmir, Sind, and Baluchistan. Pak means ‘pure’ in Urdu, and stan means ‘land’. Fear of domination by the Hindu majority in India led in 1940 to a serious demand by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the leader of the Muslim League, for a separate Muslim state. This contributed to the delay in Britain granting independence for some years, but in 1947 British India was divided into two dominions, India and Pakistan. The Islamic state of Pakistan was created, on Indian independence in 1947, out of the Northwest Frontier Region, the northwestern region of Punjab, Baluchistan, and Sind (making up West Pakistan), and the eastern region of East Bengal (making up East Pakistan). Jinnah became the first governor general and Liaquat Ali Khan, deputy leader of the Muslim League (1940–47), became the first prime minister.

Although Mahatma Gandhi, the hero of Indian independence, forced the Indian National Congress to divide the assets of the former government of India, there was no confidence between the two countries. It was Ghandi, the secular saint, whose pacifism and dhimmitude lead to the deaths of a million Hindus. It was Ghandi who said that, although all of the Hindus had to leave Pakistan, none of the Muslims in India had to leave. Today, those Muslims are devouring India from the inside out. Ghandi was actually the great betrayer of Hindu culture.

Both Ghandi and the Buddhists of Afghanistan show how pacifism leads to total annihilation in the shortest period of time.

At the other end of India, in Bangladesh, the Islamization goes on today. In 1947, Bangladesh was still about one-third Hindu. Today, it is about 10% Hindu. And that reduction of the Hindu has come at a terrible price. Women and men who are left in Bangladesh are persecuted on a daily basis, dreadfully, and the police turn a blind eye when some Muslim throws acid in a Hindu woman's face. Why does he throw the acid? Her face isn't veiled. The police will not investigate because the police are Muslim.

We do not have time in this brief account to tell the terrible story of the conversion of Anatolia to Turkey. Nor do we have time to tell the terrible persecution of the Orthodox Christians in Eastern Europe. Their persecution was dreadful, but they fought on and on, to their credit.

The first ‘September 11th’ was in 1683, when the Europeans drove the Muslims from the gates of Vienna. Of course, many years later, we would have another September 11th. Now what is important about that is this: Islam never forgot that on September 11th they had been turned back from the gates of Vienna, and the proud Turkish Army defeated. They never forgot.

Here's what's important: On September 11th in America, we had no idea why that date was chosen. We were clueless, and in that we see the nature of Islam and the kafir. The kafir never remembers the history that went with the expansion of Islam. Islam never forgets.

Since 9/11, about 58,000 people around the world have died in over 9,000 attacks. Over 87,000 have been injured in 39 countries. All of this suffering goes on around the world, and you never hear about it, because our press does not want to report the terror of what is happening politically around the world with Islam. They do not connect the dots.

But I suppose we can't really blame our press, because none of our schools teach this history either---not even the Christian schools teach the dreadful history of the destruction of 60 million Christians. No schools teach the deaths of 10 million Buddhists, 80 million Hindus and 120 million Africans.

And, since we don't know the history, we are doomed to repeat it. Islam continues to kill the kafir, and the kafir just says, "Oh well, we'll take care of that problem by pretending it is not there. And the reason we won't turn our attention to it is complicated, but part of it has to do with the shame of the history, because Islam has defeated the kafir time and time again. We absolutely refuse to admit that this is an ideology that is devoted to the annihilation of all kafir cultures.” Because now, when you go to Iraq, you don't find a Christian Iraq. When you go to Egypt, you don't find a Christian Egypt. It is Islamic.

There's only one way to stop this. The history of the ‘tears of jihad’ must be taught in kafir schools. How can it be that the history of the expansion of the empire of Islam is treated as a glorious history, while the history of suffering---the suffering of the dhimmi and the death of 270 million---is never reported? Until this changes, we're doomed to continual annihilation, both here in America and abroad.

Most of the above text is taken from Political Islam and from Pakistan.

Islam: Submission and Duality

Islam is based upon two principles - submission and duality. When you understand how these principles work, you'll understand the political doctrine of Islam.

Islam's first principle is submission---and that is part of the meaning of both the words Islam and Muslim. Islam means 'to submit' and Muslim means 'one who has submitted.'

Islam is a chain of submission. The ranking of authority is Allah, then Muhammad, the Muslim, the kafir, the dhimmi and the slave. In this country, we are beginning to see how submission works. We're not as far along as Europe, but Muslims have immigrated here and have started making their demands. The first thing they have demanded is this: everything in the textbooks of America must conform to their way of teaching about Islam. No kafir is allowed to write in the textbooks of America anything that is critical of Islam. It all has to be vetted by Islam. Our textbook system has already submitted.

But submission is not enough to explain the success of Islam. Its most powerful principle is duality. Duality is the second major principle of Islam. We see duality in how the Qur’an and Muhammad's life are divided. First comes Mecca: the preacher...the religion---'You have your religion, I have mine.' Then comes Medina. Medina is jihad. You must submit in this life, or Islam has the option of harming you. The two positions contradict each other, but both of them are equally true.

This duality explains Islam's overwhelming success. Islam has two faces that it presents to the world. The face of Mecca and the face of Medina. Medina is the violent phase---the political phase. Mecca is the nice phase. What we have is that the Qur’an of Mecca is used as a shield. It's the Teflon coating. It's the public face of Islam. Mecca is what Muslims always talk about when they talk about Islam to kafirs. This duality---this subtlety---is what makes Islam so powerful, because you can't just jump up and condemn Islam as being totally violent. Most Muslims are not violent at all, so therefore, this charge doesn't work.

Duality is when Muslims say that anything that is based upon the Qur’an of Medina is not the real Islam (i.e., Osama bin Laden, 9/11, al Quaeda)---"Oh, that's not the real Islam." The duality of Islam lies in the fact that two contradictory things are both true. The Muslim friend, the nice Muslim at work---they're only one-half of Islam. The real Islam actually includes both the Muslim friend and Osama bin Laden. The real Islam includes both the Qur’an of Mecca (religious) and the Qur’an of Medina (political)...hence, we have a duality.

In our courts of law, if you take an oath as a witness, you swear: "I will tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth." The 'nothing but the truth' prohibits lies. But 'the whole truth' prohibits something that's equally a lie---a half-truth. The whole truth of Islam includes the half-truth of Mecca and the other half-truth of Medina.

So, the religious Qur’an of Mecca is the Teflon coating. It's the Medina version that's always denied in public, but inside of Islam, it is known that Medina outranks Mecca. This outranking of Medina over Mecca is what explains another phenomena in Islam. When something dreadful happens, such as the 9/11 destruction of the twin towers of the World Trade Center; the London bombings; the Muhammad cartoon riots---when those happen, Muslims say, "Oh, that is not the real Islam." And yet, it is the real Islam. But notice something: they do not protest against those dreadful incidents; they merely deny that Islam is to blame for them. Why don't they protest against the Medinan Muslims, the Jihadists? Because they are outranked. The Medinan Qur’an that celebrates war and political power is higher and more powerful than the Meccan Qur’an. In The Wizard of Oz, when they see the little man behind the curtain, and a voice says, "Oh, no, no, do not look at the man behind the curtain," that is the way the duality of Mecca and Medina works. Mecca says, "Oh, no, do not look at the Medinan Qur’an behind the curtain!" So we don't---and we're fooled.

We need to see the entire truth of Islam. The whole truth, not the half-truth. That is the reason that understanding the principle of duality is an absolute necessity. If you do not understand the principle of duality, you will always be fooled by the Qur’an of Mecca.

Let's see how duality can work in real life. Let's say there is a retired military man who is a devout Christian. He has some Muslim friends. They point out to him the verses in the Qur’an of Mecca that sound very good to him and they tell him, "This is Islam." He says, "This is very good. This is like Christianity. I like this. And besides, the Muslims are such moral people: they don't drink; their women are very modest; they don't gamble. This must be the real truth of Islam." And off he goes into the marketplace of ideas, proclaiming that Christianity and Islam are perfectly compatible. Indeed, they're like brothers. Because of duality, he does not understand that there is another truth---the truth of Medina. But his logic is a Western logic, and so he thinks, "Jihad is contrary to the peace of Islam, so jihad must be false, or else it must only mean 'inner struggle,' like an inner spiritual struggle against self. That must be it, because I believe in the truth of the peace of Mecca." Dualism has fooled him.

But dualism is used in all the words of Islam. They use the same words we do, but they have entirely different meanings. Let's take, for example, the word "peace"---'salaam.' Now, that sounds very nice, but when you understand what Islam means by peace, it's not nice at all.

Peace in Islam comes only after you have submitted to Islam. The submission can be brought about by jihad. So, here again, the Qur’an of Mecca covers over the Qur’an of Medina. That is, our common understanding of the word 'peace' hides the fact that jihad can be used to achieve Islamic peace.

Here's another example of dualism---women's rights. Muslims are very quick to use the term 'women's rights' and claim that Islam grants women rights. And this is true, but the rights they have are: the right to be beaten; the right to inherit half as much; and the right to have their testimony only be worth half of that of a man in court. This dualism allows a Muslim to look straight at a problem and not see the other half. After 9/11, Muslims protested, "We are the religion of peace." They were able to maintain that since they're so used to having a dualistic view. They can accept 'the religion of peace' as being absolutely true, while at the same time, they know that jihad is one of the teachings of Islam. Dualism allows a Muslim to have a totally compartmentalized mind, in which the Qur’an of Medina never interferes with the Qur’an of Mecca. But, deep within the political doctrine of Islam, we have duality and the kafir.

Jihad demands complete submission from the kafir and forces the kafir into a completely separate social and political class. Islam allows its women to be beaten. Once again, we see submission and duality. Islam has a separate set of rules for women. Both categories---kafirs and women---must submit.

Submission and duality are also part of Islamic slavery. Islamic slavery and its fundamental principles have already been discussed in a previous article. Submission and duality are demonstrated within the entire process of slavery. Who submits more than a slave? Who, within society, is as separated as a slave? Slaves fall under a separate moral code. We see that submission and duality completely explain slavery.

There is also the idea of the dhimmi and dhimmitude---again, we have the duality of a social and political class. The dhimmi exists within an Islamic political system, in which he is subjugated and not given full legal rights.

The grand duality in all Islam is Mecca and Medina. Mecca must submit to Medina, and the duality here is that you have two separate Qurans that contradict each other; yet both of them are completely true. We see submission and duality in Islam's ethics, where we have one set of rules for the believer, and another set of rules for the kafir. Islamic politics are dualistic. Muhammad, of course, is the chief dualist. His entire life is divided into the preacher, which did not work so well, and the successful jihadist/politician. Now, Islam says it worships one---and only one---God, but that God---Allah---is the God of duality, and the God of submission whom everyone is to fear. The Qur’an says, over 300 times, that we are to fear Allah.

All of Islam can be explained by the principles of duality and submission. That's the beauty of knowing the two principles. Once you understand duality, and once you understand submission, you really no longer have any need of the doctrine, because everything that happens in Islam can be explained by those two principles.

Every political system has fundamental principles that underlie it. Our political system of democracy has the Golden Rule as a foundation. The Golden Rule underlies everything that we do in government. It is our moral and political guide. Treat others as you wish to be treated. Some may jump up and say, "We don't always follow that principle, do we?" No, but we use the Golden Rule to criticize our own behavior, and if we can clearly point out that something is unfair and abuses others, then the Golden Rule is the principle we use to fix that. It is our guiding principle, even if it is not something that we always fulfill.

Islam denies the truth of the Golden Rule, because the Golden Rule is the same for every person, and Islam has two sets of behavior - one for the kafir and another for the believer. Islam divides humanity into Muslims and kafirs.

This is very important: We need to understand that there cannot be a compromise between submission and duality, and the Golden Rule. We would like to think that everyone can coexist peacefully, but Islam does not work like that. Islam demands submission. There is simply no compromise between a system that wants to use the Golden Rule and be democratic, and another system that says that everyone has to submit. When they say ‘everyone’ has to submit, Islam means everyone. Let's take some political examples.

What we now call Afghanistan used to be a Buddhist nation. It was a nation of peace and wealth. Then Islam invaded. Today, in Afghanistan, there is not a single Buddhist to be found. Not one. The only place you can find any Buddhism in Afghanistan is if you dig into the dirt like an archaeologist; and then you might be able to find the remnants of Buddhism.

Islam keeps working until 100% of a civilization gives way to it. Today, Turkey is 99.7% Islamic. Islam is working very hard to make sure that the other .3% disappears. This would mean that, over a period of time, every single Christian in Turkey would be gone. They will have emigrated elsewhere, or have been killed in a street riot. Islam does not cease until submission is 100%. Yet---and this is important---the entire time that Islam is making the kafir submit, it keeps proclaiming the truth of Mecca---it keeps claiming to be peaceful.

The principles of submission and duality contradict and deny the Golden Rule. So, how can it be, if they contradict, that they can both coexist? We're going to have to study the laws of duality and submission. Once you understand duality, you will not merely understand half a truth, and then proclaim that that is the entire truth. You will understand that Islam is grinding away, very slowly, at our own democratic rights.

Islam has an overwhelming advantage over the kafir. Islam has a thousand-year plan. Duality and submission are part of a thousand-year plan. Islam's duality and submission are like gravity. It never sleeps. It's always there. Always pressuring, always pushing. Submission must occur with the kafir---if not now, then tomorrow. Islam is very patient. Muhammad said that, in war, patience is a virtue. Muslims study Muhammad. They know that submission may take time, but Islam is very patient.

In Turkey, it's taken them 400 years to get to the 99.7% mark. They're not in a hurry. They can keep fooling the Europeans and say, ‘we're very democratic,’ but there you have another use of a word by Islam that does not mean the same thing that we mean. ‘Democratic’ in Turkey includes the elimination of all of the kafirs. True democracy is not what Islam practices. True democracy would mean that the kafir has an equal say along with the believer. The Qur’an of Medina says that cannot happen. The kafir must submit to the Qur’an of Medina. So, ‘democracy’ in Turkey is a sham and a fraud. It is a tool used as a way of submission, but in the public face of the political councils of Europe, the Qur’an of Mecca stands up and says ‘we are a modern state’---but this is merely a veil or Teflon coating. Meanwhile, the sword of the Qur’an of Medina is working. More Christians emigrate from Turkey all the time, just like they do in Iraq. In Iraq, they form 3% of the population and 30% of the emigrants, because they're unable to deal with submission inside of Iraq.

But in our country---which is, so far, free of duality and submission---we keep believing the Qur’an of Mecca. We are historically ignorant of the principle of duality. We only see one end of the stick---we don't see the other. We don't look at the man behind the curtain. We're fascinated by the cape, while we ignore the sword. The sweet words of the Qur’an of Mecca pour out of our media, our universities and our politicians' mouths, and we think this is good. We don't have to worry, because a peaceful Islam is here---a reformed Islam is here. So we can relax---we can go back to sleep.

The above text is taken from the website Political Islam.

The Koran (Qur'an)

Our next lesson is on the Koran (Qur'an). The Koran must surely be the world's most famous book that has not been read. How many people do you know who can say "I have read the Koran and understood it"? It turns out that (in a sense) there are two Korans. Once you understand how they differ, you will understand Islamic duality and why Islam always has two stories about any subject.

The word 'Koran' (or "Qur'an") is an Arabic word that means 'recitation.' According to Islam, the Koran is perfect, complete, universal and final. According to the teachings of Islam, the Koran contains not even the slightest error, since it comes directly from Allah, the only God of the universe. It is in his exact words. The Koran was created before the universe was created, and it sits on an emerald table at the right hand of Allah.

The Koran we have today was created, or brought together, by the 3rd caliph, Uthman. It is said that Muslims were beginning to say that there were many versions of the Koran, and there would soon be error. So Uthman, as absolute ruler, called in all of the Korans and turned them over to a secretary. It was the secretary's job to compile the new Koran. After it was put together, Uthman did something that was very telling---he burned all the original source material.

Now, ask yourself a question. Why did he burn the original source material, if the reason that they had put together a new Koran was that there were variations?

As a result of the burning of all the source Korans, Muslims like to boast today that their Koran has no variations, that it was delivered in this exact form from Allah, and the lack of variations shows its perfection. And then they point to variations in Biblical texts as proof of corruption of the texts.

Since Islam means submission, this argument that the Koran is perfect and the New Testament and Old Testament are corrupt and contain variations, is another assertion that demands submission from the Christian and the Jew.

The Koran contains 114 Suras, or chapters. If you pick up a Koran and thumb through it, you will notice very quickly that the long chapters are in the beginning, and the short chapters are all at the end. That is the way that the Koran is arranged, and this leads to one of the major difficulties in understanding it. Imagine: if you took a mystery novel and cut off the spine, and then you rearranged the chapters---you put the longest chapter up front and the shortest chapter at the back; then you rebound this book and handed it to a friend and told him, "This is a great mystery novel! Read this!" Your friend would try to read it and say, "I can't understand this. When I turn the page, I seem to go back in time, or sometimes forward in time. I don't understand---there's no story to this; there's no plot." And that is the way the Koran is arranged. Now, if you take the Koran and put it in the right time order (i.e., chronologically), then it is a much more logical book.

Another thing about the Koran that's confusing is that the stories, in many cases, are not complete. Every story has a beginning, a middle and an end, but most of the stories in the Koran, many times, are as if you walked in halfway through the story. You don't know what the beginning is. This is odd, since the Koran has obviously derived many of its stories from the Hebrew Bible---the Old Testament---and they are wonderfully told in the Christian and Jewish Scriptures; but not so with the Koran. There is not one really complete story in all of the Koran. There's always something missing.

Another thing that's interesting about the Koran is how repetitious it is. This becomes very tiring when you're trying to read it. As an example, the story of Moses and the Pharaoh is repeated, in one fashion or another, 39 times. The repetition is so intense in the Koran that, if you remove all of the repetition, it is cut in half, and that does not leave a very big book, since the Koran is about the same size as the New Testament.

There's another thing that's a little odd about the stories. They fall into two classifications. There is some retelling of old Arabic stories, and then there is the retelling of the Jewish stories: Adam, Noah, Moses...all of these characters appear in the Koran; but, if you're familiar with the stories in the Jewish Bible---the Torah---they're not the same. They merely have the same characters. For instance, in the Koran, it is the purpose of Moses not to free the Jews as slaves, but instead to get the Pharaoh to admit that Moses is the prophet of Allah. The same is true with the story of Noah. The whole story of Noah centers around making the people of the earth admit that Noah is the prophet of Allah, and because they would not admit that Noah was the prophet of Allah and do everything that he said, Allah destroyed the earth. So the stories are similar to the stories in the Old Testament, but they've all been changed so that they proclaim one theme - those who do not recognize the prophets of Allah will be destroyed.

The other thing that becomes apparent when you read the Koran is how much of it is devoted to the kafir---the unbeliever. As a matter of fact, 61% of the Koran is devoted to the kafir. That only leaves 39% to be devoted to being a Muslim. And that 39% is filled with repetition, so it is actually less than 39%. So, the Koran is not a very big book at all, when you get down to what it teaches about being a Muslim. There is not enough information in it to practice the religion of Islam. For a work which claims to be complete, it is remarkably incomplete. Of the Five Pillars of Islam, the Koran does not give enough information on how to perform them. The perfect and complete Koran does not teach how to be a Muslim. That information comes from the Hadith---the Traditions of Mohammed (Muhammad). Mohammed is the one who tells a Muslim how to worship, not Allah.

The other thing that strikes people who press on through and read the Koran, is that it is very contradictory. It says things that are completely opposite. So much so that, in the days of Mohammed, some of the kafirs pointed this out to Mohammed: "You said this earlier; now you're saying that; they're opposite---which is it?"

The Koran says Allah can replace a verse with one which is better. Let's dwell on this a moment. Replacing it with a verse which is better means that the better one comes later. To deal with contradiction, you need to know which verse was written earlier or later. This time order is known to scholars. Although the Koran you buy in the bookstore has it arranged from longest chapter to shortest chapter, since the beginning, Muslims have known what the right order is, in terms of time. This cancellation of one verse by another is called abrogation. But abrogation does not cancel or negate the verse, because if the earlier verse was by Allah, then that verse is true, because Allah, by definition, cannot tell a lie. So this leaves the Koran as a very peculiar book. It is contradictory, but both sides of the contradiction are true.

This turns out to be an insight into the understanding of Islam, because it means that Muslims can hold in their mind two contradictory ideas, and accept both of them as true at the same time. This explains how Muslims, after September 11th, were able to say that Islam is a peaceful religion. A peaceful religion doesn't send out jihadists to kill 3,000 people. That is a contradiction. But if you are a Muslim, you have been trained to accept contradictory facts, and so, as a result, these contradictions do not bother you at all---they don't cause you any mental problem. The Koran is a dualistic document. This dualism runs very deep in the Koran. If you arrange it in the right time order, the Koran written in Mecca is a radically different Koran than the one written in Medina. They are so different that you could take a class of college students, and in one hour's time, teach them how to pick out a verse taken at random, and tell you whether it was written in Mecca or Medina---the two Korans are that different.

The earlier Koran is more religious. There are 147 different references to Hell. Now, there are more than 147 verses about Hell, but taking it topic-by-topic, there are 147 of them. 94% of these say that the reason that the kafir is burning in hell is because he did not believe that Mohammed was the prophet of Allah. The remainder are people in hell for moral charges - that is, theft, greed, hate, etc. What does that tell us about Islamic Hell? It's a political prison for the intellectual dissenters who do not believe that Mohammed is the prophet of Allah, and indeed, the great majority of the Meccan Koran is devoted to that theme. Indeed, the entire Meccan Koran can be summarized in one sentence: 'Mohammed is the prophet of Allah, and if you don't believe it, you're going to suffer.'

Now, the Koran written in Medina continues with the same hatred of the kafir, but it manifests itself in a totally different way. There's not much mention of Hell in Medina, because a new form of suffering for the kafir is introduced. In Mecca, the kafir suffers after he dies. In Medina, he suffers in this lifetime. He can be tortured, beheaded, robbed, and worse. The Medinan Koran has the same kafir hatred, but this time there is jihad, where the kafir suffers and dies in this life. So the Medinan Koran is very political.

The Medinan Koran introduces Mohammed's greatest innovation, and that is jihad. It also introduces dhimmitude, the political subservience of the Christian and the Jew. Now, as soon as someone brings up the violence in the Koran, someone is going to say "Oh, well, the Koran is no different than the Old Testament; the Old Testament has a lot of violence in it, as well." Yes, there is violence in the Old Testament, but it's enormously different from the violence in the Koran. The violence in the Old Testament is local and temporary; it is against a neighboring tribe, and for a certain period of time. This is not true of the violence in the Koran. The violence in the Koran is universal and eternal. The jihad is to go on until the last kafir leaves the face of the earth. There's a great deal of difference between temporary and local violence, and a universal, eternal violence.

Although jihad is called 'Holy War,' it is really better simply described as political war. Why? Because the only reason in the Koran that people are attacked and killed is, they do not agree that Mohammed is the prophet of Allah. That's an intellectual idea, and so jihad is political war against the kafir.

The Koran is an Arabic document. More than once, it refers to its Arabic nature. That's very clear. Since the Koran was written before the creation and in the Arabic language, that implies that Allah is an Arab. This is a very important part of the Arabic hegemony [the political, economic, ideological or cultural power exerted by a dominant group over other groups]---that is, the Arab culture must dominate all other world cultures.

When you bring up something negative about the Koran, a Muslim quickly responds with, "Oh, but did you read it in the Arabic?" And then he will say, "Well, you can't really understand the Koran unless you read it in Arabic." Now let's stop and think about this statement for a moment. The Koran claims to be universal. That is, it applies to all people. But since only a small portion of the world reads Arabic, that means these ideas must be understandable in the languages other than Arabic, or they would not be universal. So which is it? Can the ideas be understood in any other language or not? Because, if the ideas in the Koran cannot be understood in other languages, then the Koran is not universal.

The other weakness to the argument, "Oh but you don't understand Arabic," is this: the great majority of Muslims today don't speak Arabic, so the Koran has been translated into their language, and they're fully practicing Muslims. In fact, fewer than 20% of Muslims in the world speak Arabic.

Now, many Muslims recite the Koran in classical Arabic, but the classical Arabic is not the Arabic language of today. Languages change over time, and a modern Arab cannot pick up a random Koran verse and read it and understand it. It's as if you were to study Chaucer. Chaucer wrote in the English of his day, but that English is very difficult for us to understand. It is the same with a native Arab speaker picking up the Koran and reading it. He, too, is not fully aware of what it means. He, too, has to have the classical Arabic translated into modern Arabic. The fact is that Arabic is really not a barrier to understanding the Koran. It's been translated into many languages.

In the end, the Koran is a document about the kafir. 61% of it is about hating the kafir and how the kafir must be subdued; therefore, the Koran is primarily a political document---not a religious document.

Now, what does the Koran bring to the table that is new? It brings two new ideas: that Mohammed is the prophet of Allah, and that jihad can be practiced against those who do not believe that is true. Everything else in the Koran is derivative. There are old Arabic stories, stories from the Old Testament that have been reworked, ideas from the Zoroastrian religion, and ideas from the local Arabic religion at the time of Mohammed. It is interesting that the Koran claims to be the work of a universal God, but the horizon of the Koran goes no further than Mohammed's eyes.

Until recently, the Koran has been a document that was difficult to read. That is no longer true. The work of scholars has now produced a book called "A Simple Koran," which has all the verses in the right order; and they've all been grouped, so you eliminate most of the repetition; Mohammed's life has been woven through "A Simple Koran," so the reader can see that, although the Koran claims to be a complete document, there are many, many things in the Koran that cannot be understood unless one knows the life of Mohammed. For instance: Which verse comes earlier? Which verse comes later? If you know Mohammed's life, it is easy to tell which one is earlier and which one is later. It is Mohammed's life that gives meaning to the Koran. The Koran does not make any sense without Mohammed's life. The Koran cannot be understood on its own. And yet, it claims to be complete.

Here's a small example: In the Koran, there is a remark about the destruction of the palm trees. The verse just comes out of nowhere. If you weave Mohammed's life into the Koran, then you know what it means. Mohammed was given authority to burn the palm trees, because it was only a few days earlier that he had attacked the Jews. They had a date palm plantation which he burned, contrary to the rules of war. The Arabs condemned him for violating the rules of war. Hence, the Koran declares that it was good to burn the palm trees.

This is an example of how Mohammed's life gives meaning to the Koran, and indeed, when Mohammed's life is woven into the Koran, the Koran becomes an epic story. It depicts Mohammed's rise to power from being an orphan and a businessman, to the supreme ruler of all of Arabia, with a goal of becoming the supreme ruler of all of the world. So the Koran is a great epic story. You should read it and understand it.

The Koran has been made to seem complicated. It is actually a simple text that contains only two new ideas: Mohammed is the final prophet, and jihad may be used to harm kafirs. The main idea in the Koran is the division of humanity into 'believer' and 'kafir,' and the triumph of Islam over all kafirs.

The above text is taken from the website Political Islam.

Islam and Ethics

If you only learn one thing regarding Islam, learn about Islamic ethics. Islamic ethics do not share anything with our ethics. Islamic ethics are profoundly and foundationally dualistic. They have one set of rules for themselves, and another set of rules for everyone else, the kafirs. The treatment of kafirs varies from their being treated well to being beheaded. Both treatments reflect pure Islam. In Islam, kafirs can also be deceived, robbed, murdered and raped. There is even a word for sacred deceit---taquiyya.

On an ethical basis, there is no such thing as Islamic pacifism. Islam is a civilization of war and violence. The Sira and Koran show that Islam was a failure until it adopted violence. It then became overwhelmingly powerful. The Hadith (Traditions of Mohammed) is filled with details of the ethics of Islam.

Ethics is the great divide between Islam and all other cultures, but before we look at Islamic ethics, let's look at ours. Our ethics are based upon the Golden Rule---treat others as you would be treated. Who are the 'others?' The 'others' are ALL others. There's no elimination of someone because of race, sex, ethnicity, or religion. In our politics, everyone is to be treated fairly and equally before the law, and the Golden Rule leads to the concepts of what we call fair and what we call equal. Some may jump up and say, "But we don't do that all the time, do we?" No, it is true that we do not do that all the time, because every person is pulled between two contradictory ideas. One is to treat others as they should be treated. The other idea is purely selfish and to only look to ourselves. When we dwell on our own personal needs too much and start hurting or harming others, we can be corrected and brought back by saying, 'That is not fair,' and such 'fairness' is based upon the Golden Rule.

So the Golden Rule lies behind our legal and ethical system.

Islam does not follow the Golden Rule. Indeed Islam explicitly denies the Golden Rule. The Koran never addresses humanity as a whole. Instead, humanity is always divided into the kafir (the unbeliever) and the believer (the Muslim). The Koran is very clear that the kafir is to be treated differently from the believer, and this treatment can be very violent. So this division into kafir and believer eliminates the possibility of having a Golden Rule.

Islam, therefore, is dualistic. It has one set of rules for itself, and another set of rules for the kafir. There is no 'one humanity.'

The other difference between Islamic ethics and ours is that, fundamentally, there is no concept of right and wrong in Islam. All ethics in Islam are based upon what Mohammed did and did not do; therefore, the concepts inside of Islamic ethics are not 'right' and 'wrong,' but what is permitted and what is forbidden. Mohammed is viewed as the perfect ethical pattern. Every Muslim is to follow him and do what he did and say what he said. The ethics of Islam are determined by what Mohammed did and said---his Sunna. The rest of the ethics are found in the Koran.

Let's examine Islamic ethics regarding deceit, by reading some ideas that have been given to us by Muslims. Let's look at a quote from Ali Al Timimi, an internationally-known Muslim scholar and imam who had government clearance, who even worked with a former White House Chief of Staff and was invited to speak to the military about Islam.

Publicly, the imam denounced Islamic violence and said: "My position against terrorism and Muslim-inspired violence against innocent people is well known by Muslims." But privately, another picture emerged. Five days after the attacks on September 11th, he called them legitimate, and rallied young Muslim men in his mosque to carry out more Holy war and violent Jihad.

Another Islamic leader in this country, Abdurahman Alamoudi, who developed the Pentagon's Muslim chaplain corps, and acted as a good will ambassador for our State Department, also, denounced terror. "We are against all forms of terrorism," he claimed. "Our religion is against terrorism." Privately, he raised major funds for Al-Qaeda, and was caught on tape grumbling that Osama bin Laden had not killed enough kafirs in the U.S. Embassy bombings.

In our culture, we would call these men liars. But this does not apply inside of Islamic ethics, because what these men were practicing was deceit. They were talking to kafirs when they said those things. Let's examine what Mohammed said about deceiving the kafir.

In Medina, there was a Jew named al-Ashraf. Al-Ashraf wrote a poem in which he condemned Mohammed, and Mohammed, at the mosque, asked, "Who will rid me of Ashraf, the enemy of Allah and his prophet?" One of the Muslims said he would, but a few days later, Mohammed noticed that the task of killing al-Ashraf had not been done, so he went to the man and asked, "What are you doing?" The man said, "Mohammed, in order to kill Ashraf, I will have to tell a lie". Then Mohammed said, "Say whatever you need to say."

The Muslim took a couple of his friends and went to al-Ashraf and told him they were getting sick and tired of Mohammed, but before they could leave, they needed to have a little money, and were wondering if al-Ashraf could help. They wanted to borrow some money. Al-Ashraf said he would need some collateral to loan them money. And so, they suggested that perhaps they could bring him their weapons - their swords and knives - and leave them in pawn. He agreed.

So, the next night, the three Muslims showed up, their weapons in hand. But al-Ashraf was not concerned: they had come to pawn the weapons. They chatted with him in a friendly way and said, "It is night---a pleasant night; let us go for a walk and discuss things". So they did. But, in the middle of the walk, after they had recited some poetry, one of them grabbed him by the hair of the head, said to the other, "Kill him", and they knifed him in the stomach and killed al-Ashraf.

When they came back to Mohammed, Mohammed was delighted at the death of the enemy of Allah and the prophet. He had given them permission to lie, because they were dealing with a kafir, and the lie advanced Islam. Here we have dualism. A Muslim is told not to lie to another Muslim, but with a kafir, there is an option. The Muslim can tell the kafir the truth, or he can tell him a lie, if it will advance Islam. And this was repeated many times in Mohammed's life. So much so that, at one point he said, 'Jihad is deceit.'

Now let's go back to the idea that Islam does not use terror. And let's take a look at another story. This one happened in Russia, in Beslan, where there was a school, and the school had roughly a thousand people in it, including the children and the personnel. Some Muslim Jihadists attacked the school and took it over, and held everyone in it. The Jihadists took all of the children and put them in the gymnasium. They were kept there for days without food or water. Finally, the Russian special forces decided that they needed to go in. There was chaos, and as the children jumped out the windows and ran for safety, the Jihadists shot them in the back.

The attack continued. Once it became clear that they were going to lose the building, the Jihadists fell back from their original plan. They had brought explosives, so they placed them in such a way that, when they detonated them, the roof fell in on the children. This was the way that most of the children were killed. This was a terrible attack, but what happened after the attack is what we want to point out.

Muslim scholars and Muslim imams all said the same thing: "That was not Islam. In Islam, we are forbidden to kill women and children." And that is true; there are Hadiths which state that women and children are not to be killed. However, there are other Hadiths in which they were getting ready to attack a tribe, and the simple reason they were attacking is that the people were kafirs---who had done nothing wrong. They decided to attack at night, and they asked Mohammed, 'What if they made a mistake in the dark and wound up killing women and children?'---and Mohammed said, "They are from them." ("them" = unbelievers)

Well, now we have a contradiction. We have Mohammed saying, 'Do not kill women and children,' and we have Mohammed saying, 'Kill them, they are from them.' This is dualism. We have contradictory facts, but both of them are true. The Jihadists can choose whichever they want. And what did the Jihadists in Beslan do? They chose to kill the children. Why? "They are from them." That is, they are kafirs.

In Mohammed's time, in which he developed the ethics of Jihad, he always had the kafirs confused. The Arabs, just like everyone else, had rules for warfare. Since Mohammed was an Arab, they kept expecting him to follow the rules, but Mohammed did not follow the rules. He made them up as he went.

As far as terror not being Islamic, Mohammed said, in one of the most famous Hadiths, "I have been given five things that have never been given to anyone before me." One of these things he was given was that Allah allowed him to spread Islam by awe and terror.

Jihad is terror. So when Muslim scholars say terror is not the way of Islam, they are practicing deceit. Indeed, the practice of deceit even has a special name in Arabic, which we mentioned earlier---taquiyya. It means 'sacred deception.' To even have the concept of 'sacred deceit' is an amazing ethical thought.

Here's another example of deceit in Jihad. In modern times, we have grown used to the fact that a Muslim Jihadist can strap on dynamite and walk into a room filled with people---kafirs---and kill himself and everyone else. Muslim clerics say that is not Islam, because suicide is forbidden in Islam. And this is true. Suicide is forbidden in Islam. But there is a very famous Hadith in which Mohammed said that killing yourself while trying to kill kafirs sends you straight to Heaven; therefore, the ethical expectation of the person who kills himself in the face of killing others, is that he will go straight to Heaven. He is a martyr.

In the very term 'martyr' in Islam, we see the difference between the West and Islam, because the word 'martyr' in Islam means someone who dies while killing kafirs; whereas, in our language, a martyr is one who is killed because of what he believes.

Here's another example of the ethical divide. Currently, in America, there is debate over whether waterboarding is torture. Indeed, the idea of what constitutes torture has been talked about in the media. There is, however, no debate inside the Islamic world about torturing kafirs, and the reason is, Mohammed tortured kafirs. There's a famous story about when he attacked a tribe of Jews. After the Jews had surrendered, they took the leader of the Jews and staked him out on the ground at Mohammed's orders. The reason they did this was that they knew that the Jews had a buried treasure. Mohammed had a small fire built on the old man's chest, but the old man refused to speak. He would not give up the secret of the treasure, so, finally, Mohammed said, 'Cut him loose,' and he took him over to a Jihadist who had lost a brother in the attack on the Jews, and he gave the brother the pleasure of killing the leader of the Jews. So, as a consequence, inside of Islam, there are no questions about whether torture can be used against kafirs. It is Sunna. It is the way of Mohammed to torture the kafir.

Islamic ethics are clearly laid out in the Hadith. Here are some statements about Islamic ethics found in various traditions: 'A Muslim is to never cheat another Muslim in business.' 'A Muslim does not lie to another Muslim.' 'A Muslim does not kill another Muslim.' 'A Muslim does not bother another Muslim's wife.' These statements are very dualistic, because this behavior is only reserved for other Muslims. A Muslim is a brother to other Muslims. Anyone who knows Muslims says, "Wait a minute; I know a lot of Muslims, and they don't lie to me, and they don't cheat me in business. They don't come to work with dynamite and kill themselves and other people." This is duality. The kafir has two ways of being treated. He can be treated as a human being. The Golden Rule can even be applied to him if it will advance Islam, but the truth does not need to be told; the truth can be shaded. The most common form of this deceit is for Muslims to only discuss the Koran of Mecca. Only talking about the Koran of Mecca is telling a half-truth, not telling the whole truth.

In our courts, we swear to tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. 'Nothing but the truth' prohibits direct lies. But it's equally important to tell the whole truth, because telling half a truth is just another form of a lie. So, when a Muslim discusses with a kafir the Koran of Mecca---the 'good' Koran---this is a form of deceit. All Muslims obey an ethical code which is quite different from our ethical code.

Islamic ethics support how Muslims treat women. For instance, women can be beaten. Women are set apart in their own separate code. There is an ethical system for slavery. Mohammed was the perfect slave master. His Sunna laid out all the ways that slaves are to be treated. There is also an ethical system for the treatment of the dhimmi, that strange political creature who is not quite a slave, but certainly not a citizen.

So, Islamic ethics lie behind everything that a Muslim does---but it does bring up political questions: If a Muslim does not have to tell the kafir the truth, why would we use Muslim translators for Arabic documents inside of the FBI and the CIA? Muslim translators take an oath, but Islam has a very unique interpretation of oaths: that is, an oath can always be changed by a Muslim for something better, and there is a Hadith which explicitly states this. But the Hadith does not really say what is better. That is the choice of the Muslim. So if we have a Muslim policeman or a military man who takes an oath to serve and protect, he can change it anytime he wishes. And for that matter, this same changing of oaths is applied to treaties---political treaties. If the Muslim nation signs a treaty with a kafir, it can be abrogated at any time, as long as Islam comes out on top.

To deal with Islam, it is critical that we understand its ethics. We assume that they're the same as ours, but this assumption is based upon ignorance, because Islamic ethics are very different from ours. Ours are based on the unitary law of treating all people the same (which originally comes from the Bible). Islamic ethics are based upon the idea of kafirs and believers, and having a separate set of ethics for each one. One cannot understand Islam without understanding its ethical duality.

The above text is taken from the website Political Islam.

Islam and Slavery

You do not know the history of slavery if you do not know about Islam and slavery. Slavery is a very important part and a highly developed doctrine in Islam. It has a 1400-year-old history, which is still alive today in Africa. Mohammed was a slaver who dealt in every aspect of slavery.

It is impossible to study the history of Mohammed and the beginnings of Islam and not become involved in the role of slavery. The ‘politically correct’ version of slavery is that it only happened when white men showed up in wooden ships off the coast of Africa, went into the bush, captured slaves and brought them back to sell in America. That is the generally accepted history of slavery in America.

That does contain an element of truth, but it's not even remotely the story of world slavery, or even how slave trading worked in the Americas.

To study slavery from the standpoint of the world, you must study Islam, because Islam has enslaved all others - the African, the European, the Asian – Islam has enslaved everybody.

Francis Bok, a Christian, appeared at a university to give a talk. It was interesting, because he was an actual freed African slave. He and his sister had gone to the market to sell beans and, while they were in the market place, Muslim jihadis showed up. They captured his sister and him, along with others, and set out on a forced march. Every night the members of the troop raped his sister. When they finally got to the jihadis' camp, they were put on the block and sold as slaves. Once Francis was sold, he was taken to his new master's home. He was placed in the center of the family, and every member of the family took a small stick and began to beat him with it. Then they informed him that he no longer had any name. From this day forward there was no more Francis Bok. There was only abd - A-B-D - black slave.

Now this is interesting. ‘Abd’ is an Arabic word, but it's only one of about forty different words that Islam has for a slave. That's very interesting because, in the English language, we simply have one word - slave. Now ask yourself a question: Why would the Arabic language have so many words for ‘slave?’ Abd means ‘black slave’ and an ‘African.’ Think about that for a moment. ‘Abd’ means both ‘black slave’ and ‘African.’ There is an entire history in those two meanings.

There's a word for a white slave, as well—‘mamluk.’ There's also a word for a Hindu slave. Perhaps you're beginning to gain some idea that over a long period of time, Arabs have had a lot to do with the slave trade, because you don't change a language overnight. It takes a long time to accumulate 40 words for a slave.

Francis Bok was given a room with the animals in the barn. They gave him some straw to lie on. This is interesting, because when the subject of slavery is brought up, Muslims will admit that it happened in the past, but that it's long-since passed; and besides, they will say that they treated their slaves really well. Perhaps that message was not given to Francis Bok's masters, because he slept in the barn with animals. He tried to escape but was captured and beaten.

By the way, as soon as he escaped, the Arabic language had a new word for him. The Arabic language has a word for an escaped male slave, and it has a word for an escaped female slave. It even has a word for an escaped child slave. The Arabic language has honed its details of slavery to a fine point.

Francis kept working and plotting, and growing a little older and a little stronger. Finally, he found an opportune time and escaped, setting out on his own forced march. This time, however, it was not a forced march to slavery, but a forced march to freedom. He got to Egypt, and managed to get to America, where he works with an organization called Iabolish.com, which was the group that sponsored him to attend a university.

Francis was asked from the audience, "Who captured you?" His reply was, "Muslims.” Later, someone said, "Muslims can react very violently. Indeed, they can kill you if they don't like what you say about them. Are you afraid for your own life, in saying that ‘Muslims captured and enslaved me?’" His remark was memorable. He said, "I am now a free man. Now I can die, because I will die as a free man." Think about that. ‘I will die as a free man.’ You can learn more about Francis Bok by searching the Web under his name.

Now, let's stop and take a closer look at the white man's involvement with slavery. Did he show up on the coast of Africa in a wooden ship to get slaves? Yes, he did. But he didn't go into the bush to get them. He went to the slave market, where he bought them at a wholesale price, in wholesale lots. Bills of sale, money and invoices were exchanged. He left with his boatload of slaves that he got from the Muslim slave trader. The Muslims had been trading slaves and capturing slaves in Africa for 1400 years, and the white man merely represented a new market. That's all. Muslims had been enslaving before the white man, and when white people put together the code that eliminated slavery and the slave trade, Muslims just kept on with their old business. The laws of the kafir do not inhibit them.

We know that Mohammed had black slaves. It says so in the Hadith. It says so in the Sira. So, slavery is nothing new to Islam, because slavery is the ideal in Islam. The ideal Muslim is the slave of Allah, and indeed, Mohammed called himself the slave of Allah, because inside of Islam, there is no freedom. Everything has been prescribed. Everything you need to do has been recorded---laid out---and your job as a Muslim is to be a slave to Allah and follow all the rules, which includes the Sunna of Mohammed. A slave is the ideal Muslim. This is reflected in one of the Muslim names, Abdullah. ‘Abdullah’ is a combination of two words: Abd - slave; and Allah - slave of Allah.

Islam has enslaved many peoples, including Europeans. It's estimated that a total of 25 million Africans have been sold as slaves, and we know that about a million Europeans have been sold into slavery. Indeed, the one word that we have for slave comes from the Slavic people---the Slavs. The Muslims took many slaves out of Eastern Europe, and the primary ethnic group they preyed upon was the Slavs. So we adopted the term "slave" from the poor Slavs.

There are different uses for different races of people as slaves. The blacks were usually put into rough, hard work, and frequently died at it. It was a death sentence to be a black slave in the Saharan salt mines.

Whites were usually put to work in what we would call white-collar jobs. They could even become leaders in the army. The highest-priced slave in the Meccan slave market for 1400 years never changed. It was always a white woman who brought the highest price. Writings from medieval Islamic documents show that they were very free and open in discussing which race you used for which job. For instance, the white woman was preferred as a slave of pleasure, but if you could not afford her, since she was the most expensive, then an Ethiopian woman---or as they called them then, Abyssinian woman---was the second-best choice.

It is very unfortunate, but Mohammed put this sale of white women in place. You see, Mohammed had all manner of slaves, and his favorite sexual partner was a white woman. Her name was Miriam. She was a Coptic Christian. Since Mohammed's Sunnah determines what everything shall be, this means that the preference of all Muslims who wish a slave of pleasure should be the same that Mohammed had---a white slave. So, the Sunnah of Mohammed was very bad for white women.

There is an interesting special kind of slave that was used in Islam---that of the Eunuch. Generally, these were black slaves, and the castration process removed everything about the sex. Eunuchs are even referred to in the Koran, because they can see the woman of the house unveiled. The Koran is very clear about slavery. It's quite desirable, and it has only one limitation---you cannot enslave Muslims. Only kafirs (infidels) can be enslaved, and poor Francis Bok, being a Christian, was a kafir.

Now, Francis ran away to get his freedom, but he might have escaped being a slave if he had chosen to become a slave of Allah, a Muslim. The rules of slavery inside of Islam---and there are many rules---is that it is good to free slaves, because that brings a great merit with Allah---but you don't free a kafir slave. So perhaps Francis could have converted to Islam and been freed through that path. But Francis Bok wanted to be a Christian. He did not want to be a Muslim, so he had to take the only path open to him, which was flight.

The full history of slavery is not taught in any university in the United States. Nor is it easy to find books written that include the fact of Islam's role in world slavery. The only acceptable history of slavery is the 200-year white man theory---and, BTW, while we're talking about the white man and slavery, I’d like to point out that it was the white man who actually did the most to stop the international slave trade. The British Navy was commanded to intercept all slave ships. This did not stop the Islamic enslavement of Africans, however.

Out of the 25 million slaves that were taken out of Africa, 11 million were sold in the Americas. The other 14 million were sold in West and North Africa, where Islam is, and in the rest of Asia.

There was a terrible side effect of slavery. For every slave captured, the slavers had to kill others. For instance, Francis Bok's parents were killed. The slavers showed up with armed troops, and killed all those who tried to defend their tribe. When the slavers finally killed all the defenders, they could then take the best of the survivors as slaves. The old, the sick and the very young were left behind, because they couldn't take the forced march that comes right after capture. The estimate of the collateral damage there was, from taking each slave, varies. Some of those who visited Africa during the peak slave-trading days said that as many as ten had to die to produce one slave in the wholesale market. Others said no, only five. So, using the lower figure, we can see that out of the 25 million enslaved, there were over 100 million Africans---as many as 120 million Africans---who have died over the 1400 year period, including today. These figures are never talked about.

Now then, let's talk about Mohammed's role in slavery. He had slaves in his family. His first wife, Khadijah, owned slaves. Indeed, one of Mohammed's first converts was a black slave, and Mohammed himself owned black slaves. Mohammed was deep into slavery. As a matter of fact, slavery was one of the chief ways he financed jihad. He would have kafir men killed so their women and children could be made slaves. He sent his own jihadists out on slave missions. He gave away slaves as gifts. He owned all kinds of slaves, including males, females and black slaves. He passed around slaves, for the purpose of sexual pleasure, to his chief lieutenants. He stood by and prayed while others beat slaves. He shared the pleasure of forced sex with female slaves after conquest. He captured slaves and wholesaled them, to raise money for jihad. One of his favorite sexual partners was a slave who bore him a son. He got slaves as gifts from other rulers. A slave made the very pulpit he preached from. Some of his cooks were slaves. A slave treated him medically. He had a slave tailor. He declared that any slave who ran away from his master would not have his prayers answered. Now, that didn't work out for Francis Bok, because he did escape from slavery. His prayers were answered, because his prayer was to be free.

It is interesting to note how slavery falls under Islam's two fundamental principles-- submission and duality. Slavery includes submission, for who is more submissive than a slave? Slavery also includes duality, because the Islamic doctrine creates a separate legal classification---an ethical classification---for the slave.

It's no wonder that for all these years, Islam has been involved in slavery, because Allah likes a slave, and Allah wants Muslims to enslave others---because after you keep them as a slave long enough, they will convert to Islam; and if they don't, then, their children will. The Koran and Islam see slavery as a great good.

Now you might say to yourself, "If it's in the Koran, why don't they still do it?" In fact, Muslims are indeed still involved in slavery. Women who are brought in from the Philippines to work in Saudi Arabia are treated as slaves---their passports are taken away; and they may never get back home. So, Islam has always been involved in the slave-trading business. It's there, it's in the Koran---it's in the Sunnah---and the only reason they don't do it openly anymore is because they're simply not militarily strong enough. But slavery cannot be removed from the Islamic doctrine because, unlike our Constitution, for instance, Islamic doctrine is eternal; it's permanent; it's forever.

When David Livingston was in Africa, he saw the slave trade up close. He said that the paddle wheels on the boat he was on frequently hit slaves who had drowned in the river, or the bodies of those who were killed in the process of trying to get slaves. He described a peculiar disease among slaves, which the slave owners told him about. "The strangest disease I have seen in this country really seems to be broken-heartedness, and it attacks kafirs who have been captured and made slaves. Speaking with many who later died from it, they ascribe that their only pain was to the heart, and place the hand correctly on that spot. Some slavers expressed surprise to me that these men would die, seeing that they had plenty to eat and no work. It really seems that they died of a broken heart."

He talked with slave traders for a long time about what they did, and the Muslims told him that their object in capturing slaves is to get them into their possession and make them of their religion.

Now this history is quite sad, but the saddest thing about this whole history of Islam---and slavery---is that it's not taught. Our universities don't teach it. In fact, the universities don't even teach how white people were enslaved, or how many Hindus were sold into slavery. It is not enough that slavery has been in our past. We must teach the complete history of slavery in our schools and universities. Only then can we fully understand this dreadful history.

Every Muslim is a slave of Allah. Slavery is Islam's dark secret. Islam has enslaved Europeans, Africans and Asians. Unfortunately, the Western intellectuals, including blacks, are determined to cover up Islam's crimes against humanity.

The text above is taken from the website Political Islam.

Islam: the Dhimmi

A dhimmi lives in fear of Islam, but agrees that they will not resist political Islam, and they will even support it. In return, dhimmis can live safely. Dhimmitude is the mind of the dhimmi. Today we see our politicians, journalists and intellectuals play the role of dhimmis.

The dhimmi was a unique invention by Mohammed. He created a new type of creature, and that creature is a semi-slave. Dhimmis started with what Mohammed did to the Jews. He took their land and then let them work the land and the dhimmis paid a tax, the jhizya (also spelled “jizya”), which was half of their income. A dhimmi was a kafir that lived in an Islamic country. The first dhimmis were the Jews, but Christians and others were added later.

Jews and Christians could still practice their religion, but that must be done in a private way. The laws were Islamic; the dress was dictated by Islamic law. A dhimmi was not really free. For instance, a church couldn't ring its bells, because bells are a sign of Satan, according to Mohammed. A dhimmi couldn't hold any job that made him a supervisor over Muslims. This limited rank in the military for a dhimmi. If Christians wanted to repair the church, or Jews the synagogue, they had to get permission from the government. All of these laws are dreadful, because they established a second-class citizenship; the dhimmi did not have civil rights. A dhimmi couldn't sue a Muslim or prosecute a crime against a Muslim. This type of citizen had no power, and had to pay a special tax--the jhizya. The Koran says that the dhimmi had to pay the jhizya. Classically, when the Christian or the Jewish dhimmi came to pay their yearly jhizya tax, they were humiliated-- grabbed by the beard, slapped in the face, or made to kneel and give the money. They were humiliated because the Koran said to humiliate the dhimmi.

In some Islamic countries, particularly when the country felt powerful, it was more tolerant towards the dhimmis. A dhimmi could even rise to a decent level of power within government, but that could all vanish overnight. The treatment of the dhimmi was shown in Coptic Egypt. (The Copts were the original Egyptians.) A dhimmi could have his tongue removed if he spoke Coptic in front of an Islamic government official. The dhimmi was always persecuted and was never really an equal.

When the Egyptian military tried to conquer the Byzantine Christians, but lost a battle, back in Egypt, the Muslims rioted against the Christians. Christians would be killed because riots were one of the favorite ways to punish the dhimmi. When Smyrna--the last of the seven churches of Asia-- was destroyed in 1922, it was not done with the military and bulldozers. No, rioting Muslims did it. Riots are a form of jihad. The dhimmi could always be persecuted, not only in the courts of law, but a riot could destroy an entire section of a city. Dhimmis were killed if they criticized Mohammed, and actually, dhimmis were not even supposed to study Mohammed at all.

There was a formal treaty called the Treaty of Omar, which laid out everything that was to be done to the dhimmi. A dhimmi could not ride a horse, but he could ride an ass or a donkey. If they were caught on a horse, they could be pulled off and beaten. When a dhimmi met a Muslim on the sidewalk, he had to step out into the street and let the Muslim pass. The dhimmi also had to wear special clothing or, if not special clothing, a belt or a patch on the clothing to immediately identify a person as a dhimmi. The only protection that a Christian or a Jew had would be to make Muslim friends, because many times the Muslim friend could keep the weight of dhimmi laws off of his Christian or Jewish friend.

The persecution of the dhimmis was unrelenting. It went on for generation after generation. Finally, the dhimmi would give up and become a Muslim. All of a sudden, he had more money, because he didn't have to pay the jhizya tax. Converted dhimmis could be promoted in their jobs. They would not be spit at or have stones thrown at them on the street. They could go to court and be treated as full, equal citizens.

As the centuries passed, more and more dhimmis converted to Islam. Dhimmitude, which is the mindset of the dhimmi, destroys the civilization into which Islam moves, because the only way out is to become more Islamic, by giving up all of your old culture. When Islam moved into Coptic Egypt, the culture was a blend of the old pharonic culture mixed with the culture of the Greeks. In the end, all of the Coptic culture disappeared, just as the pyramids were stripped of their beautiful marble veneer. Why? This occurs basically because Islam attempts to destroy all kafir civilization.

Islam seeks to annihilate all other cultures by dhimmitude. The lack of civil rights, the abuse, humiliation and tax burden wears away the spirit to resist becoming Islamic. They get new names, and even the names of the cities change, until the cultural history vanishes. Once a nation has been fully Islamisized, all of its history disappears. When Napoleon invaded Egypt, none of the Muslims there could explain anything about the old temples, the statues, or the pyramids. The people were ignorant of their history. They didn't remember anything, because the culture of the pharaohs had been annihilated. The culture of the Greeks in Anatolia was destroyed. In Pakistan, a Muslim country, the native culture was Hindu. Afghanistan was a Buddhist culture that has been completely annihilated.

Part of the Islamic takeover and eradication of a nation and its culture includes the destruction of sacred sites. Churches or temples that were beautiful or valuable were converted to a mosque. At one time, an estimate put the number of churches destroyed by the Islamic conquest of Turkey at nearly 20,000. As another example, India had magnificent temples of worship that the Muslims destroyed.

Islam basically invented defacing. When Islam invaded a country, all of the religious objects were destroyed, just as Mohammed destroyed all religious art. If there was a mural on a wall, the face was destroyed. Once the face was gone, the rest of the object was left. The Sphinx does not have a nose, because Muslims defaced it.

The purpose of dhimmitude was twofold: (1) to bring in money by the dhimmi tax and (2) to slowly grind out the dhimmi's culture. This process worked really well. As a matter of fact, it was so successful that there is a black hole in history about dhimmitude. No one studies this part of world history. As a result, today in our universities, the history of the dhimmi is not taught, and is never mentioned. In some divinity schools, which consider themselves sophisticated, the dhimmi is discussed. However, what is said is, "Oh, the dhimmi was protected." It makes life as a dhimmi sound warm and fuzzy, like living in the arms of your father. And the question arises: protected from what and whom? What is not taught is how the dhimmi was humiliated. When it is said that the dhimmi was protected, that is the truth. To be protected as a dhimmi means that, as long as one kept paying the tax, he would not be killed, nor would his goods be stolen, unless there was a riot. In a riot, no dhimmi was protected.

Today, there is no Islamic country strong enough to have a full legal dhimmi, or slavery, as a formal policy. However, both the dhimmi and slavery are part of Islam, and the doctrine of Islam cannot be changed. The Koran is complete, perfect and absolute. The condition and rule of the dhimmi is laid out in the Koran, so the dhimmi cannot be eliminated. The reason that there is no longer a formal dhimmi status is that Islam is not powerful enough to enforce it. Instead of having a formal status for the dhimmi, bigotry and prejudice limit the civil rights. This leads to extralegal persecution of kafirs.

Today, the dhimmis are not just inside Islamic countries, but most kafirs are dhimmis, meaning that they defer to Islam on all sorts of issues. Kafirs have replaced the dhimmi legal status with the mindset of the dhimmi (dhimmitude). Let's look at some examples of dhimmitude: Soon after 9/11, this scene was repeated in many cities: a public gathering would be held, and there would be a minister, a rabbi, an imam, and someone to operate as Master of Ceremonies. At this gathering, the Jews and Christians would say that they all worshipped the same god as the Muslims. At one of these gatherings, the three religious representatives were questioned. The Christian minister was asked, "Have you read the Koran? Do you know the traditions? Do you know the Sira (the life of Mohammed)?" The minister answered, "Well, no." Then the rabbi was asked, "Have you read the Koran?" "No." "Do you know the life of Mohammed?" "No." "Have you read the traditions?" "No." Then the imam was asked, "Have you read the New Testament?" "Oh, yes!" "Have you read the Old Testament?" "Sure!"

There is something wrong with this picture, because the rabbi and the minister said, "Oh, we worship the same God." Then in response to the questions they said, "Well we really don't know anything about Allah." Then why would they say they worshipped the same god as Allah? This is dhimmitude. It is a desperate attempt to please the Muslim, even by telling a lie! Think about it---religious leaders standing up in public and telling a deliberate lie! Why? Because it sounds good, and they are deferring to Islam, because inside nearly every Christian, every Jew, and for that matter nearly every kafir, there is a fear of Islam. Added to that, today we have the dreadful ‘political correctness,’ which says that minority groups can never be talked about in a negative way. For some reason, one-and-a-half billion Muslims are categorized as a minority!

Dhimmitude is the attitude of one who always tries to placate the bully. Islam is always pressuring for this attitude of submission. For example, the Sharia---Muslim Law---permits a Muslim to have up to four wives. In the West, we have monogamous laws. However, England allows a Muslim to have more than one wife, and all of them can qualify for welfare. This is dhimmitude. Dhimmitude is submitting to Islam for the simple purpose of submitting.

Another example of dhimmitude is the phrase "the war on terror." The war on terror is the mark of a dhimmi, because it does not name the enemy. After Pearl Harbor, the United States did not declare war against the kamikazes. It named the enemy and declared war against Japan. Dhimmis don't want to have an ideological war against political Islam. Thus, we create an artificial phrase that has no meaning. "Terror" is a technique. We cannot go to war against a technique; we can only go to war against an enemy.

We see dhimmitude in government, when it comes to hiring and promotion. Government agencies give preference to Muslim Arabs over Christian Arabs in translation work. Forums are opened for Muslims to come in and talk about Islam. As a contrary example, Buddhists do not get any forum to explain Buddhism.

In another form of dhimmitude, our universities do not teach the history of the dhimmi, nor do they teach the history of Islamic conquest. The universities teach a history of Islam which is glorious and in which no suffering occurs.

The United States prides itself on freedom of the press and political speech. Citizens are supposed to have the right to stand up and say anything about politics. People might laugh at you, and they may not vote for you, but it's not a crime to speak. Remember the Mohammed cartoons? No newspaper in the United States published the Mohammed cartoons. Mohammed was a political figure, and yet, our newspapers, by law having freedom of the press, did not publish those cartoons. Newspapers defended themselves, saying that they did not want to offend anyone. Politics frequently involves offending someone. Newspapers are in the business of offending people at times. The newspapers were not offending Islam to be nice, but because dhimmis are always afraid of Islam. Dhimmis are always looking for a way to placate and appease. When the cartoons were not shown on TV, and when they were not published in the newspapers, those refusals to exercise freedom of speech or freedom of the press were acts of dhimmis. No one was being nice; they were being dhimmis.

To gradually accept Sharia Law is another form of dhimmitude. Airports in the United States are changing the plumbing, so that Muslims will have a place to wash their feet before prayer. Universities have "meditation rooms;" however, the Muslims monopolize them. If a university is questioned about this seemingly unfair use, it will not defend the practice. That is dhimmitude. When a workplace that runs an assembly line says, "If you're Muslim we will provide for you a place to pray, and you can leave the production line when it is prayer time." That's dhimmitude. Why? It’s because the employer does not provide that opportunity for any other employee. It is the dhimmi who operates out of fear, to placate Islam.

In the United States and in Europe, there is no formal dhimmi status, but there is dhimmitude. As a result of this attitude, Europe is rapidly becoming Islamicized. The day will come when the churches in Europe will live in fear, as they do now in Turkey. Churches will have to get permission from the Muslim ‘masters’ to get the roof fixed. The reason the people will be subjected to Islamic rule is that they never studied the history of the dhimmi, and never studied the history of political Islam.

The people who do not study the history of political Islam, and study the history of the dhimmi, and learn from it, are doomed to repeat the history of subjection of dhimmis, and will lose their civilization.

The above is taken from the website Political Islam: the Dhimmi.